GDC/IGF 2004 - Wrap-Up
(by Russell D. Carroll)

Going to GDC 2003 was like putting a kid in Disneyland.  It was my first time at a tech related conference, and I loved all the sounds and images that were shown.  I remember very well leaving the conference with a new sense of optimism about indie games and the possibility of an indie company making enough money to survive.

Only a little more than a year later I left GDC 2004 with a bit different feeling.  Instead of hope I left with a good bit of disillusionment.  There are probably two main areas that it came from, but both were related to the IGF.  I've already discussed one of them, the precedent set by including Savage as both an independent and mainstream game at the awards ceremony, so I'll move onto the other.

Despite the many conversations I've seen going on around the internet in regards to that first article, I believe that the other issue I ran into at the GDC was actually much larger in scope than the first issue.  It stemmed from a conversation that I had at the GDC with Steve Swink of Flashbang Studios (who created the finalist game Beesly's Buzzwords).  I was discussing with him a little of my frustration about the judging prior to the awards ceremony and he mentioned that the judging doesn't even matter, that the chairman actually picks the games himself, and that it was spelled out on the IGF website if you read the fine print.

I took it with a grain of salt of course.  I've seen my fair share of conspiracy theories, and I've never seen any of them turn out to be true.  However, after talking to some of the judges, it became clear to me that the judging process had quite a few holes in it.  Greg Micek of DIYgames.com stated that as he understood it, only one game of each group would get in.  So if you got 10 games to judge as a judge, you would then rate them as would all the other judges, and then the top game from the group would be a finalist.  However, if that were to be the case, then if the best two games submitted to the IGF were in the same group, then only one of them would actually be a finalist, while the second best game submitted would not even be shown at the IGF.  Greg was a judge for the IGF this year, which makes him a pretty good source.

Considering the things that I was hearing, I could see why the chairmen might need a sort of "trumping" vote in order to ensure that games weren't accidentally left out by the system.  However I wasn't ready for the actual truth when I read it.  On the IGF website, if you go to the judging page, you can read the following: 

"Based on the ratings from the jury pools and the desire to showcase games that excel in the various categories of audio, art, game design and programming, the Chairman selects the games for the Final Round."

That page goes on to mention that the judge's feedback is not shared with the entrants.  One can only start to wonder at that point if the reason for doing so is that the IGF doesn't want entrants to know that they received very high marks from the judges, but the Chairman decided to choose a different game based on his on personal preference.

This piece of information makes the IGF competition much less of real competition or festival.  In reality, I think the best word to describe the competition is that it is a farce.  Instead of using the comments and ratings from the judges who have carefully considered the games, the chairman will simply pick out different games that he feels are better regardless of the judging.  Not only does the chairman pick the games, but they are picked in the specific categories where the awards will be awarded.  The amount of personal bias that is inherent in this process greatly disvalues the event.

In pointing out the quote above to judges and finalists I was greeted with much of the same skepticism that I had when I first heard it.  I think that just goes to show how unbelievable the whole thing is until you actually read the words and it starts to dawn on you what is happening.

Last year Game Tunnel went through the nearly impossible process of doing an Independent Game of the Year award.  We played hundreds of games and had 4 different people giving their ratings, which were then compiled to create the top games of the year.  The process was far from perfect, but it did teach me something about personal bias.  My personal favorite game of the year was without question Orbz.  However, in the end that game ended up 8th.  I was flabbergasted.  I felt that it was so much better than the other games that surely everyone has just made a mistake.  Had I run my awards like the IGF, I could have simply disqualified the games I didn't like to get my personal favorite, which I felt was a great face for Indie games to the top.  However, there is certainly great value in honest competition, and taking the voice of the masses to determine what is the best.

It was unfortunate to see that the IGF isn't really really a straight-forward honest competition, and it is my sincere hope that between the Savage debacle and the farce that the finalists are, that some serious strides will be made in returning the IGF to more respectability.

For my part, the IGF represents an expense.  It cost me close to $500 to attend the event this year even with the GDC being gracious enough to give me a press pass, and for me $500 is a serious amount of change.  After looking at the expense it takes for someone to go on even a shoestring budget as I did, the amount of time put in by judges, and the excitement in the indie community in regards to the IGF, one would hope to leave truly enjoying the conference.  Though I still feel that the IGF was great exposure for the games that were finalists, this is a case where I feel I know too much.  Knowing what I know I could not help but feel disillusioned about the event.  There is always next year, and it is my great hope that the IGF will reconsider some of their practices and create a more straightforward competition that both eliminates the personal bias in the selection process, modifies the judging to better represent the games submitted, and awards the Seumas McNally Grand prize award to a group that did not have to sit down with a company president and convince him to let them make "their game."  I guess in the end I hope to see an Independent Games Festival that is truly independent from any one person's influence both in games that are made by groups that do not answer to anyone and in judging that does the same.  With the growth in Indie gaming and the growth of the festival, the IGF is at a critical junction, and I know I'm not alone in hoping that 2004 can be put behind us as a learning experience, and that 2005 can be made the best IGF yet.