Ethan Kennerly

"games with educational value are excluded from consideration as an advanced game project"

Is that really a set policy? If so I agree, that's utterly ridiculous, and worse it seems like a very vague restriction. It makes sense that they wouldn't use educational value as a judging criteria, but the demand that the 491 games have noeducational value whatsoever just seems like a setup to a joke.

As someone who's currently, for lack of a polite phrase, ass-deep in Trochaic Tetrameter for his 491 game, I'm going to take just a little bit of offense at the idea that the games with educational merit are excluded from 491.

You had a far more fruitful experience with a 491 than I've had, Ethan. There are other considerations that go into the selection of a game beyond "categorical rejection."

It is worth noting that the standards for 491 support (developers, artists) do not apply in all three of your cases. There's been a lot more to it this time around.

That said, I'd like to know more about Monkey Monastery. It's very easy for us as game designers to fall back on the idea that games are teaching-machines of sorts, ones that can be easily repurposed to teach new things. But beyond facetious parallels between mechanic and information, I've found this difficult to do (I am still a poor designer). As someone with a standing interest in languages/language acquisition, I'd like to see more on how you intend to educate your players in MM. Your outline is promising, and I like the phonetic teaching systems, but I couldn't find anything on grammar or "language games" proper, and vocabulary building was mostly hinted at. The potential to play with a language's sounds and structures is fascinating to me, and I'd like to talk more about it at some later point.

Jamie,

It's not part of the written specs on submissions that I recalled. So I don't know what the policy is, except a reviewer told me after judging was over, that: the reviewers passed on the category of educational games.

Max,

Surely when there's more games than spots, there will be many reasons for passing on an idea. Your prolific participation in 491 is exemplary; I'd like to hear anything more.

In CSC 529A this spring, it was 5 developers (by that I counted myself), plus an artist or two from CSC 280. Compared to this, are the teams in CTIN 491A this fall smaller? I'd be interested to hear about such production resources.

And I appreciate the feedback! You're right, the linguistic pedagogy in the outline (which admittedly is an outline of a story bible) is sparse. The binding temple is the grammar game, although the outline omits how you play it. The scrolls are a little helpful in this regard, as they show the games in action. But none of these communicate the detail that I've presented in person, and would be happy to discuss further.

I don't have the hubris to believe that we'll construct more than a curriculum of the phonetic alphabet, basic vocabulary, and basic grammar.

I spent last summer building prototypes of the typing exercises, which proved my technology and mechanical construction process. But only one prototype feels fun, which is in the outline called "Your voice". When it comes to experimental gameplay, I only write a couple detailed design documents and they're only for my use in prototyping. If I were making My Spanish Coach, then sure I could just write the exercises, which have been established for decades or more. But I'm making Puzzle Pirates, for language. So really, where the language games will appear in proper detail (in public) is in the prototypes early next year.

Just as an fyi, there are no content restrictions on 491 at all, Ethan. While your pitch for an educational game may not have been selected, that doesn't mean that such games are excluded. It would be wise of you to check your facts in the future.

That's fantastic news! Therefore, I believe the explanation given to me by a reviewer was being too kind. You're right, I should check my facts before leaping from listening to a reviewer's off-hand comment to believing that the reviewer is intending to represent the review process. I apologize for unwittingly relaying misinformation.

I think that part of your disappointment with the progress shown at the exhibition is in part due to some unrealistic expectations of where people should be at this point in their projects. I remember a similar feeling when I was in your position last year.

For the most part, people have been working on their projects since August. While they may have given them thought over the course of the summer, actual pre-production didn't occur until after the semester started. In addition, people have had to work on those projects while also taking one or more unrelated classes.

Korba and I, however, have been working on ours since spring. We spent the summer in pre-production mode and started the semester ready to begin making our games happen. We are also taking 491 and thus have had full teams and we don't have to worry about other classes that aren't related to our projects. Add to that the fact that Korba is a freakin' workhorse (he worked on art, coding, and design over summer) and that he had a specific goal in mind (submission to the Game Developers Choice Awards) and you have a winning combination.

If you want to be at the same level for the winter exhibition, I would suggest that you find some way to put as much into it as Korba does. I have no problems admitting that his level of dedication and commitment to his project is inspiring and should be commended.

Wise words, Mike!

I remember playing Ragnarokk in Spring and seeing the interesting Winterbottom prototypes at 511 in August, so yeah, you're right, I have to start in January.

I've a similar trajectory in mind: work, work, work, and work some more. I've accepted one sacrifice already. I'll have to cut my most anticipated courses (which are also the most relevant to my thesis: CTWR 439 Writing a TV Drama Pilot, CTWR 435 Writing for Tween TV) so that I can devote next semester to prototyping exercises in my extracurricular time, ala Carnegie Mellon's Experimental Gameplay Workshop. Given a full course load, I'm committed to a new exercise every two-weeks, instead of a new exercise every week.

For what it's worth, I didn't realize my comments on a few projects sounded disappointed. :) I guess I crossed a fine line, 'cause I intended it to sound critique-ical: What was good and, in my humble opinion, what could be better.

On a tangent, while not at all disappointed, I do wonder what it will take for a USC project to make an IGF finalist game. I know it's not easy, and that professional teams are competing. When I directed games at Nexon, my coworkers on Shattered Galaxy sweeped 4 of the 6 IGF awards, and each one of the SG members is a brilliant professional. But I can dream, can't I? And clearly, some games must become finalists, so it's possible.