AGDQ 2015 Game Submissions - Due date is September 3rd 11:59 EDT [locked]

Edit history:

z1mb0bw4y: 2014-08-22 11:22:21 am

2014-08-22 11:20:27 am

Gets the cake.

Geoff please this is a thread for hateful personal attacks and salty crying, you're too happy and nice to be here.

On topic, I'd like to put in my 2 cents that portal shouldn't be a race this year. It's been a race at the past two GDQs and has gone astoundingly... meh. Commentary, especially for an inbounds run, is going to be very very difficult when only one person is running the game, but having two runners to focus on and listen to the commentary is going to be rough on viewers imo. Going back, I wouldn't have done portal oob at SGDQ as a race.

I also think that Blizik is the clear favorite to have the game in the marathon. In his race history, he's gotten a sub 13 and several sub 14 times even just recently, while the other runners don't have nearly that level of consistency. I think pairing anyone up against Blizik is going to be unfair and unentertaining.

edit: this is assuming portal even makes the 2nd round cuts, of course =P

CVagts

2014-08-22 11:26:08 am

"Let's put a SMILE on that face!"

I agree that it's harder to have good commentary in a race environment, and if there's one runner who stands out anyway, maybe let him run the game solo and provide commentary (or have one of the other runners provide commentary).

Geoff

2014-08-22 11:28:51 am

Fine Z1m D:

TheMG2

2014-08-22 11:31:15 am

If runners who don't show they care to get into gdq, why should anyone show they care about GDQ? If it was JUST about the charity, we could all just donate ourselves.

You could put the runs on waitlist until they show they care.

Bismuth

2014-08-22 11:53:57 am

Worthless categories WR master

I'd like to apologize to those who found my other post offensive. While it was relevant to the topic at hand, it was aimed towards the ages-old "cosmo gets a free pass every marathon" complaint and not at zewing or kirbymastah or anyone. The underlying message was that yes, Caleb, along with a ton of other runners, has a "headstart" because he is entertaining by himself and that his runs are unquestionably high-quality, and that denying that would serve no purpose.

TheMG2

2014-08-22 12:00:29 pm

If I'm going to get into a gdq regardless of how I pitch, I might not put effort into my run at GDQ. They'll like it even if I don't try.

That is the attitude this could promote.

Supreme

Edit history:

Supreme: 2014-08-22 12:17:52 pm

2014-08-22 12:04:39 pm

Dixie Kong Fan Club

Understandable, I think the bigger issue was the charged language that did nothing but stir the pot not that your underlying point was bad/wrong, Bismuth.

PotatoGrenades

2014-08-22 12:07:50 pm

A lot of good submissions are being rejected. That's what's bothering people. Plain and simple.

TheMG2

Edit history:

TheMG2: 2014-08-22 12:09:47 pm

TheMG2: 2014-08-22 12:09:33 pm

2014-08-22 12:08:38 pm

That is not my complaint, and that was not zewing's complaint, don't mix up your complaint with everyone else's.

EDIT: A lot of good submissions will be rejected, thats just sheer numbers.

Cool Matty

2014-08-22 12:19:43 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from TheMG2:

If I'm going to get into a gdq regardless of how I pitch, I might not put effort into my run at GDQ. They'll like it even if I don't try.

That is the attitude this could promote.

I'm just going to point out that Mike has already said that "I put a lot of work into this run" is not something he cares to hear about. It is expected of all submitters. Anyone who shows up with a garbage run is going to be looked poorly in subsequent events. Plus, I think Mike keeps close tabs on a lot of runners anyway, so he would already be tipped off if some people were slacking.

ShadowWraith

2014-08-22 12:20:28 pm

.

The pitch is not what you'll be submitting to AGDQ. A shitty pitch does not mean your game will be shitty. The pitch is meant to sell your run to the organisers if they're unfamiliar with it, as is the video. Claiming that accepting a submission with a zero effort pitch devalues the entire process somehow is ludicrous. If it makes people individually feel slighted because they put effort into their pitches and their runs were rejected is unfortunate but that's not a problem with the system.

Honestly, your pitch is unlikely to be the reason your run gets rejected or accepted unless you provided zero information about the game, no video, and it's not a well known game in the community.

presjpolk

2014-08-22 12:21:41 pm

HELLO!

I think the point about 'favoritism' sort of misses the mark here.

The show must go on. That's the first priority. Putting on the show. The SDA and SRL communities wants a successful marathon, PCF wants a successful marathon, the viewers want a successful marathon.

However there's money involved, so there's a desire for transparency. People want to see what's going into the process, that's shifting so much money around, and in particular is collecting so much money in the form of registration fees and Twitch subscriptions. Money makes people nervous and emotional.

So that's where Coolmatty's point comes in. the AGDQ staffers are trying to be open about this, so they're putting out a wealth of information. That's a good thing for reasons of helping people see what's going on, and why.

That said, it doesn't change that the *purpose* of the process is to put on a successful stream. That means the purpose is to be fair to the communities, and the charity. That does not mean that there's some need to put on the charade of having a Rawlsian veil of ignorance about which runner is which, and which game is which.

When they cast for a movie in Hollywood, they don't say "Oh well when we have auditions, we'd better not show any favoritism toward certain big stars who have made millions of bucks for their investors in movies, becuase we want to be fair." No, having a proven track record of being professional, being good, and being a viewer draw, that all matters!

Likewise, yes. If you're a runner who's known for being good at the game, who's running a game known good for a marathon, has experience running in GDQs before and did well in them, then yeah, you don't have to make the same kind of pitch as someone who's a lesser known runner, running a lesser known game, who's pitching to run in his first GDQ marathon.

That doesn't mean it's unfair. That doesn't mean it's a bad process. It's just a fact that some games and some runners are known quantities, and so Uyama and his advisors don't *need* the information. That's what the pitch is. The pitch is your chance to show the organizers why you and your game are an asset to them putting on a good show.

It's persuasive writing. It's not a homework assignment, where whoever follows the rules and makes the most technically correct and complete submission gets the best grade.

I think the point about 'favoritism' sort of misses the mark here.

The show must go on. That's the first priority.  Putting on the show.  The SDA and SRL communities wants a successful marathon, PCF wants a successful marathon, the viewers want a successful marathon.

However there's money involved, so there's a desire for transparency.  People want to see what's going into the process, that's shifting so much money around, and in particular is collecting so much money in the form of registration fees and Twitch subscriptions.  Money makes people nervous and emotional.

So that's where Coolmatty's point comes in.  the AGDQ staffers are trying to be open about this, so they're putting out a wealth of information. That's a good thing for reasons of helping people see what's going on, and why.

That said, it doesn't change that the *purpose* of the process is to put on a successful stream.  That means the purpose is to be fair to the communities, and the charity.   That does not mean that there's some need to put on the charade of having a Rawlsian veil of ignorance about which runner is which, and which game is which.

When they cast for a movie in Hollywood, they don't say "Oh well when we have auditions, we'd better not show any favoritism toward certain big stars who have made millions of bucks for their investors in movies, becuase we want to be fair."  No, having a proven track record of being professional, being good, and being a viewer draw, that all matters!

Likewise, yes.  If you're a runner who's known for being good at the game, who's running a game known good for a marathon, has experience running in GDQs before and did well in them, then yeah, you don't have to make the same kind of pitch as someone who's a lesser known runner, running a lesser known game, who's pitching to run in his first GDQ marathon.

That doesn't mean it's unfair.  That doesn't mean it's a bad process.  It's just a fact that some games and some runners are known quantities, and so Uyama and his advisors don't *need* the information. That's what the pitch is. The pitch is your chance to show the organizers why you and your game are an asset to them putting on a good show.

It's persuasive writing. It's not a homework assignment, where whoever follows the rules and makes the most technically correct and complete submission gets the best grade.

Fuzzyness

Edit history:

Fuzzyness: 2014-08-22 12:23:05 pm

Fuzzyness: 2014-08-22 12:22:57 pm

Fuzzyness: 2014-08-22 12:22:47 pm

2014-08-22 12:21:47 pm

I made a typo in my submission and want to change the video ;_;

"The AI does a lot of surprising things in this run and usually cracks a good bunch of laugh for new viewers." - This line was wrong in my submission and needs to be changed to this

the one I submitted was my WR run but it didn't have good commentary, and this is from ESA which is much more entertaining to watch (I had to do this at 5am sadly because of delays and being fitted into the schedule)

If any mod could change that in my submission that would be great

Supreme

2014-08-22 12:26:11 pm

Dixie Kong Fan Club

Quote from ShadowWraith:

The pitch is not what you'll be submitting to AGDQ. A shitty pitch does not mean your game will be shitty. The pitch is meant to sell your run to the organisers if they're unfamiliar with it, as is the video. Claiming that accepting a submission with a zero effort pitch devalues the entire process somehow is ludicrous. If it makes people individually feel slighted because they put effort into their pitches and their runs were rejected is unfortunate but that's not a problem with the system.

Honestly, your pitch is unlikely to be the reason your run gets rejected or accepted unless you provided zero information about the game, no video, and it's not a well known game in the community.

This seemed kinda clear at the start. I know you're asked to work on your pitch and such, but there's no way a limited description of a game was going to make or break a submission. You obviously don't want it to sound bad or be plagued with errors, and while I wish Caleb had done a little more than "I'm a beast" or w/e the fact of the matter is he didn't because we have prior knowledge and know what he's capable of in a gdq setting.

[quote="ShadowWraith"]The pitch is not what you'll be submitting to AGDQ. A shitty pitch does not mean your game will be shitty. The pitch is meant to sell your run to the organisers if they're unfamiliar with it, as is the video. Claiming that accepting a submission with a zero effort pitch devalues the entire process somehow is ludicrous. If it makes people individually feel slighted because they put effort into their pitches and their runs were rejected is unfortunate but that's not a problem with the system.

Honestly, your pitch is unlikely to be the reason your run gets rejected or accepted unless you provided zero information about the game, no video, and it's not a well known game in the community.[/quote]
This seemed kinda clear at the start. I know you're asked to work on your pitch and such, but there's no way a limited description of a game was going to make or break a submission. You obviously don't want it to sound bad or be plagued with errors, and while I wish Caleb had done a little more than "I'm a beast" or w/e the fact of the matter is he didn't because we have prior knowledge and know what he's capable of in a gdq setting.

TheMG2

2014-08-22 12:26:59 pm

I didn't say that you should directly say "I will put on a good show" in your pitch, I was more implying that you should show it in all parts of your submission, but the rest of both of your posts explained things pretty well.

zewing

2014-08-22 12:29:49 pm

just( •_•)>⌐■-■ ..... (⌐■_■)wing it

The issue, plain and simple, is that a guideline was established on the front page on HOW to submit a run. There was nothing there that stated

{

If Popularity of game / runner > average

Game pitch needs no additional information, ESPECIALLY when most pitch's are about why a game should be back.

}

This guideline was meant to be used by everyone. There is never an understood that a certain game will get in, but even so everyone who submits should do so as a representative of SDA. If you don't make a pitch seriously, then you are making SDA, the process, and even the charity look bad.

I understand this is a charity marathon, BELIEVE ME, but understand that these pitches are being seen by people outside of the speedrunning community, and thus can be a bad example on what the runners / organizers want the public to see us (the speedrun community) as.

FYI, thank you for clearing that up bismuth. I've had a personal attack on me last night because of what I wrote, and I'm glad you didn't stoop to that level.

My post and reasoning was not meant to discredit or even remove submissions, it was simple to say that making pitch's that by no means explain why the run should be accepted only make us look bad as a whole. And to say it doesn't make anything look bad is false as we are representing a major charity.

The issue, plain and simple, is that a guideline was established on the front page on HOW to submit a run.  There was nothing there that stated

{

If Popularity of game / runner > average

Game pitch needs no additional information, ESPECIALLY when most pitch's are about why a game should be back.

}

This guideline was meant to be used by everyone.  There is never an understood that a certain game will get in, but even so everyone who submits should do so as a representative of SDA.  If you don't make a pitch seriously, then you are making SDA, the process, and even the charity look bad.

I understand this is a charity marathon, BELIEVE ME, but understand that these pitches are being seen by people outside of the speedrunning community, and thus can be a bad example on what the runners / organizers want the public to see us (the speedrun community) as.

FYI, thank you for clearing that up bismuth.  I've had a personal attack on me last night because of what I wrote, and I'm glad you didn't stoop to that level.

My post and reasoning was not meant to discredit or even remove submissions, it was simple to say that making pitch's that by no means explain why the run should be accepted only make us look bad as a whole.  And to say it doesn't make anything look bad is false as we are representing a major charity.

PJ

2014-08-22 12:29:55 pm

Is PJ

He probably didn't spend time on his pitch because he was too busy practicing the games he was submitting. Shame on him.

Supreme

2014-08-22 12:32:13 pm

Dixie Kong Fan Club

Quote from TheMG2:

I didn't say that you should directly say "I will put on a good show" in your pitch, I was more implying that you should show it in all parts of your submission, but the rest of both of your posts explained things pretty well.

This is the double-edged sword of being transparent. Had the admins never posted the submissions, the same submission would be accepted anyways and everyone would be more likely to grown about mmx being in yet again rather than the actual submission text.

Quote from zewing:

The issue, plain and simple, is that a guideline was established on the front page on HOW to submit a run. There was nothing there that stated

{

If Popularity of game / runner > average

Game pitch needs no additional information, ESPECIALLY when most pitch's are about why a game should be back.

}

I disagree with this, I bet ZFG's 100% OoT would have had a little more vetting if he hadn't written a pitch explaining new tech and such. I can't speak to the past either, but ZZT probably needed a little more than "I'm Cosmo" to get accepted. He may be Cosmo, but he's not gonna draw in a ton of money in a 5-10 min run.

[quote="TheMG2"]I didn't say that you should directly say "I will put on a good show" in your pitch, I was more implying that you should show it in all parts of your submission, but the rest of both of your posts explained things pretty well.[/quote]
This is the double-edged sword of being transparent.  Had the admins never posted the submissions, the same submission would be accepted anyways and everyone would be more likely to grown about mmx being in yet again rather than the actual submission text.

[quote="zewing"]The issue, plain and simple, is that a guideline was established on the front page on HOW to submit a run.  There was nothing there that stated

{

If Popularity of game / runner > average

Game pitch needs no additional information, ESPECIALLY when most pitch's are about why a game should be back.

}
[/quote]
I disagree with this, I bet ZFG's 100% OoT would have had a little more vetting if he hadn't written a pitch explaining new tech and such.  I can't speak to the past either, but ZZT probably needed a little more than "I'm Cosmo" to get accepted. He may be Cosmo, but he's not gonna draw in a ton of money in a 5-10 min run.

bjw

2014-08-22 12:33:29 pm

this thread owns

presjpolk

Edit history:

presjpolk: 2014-08-22 12:37:03 pm

presjpolk: 2014-08-22 12:35:50 pm

2014-08-22 12:34:17 pm

HELLO!

Quote from zewing:

My post and reasoning was not meant to discredit or even remove submissions, it was simple to say that making pitch's that by no means explain why the run should be accepted only make us look bad as a whole. And to say it doesn't make anything look bad is false as we are representing a major charity.

This is wrong. The pitches exist solely to help inform the organizers about the run being offered. At this point, there is *zero* need to pretend that we need an explanation of who Mitch Fowler is, what his Super Mario Bros. 3 PB is, and why that game would be a good watch and viewer draw at AGDQ 2015. We know these things, and Mitch knows we know it.

It doesn't make anybody look bad, that these are the facts. Because again: the point of the process isn't to say whoever has the most technically correct submission gets into the marathon. The point of the process is to put on the best show, and that means picking the best runs.

The pitches are there to shed light on the runs. They aren't the runs themselves. The process is here to pick the best marathon runs, not the best submission writers.

[quote="zewing"]
My post and reasoning was not meant to discredit or even remove submissions, it was simple to say that making pitch's that by no means explain why the run should be accepted only make us look bad as a whole.  And to say it doesn't make anything look bad is false as we are representing a major charity.[/quote]

This is wrong.  The pitches exist solely to help inform the organizers about the run being offered.  At this point, there is *zero* need to pretend that we need an explanation of who Mitch Fowler is, what his Super Mario Bros. 3 PB is, and why that game would be a good watch and viewer draw at AGDQ 2015.  We know these things, and Mitch knows we know it.

It doesn't make anybody look bad, that these are the facts.  Because again: the point of the process isn't to say whoever has the most technically correct submission gets into the marathon. The point of the process is to put on the best show, and that means picking the best runs.

The pitches are there to shed light on the runs. They aren't the runs themselves. The process is here to pick the best marathon runs, not the best submission writers.

Supreme

2014-08-22 12:34:24 pm

Dixie Kong Fan Club

when is submission, bjw?

ShadowWraith

2014-08-22 12:36:26 pm

.

Zewing: There's a difference between Rules and Guidelines. You're advised to give as much information about your run as you can to allow the schedule creators to make a more informed opinion on the game, but there's pretty much nothing Caleb could have put in his pitch that the organisers did not already know.

Also, I'd like to meet one of these people from outside the speedrun community that have been basing their opinions of it on a single accepted game pitch on a website not widely advertised, and not on the countless other offerings that much more effectively demonstrate what the community is about.

You know, just so I can show this mythical unicorn where they should actually be looking.

PotatoGrenades

2014-08-22 12:37:43 pm

Submitting games puts an immense amount of pressure of lesser-known runners like me. I'm constantly checking to see wether my run gets accepted or not, and having a run you worked really hard on being rejected feels worse than it looks, especially when people want to show off their speedgames at marathons to give those games popularity, but they completely lose that chance and their game remains obscure. Writing a pitch is harder than it looks because you gotta measure how much of the run you NEED to explain in such limited space. It's nerve racking and it makes me even more neurotic than i normally am during the day. When i'm submitting a run, i WANT to impress people and i completely give up on submitting that game again if i don't. This is a charity marathon. I GET THAT. I'm just getting tired of seeing the same things over and over just for the sake of keeping tradition while ignoring other runners just because it won't attract enough casuals to come watch. Also, unpopular runs are making the marathon look bad? Really?

ShadowWraith

Edit history:

ShadowWraith: 2014-08-22 12:51:24 pm

2014-08-22 12:48:44 pm

.

The pitch is not the be-all-end-all of how the organisers judge your run. Your video plays a much larger part in that, so focus on that instead.

Submitting games shouldn't be a stressful process. If your game gets in, great. If not, you haven't lost anything. There's no lost honour or popularity from having your game rejected. It was just deemed a poor fit for the marathon. Don't take it personally, because it really isn't. Unless you're Naegleria.

Also, I don't understand where this 'seeing the same things over and over' complaint is coming from. The trend is that we've had a much higher percentage of new-to-marathon games in each marathon compared to the previous ones. I don't have statistics on that though, but I know they've been looked at in the past. There's no 'tradition' being kept. Repeat games are repeat games because they're overwhelmingly popular, mechanically impressive and/or enjoyable to watch.

PotatoGrenades

2014-08-22 12:54:15 pm

It's extremely more stressful and embarassing than it looks. I can ASSURE you of that.