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

2014-08-28 04:29:35 pm

It's all bullsh*t because Taz is in awful games but it's fun as hell and good to boot and he growls and gnarls and gnashes his teeth if you say rotten things about it.

frankieframeskip

2014-08-28 07:09:13 pm

Head Nerd In Charge

any updates on why i got rejected? skill level although i'm close to TAS? Incentive although capcom even backed my run on stream and flooded my channel amazed? hate me? lol. Just wanted to know. Strider Block would have been BOSS. Also surprised because i was told because of SGDQ i'd be given a chance at AGDQ (the circumstances for SGDQ). Thanks!

p.s. - doesnt have to be a snappy condescending response. im not salty im just inquiring. Thanks!

TheMG2

2014-08-28 07:15:04 pm

https://forum.speeddemosarchive.com/post/ill_be_out_at_pax_this_weekend.html

Arie2929

2014-08-29 08:53:05 am

So Ovendonkey and myself want to do Mirror's Edge 2P1C at AGDQ 2015 and I was wondering if we both need to submit the game or if one of us submits it thats enough. I have seen a lot of the co-op runs are submitted by both people so I want to know if its necessary that we do this or if it helps the submission process at all. Also my apollogies if this is in the wrong place, Thanks! -Arie

Deuceler

Edit history:

Deuceler: 2014-08-29 10:18:24 pm

UraniumAnchor: 2014-08-29 05:58:48 pm

2014-08-29 09:11:42 am

SPEEDruns not SAFEruns

Both people will need to submit, in order to show that you both have interest in doing the run. good luck

EDIT: Thanks for moving this UA

burningsoup

2014-08-31 01:31:37 pm

Sorry if this has already been answered, but I'm just trying to finalize my submission right now: If I'm submitting a Gamecube game but playing it on Wii, should I label it as "GC" or "Wii?"

Cool Matty

Edit history:

Cool Matty: 2014-08-31 01:35:05 pm

2014-08-31 01:34:10 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from burningsoup:

Sorry if this has already been answered, but I'm just trying to finalize my submission right now: If I'm submitting a Gamecube game but playing it on Wii, should I label it as "GC" or "Wii?"

It's intended that you write what you want to play it /on/. You can explain that it's the Gamecube version if there's a Wii version of the game (like Twilight Princess) in the description. That said, people have put stuff like GC on Wii in the console area, it's not a big deal.

spikevegeta

2014-08-31 02:55:45 pm

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Just clarifying, when will we be able to update our PB/WR/Whatever VODS in our submission? After September 3rd or later? I thought we we're supposed to update it BEFORE the 3rd, but the page says I can't yet.

Cool Matty

2014-08-31 07:25:24 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from spikevegeta:

Just clarifying, when will we be able to update our PB/WR/Whatever VODS in our submission? After September 3rd or later? I thought we we're supposed to update it BEFORE the 3rd, but the page says I can't yet.

Whatever was planned before, it's going to be after closing of submissions right now. There will be a big update coming that will also include the ability for comments from Mike as well as withdrawing your submission.

Nocturne_

2014-08-31 10:33:54 pm

Buy some apples!

Curious, I tried to submit my DKC3 run last night, but I guess I took too long and was requested to log back in, after which it had me back at submissions.

Did it ever make it through, or do I have to do it again? Looked through the submissions/all page and didn't notice it, but not sure that's an absolute confirmation of no and don't want to submit twice (for obvious reason).

Cool Matty

2014-08-31 11:22:04 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from Nocturne_:

Curious, I tried to submit my DKC3 run last night, but I guess I took too long and was requested to log back in, after which it had me back at submissions.

Did it ever make it through, or do I have to do it again? Looked through the submissions/all page and didn't notice it, but not sure that's an absolute confirmation of no and don't want to submit twice (for obvious reason).

If you go to create submissions page again (http://gamesdonequick.com/submission/create) and don't get the form to fill out, your submission was received.

Vucious Creed

2014-09-01 12:54:57 pm

Glad my fanboy lvls aren't THIS high

You know, I just thought of something. Considering that some people have submitted multiple categories for one game and noticing that there is only one link allowed for video proof/help/whatever for that one game, could it be in the best possible interest for future GDQ submissions to allow for at most two links to accomodate for multiple categories to show that they at least worked on them? At this point, it's quite a bit late to implement this, but I just really want to bring this to attention for the next time. That is unless this was already been addressed and/or I just simply missed something.

Naegleria

(user is banned)

MURPHAGATOR!

Edit history:

MURPHAGATOR!: 2014-09-01 09:23:10 pm

2014-09-01 09:18:43 pm

Oh, hello. I was just wondering about why Barney's Hide and Seek Game was rejected, its not a pressing concern or anything, but I figured it would be a good run, lots of people from my stream loved it so I was confident it had a fighting chance, but I respect your decision, again its not a big deal or anything, but if I could get a reason why or something like that, I would be really happy, not to say you have to give me a reason, just that I would like to have one, and id also like to congratulate all the games that got past first round, and of course the runners that offered them, which is not to say games at GDQs are only about the runners, just that I think the runners also deserve thanks, and I'd like to give thanks in advance for a reason on why my game was not accepted, if its not too much to ask, I know you are busy, but it would be really nice if you could do that on top of all your hard work.

Mod Edit: Stop trolling.

Crankeey

2014-09-01 10:30:51 pm

Glad BattleBlock Theater got accepted and the co-op w/Mecha+PJ will make it more entertaining but the 100% v. any% logic doesn't make sense to me.

First of all, 100% no encores is without a doubt an arbitrary run. Imagine if "100% Yoshi's Island no extra levels" was a thing. I'm comparing this to YI because the encores in BBT are exactly like the extras in YI. Once you complete a world in BBT a cutscene happens and to finish every level requires re-entering the chapter you previously completed. This is coming from someone who has completed several arbitrary categories where I can avoid certain inputs or activate a certain cheat but never would I choose to create a category simply to avoid levels I didn't feel like doing.

Second, while I agree there is more teamwork involved in 100%, it leaves more room for slop. As far as I know, nobody's ever completed an actual speedrun of 100% single player OR co-op and they've yet to be appropriately routed. 100% without a doubt will result in a large handful of deaths and wonky mistakes that may only result in 5 second time losses but over the course of the run will result in a large time loss given the length of the run.

As for why any%... Aside from being probably an hour shorter, there's still plenty of item abuse. 100% offers a lot of on the fly decision making when things go wrong, which isn't a bad thing. However, any% still requires collecting 3+ gems to complete a level. Which means if only 2 gems are in the direct path of the finish, one player can go far out of the intended path and deathwarp to the other player to collect the 3rd gem. This means there's still plenty of teamwork and death warps including the intended co-op only methods of completing levels 100% wouldn't necessarily allow for.

Glad BattleBlock Theater got accepted and the co-op w/Mecha+PJ will make it more entertaining but the 100% v. any% logic doesn't make sense to me.

First of all, 100% no encores is without a doubt an arbitrary run. Imagine if "100% Yoshi's Island no extra levels" was a thing. I'm comparing this to YI because the encores in BBT are exactly like the extras in YI. Once you complete a world in BBT a cutscene happens and to finish every level requires re-entering the chapter you previously completed. This is coming from someone who has completed several arbitrary categories where I can avoid certain inputs or activate a certain cheat but never would I choose to create a category simply to avoid levels I didn't feel like doing.

Second, while I agree there is more teamwork involved in 100%, it leaves more room for slop. As far as I know, nobody's ever completed an actual speedrun of 100% single player OR co-op and they've yet to be appropriately routed. 100% without a doubt will result in a large handful of deaths and wonky mistakes that may only result in 5 second time losses but over the course of the run will result in a large time loss given the length of the run.

As for why any%... Aside from being probably an hour shorter, there's still plenty of item abuse. 100% offers a lot of on the fly decision making when things go wrong, which isn't a bad thing. However, any% still requires collecting 3+ gems to complete a level. Which means if only 2 gems are in the direct path of the finish, one player can go far out of the intended path and deathwarp to the other player to collect the 3rd gem. This means there's still plenty of teamwork and death warps  including the intended co-op only methods of completing levels 100% wouldn't necessarily allow for.

PJ

2014-09-02 12:46:50 am

Is PJ

I obviously can't speak for Mike Re: BattleBlock Theater, but I want to give my own perspective on this:

First off, I agree completely that "100% no encore" is arbitrary. It is absolutely not a category that should be run seriously or submitted to SDA. However, it is the category that, IMO, has the best entertainment value and flow. The encores take so much longer to complete just because you have to exit after each individual level, reenter, listen to the cutscene again, etc. Despite being some of the shortest levels in the game, they take significantly longer than any of the other trios of levels simply because of the loading. Since I think 100% is more interesting than any% (more on that below), and since both of those will have pretty similar estimates, I figured this would be the best option for presenting an entertaining run of this game. Arbitrary, sure. But I think it flows better. Clearly up for debate.

100% co-op has really intricate routing. There will certainly be deaths, but that's one of the reasons co-op is so fast. You split up, collect things as efficiently as you can, and suicide at very specific times to regroup when you need to. When done properly, the leading character will never slow down, and it looks far from sloppy. "Leaving more room for slop" is true for really any game with difficult tricks, so I'm not really sure how to respond to that. You're right. There's room for slop. There's also room for slop in Mega Man 2. That's why we practice. Tongue

Co-op any% is incredibly boring to play and to watch, and I don't think it would do the game justice in any way. One of your main justifications for any% is that it requires planning out how to split up and death abuse to regroup. 100% does that constantly for the entire run, instead of just once or twice per chapter like any% would require. In any%, you would barely take any detours. You more or less run straight to the exit while one player delays to throw a boomerang or drown to serve as a footstool. For most of the levels, the 2nd player would contribute nothing at all to the completion of the level. I'm also not sure why "including the intended co-op only methods of completing levels 100% wouldn't necessarily allow for" is a good thing. What I find the most interesting in co-op is finding ways to completely break the levels apart. Mecha Richter and I do several of the more complicated levels completely backwards. I've never had a viewer complain about us not doing a level the intended way. That is purely based on my experience of course, but it still stands. I'd argue that that's not why most people watch speedruns.

If Mike decides to go with any% instead, then I'd understand the decision from a scheduling perspective. In my personal opinion though, 100% would put on a much better show.

I obviously can't speak for Mike Re: BattleBlock Theater, but I want to give my own perspective on this:

First off, I agree completely that "100% no encore" is arbitrary.  It is absolutely not a category that should be run seriously or submitted to SDA.  However, it is the category that, IMO, has the best entertainment value and flow.  The encores take so much longer to complete just because you have to exit after each individual level, reenter, listen to the cutscene again, etc.  Despite being some of the shortest levels in the game, they take significantly longer than any of the other trios of levels simply because of the loading.  Since I think 100% is more interesting than any% (more on that below), and since both of those will have pretty similar estimates, I figured this would be the best option for presenting an entertaining run of this game.  Arbitrary, sure.  But I think it flows better.  Clearly up for debate.

100% co-op has really intricate routing.  There will certainly be deaths, but that's one of the reasons co-op is so fast.  You split up, collect things as efficiently as you can, and suicide at very specific times to regroup when you need to.  When done properly, the leading character will never slow down, and it looks far from sloppy.  "Leaving more room for slop" is true for really any game with difficult tricks, so I'm not really sure how to respond to that.  You're right.  There's room for slop.  There's also room for slop in Mega Man 2.  That's why we practice.  :P

Co-op any% is incredibly boring to play and to watch, and I don't think it would do the game justice in any way.  One of your main justifications for any% is that it requires planning out how to split up and death abuse to regroup.  100% does that constantly for the entire run, instead of just once or twice per chapter like any% would require.  In any%, you would barely take any detours.  You more or less run straight to the exit while one player delays to throw a boomerang or drown to serve as a footstool.  For most of the levels, the 2nd player would contribute nothing at all to the completion of the level.  I'm also not sure why "including the intended co-op only methods of completing levels 100% wouldn't necessarily allow for" is a good thing.  What I find the most interesting in co-op is finding ways to completely break the levels apart.  Mecha Richter and I do several of the more complicated levels completely backwards.  I've never had a viewer complain about us not doing a level the intended way.  That is purely based on my experience of course, but it still stands.  I'd argue that that's not why most people watch speedruns.

If Mike decides to go with any% instead, then I'd understand the decision from a scheduling perspective.  In my personal opinion though, 100% would put on a much better show.

Deuceler

2014-09-02 09:12:22 am

SPEEDruns not SAFEruns

Quote:

As far as I know, nobody's ever completed an actual speedrun of 100% single player OR co-op and they've yet to be appropriately routed.

This is where experience and previous marathons comes into play. We already know based upon prior runs that PJ and Mecha bring the entertainment for co-op runs and both are very knowledgeable in routing a game. We know they can get it done because the have in the past, and hold themselves to a high standard and wouldn't put out a shit run. Is this not the case for everyone? Of course not, but that's the way it goes.

TheBlazeJp

2014-09-02 10:01:09 am

Been grinding for a new world record on an older game last two weeks, and I finally got it, but then a bit of an annoyance for me my pc broke 3 days ago, right before the night I was going to do a voice over and submit. Long story short my ordered parts arrive tommorow im going to have to try to move mountains to submit before the deadline but hopefully I'll get it in on time

Countneko

Edit history:

Countneko: 2014-09-02 01:00:32 pm

2014-09-02 01:00:13 pm

Maybe this has been mentioned already, but am I the only one that thinks there should be a little more transparency on game rejections in future marathons? I'm not salty about any of my rejections for the record, I just feel having a page that says 'Reject' next to your run isn't very informative or encouraging to submitters, and it draws them here to post here and ask 'why was my game rejected?' and fill up the thread with salt.

I understand there are a lot of submissions to go through, but if there's a reason for a game being rejected, it's worth noting down so the runner understands why, whether it be for reasons of skill level, or the game just not being suited for a *GDQ.

TheMG2

2014-09-02 01:04:11 pm

Quote from mikwuyma:

-I can't respond to each submission anymore, there are too many submissions and not enough time. You can still ask me why a game was not accepted (or accepted), but don't be surprised if I'm slow to respond or miss your question.

First post

Countneko

2014-09-02 01:14:54 pm

Quote from TheMG2:

Quote from mikwuyma:

-I can't respond to each submission anymore, there are too many submissions and not enough time. You can still ask me why a game was not accepted (or accepted), but don't be surprised if I'm slow to respond or miss your question.

First post

I'm well aware of this, but i still believe the transparency is worth the time, even if Mike needs to have more people go through the games with him or something (let's face it, the rate at which this event has grown, it shouldn't be a one-person job, even though Mike should still have the final say). Considering the submitter took the time to sell themselves (someone likened the process to writing a resume earlier in the thread) if there's a reason it's rejected, why not write it down in one or two brief sentences for communication's sake? Rather than just clogging this thread up full of people asking why, who aren't getting an answer half the time anyway.

TheMG2

2014-09-02 01:15:49 pm

The only reason they aren't getting an answer atm is because mike is away.

kirbymastah

Edit history:

kirbymastah: 2014-09-02 01:21:18 pm

kirbymastah: 2014-09-02 01:20:03 pm

2014-09-02 01:19:24 pm

<(^_^)>

Quote from Countneko:

Quote from TheMG2:

Quote from mikwuyma:

-I can't respond to each submission anymore, there are too many submissions and not enough time. You can still ask me why a game was not accepted (or accepted), but don't be surprised if I'm slow to respond or miss your question.

First post

I'm well aware of this, but i still believe the transparency is worth the time, even if Mike needs to have more people go through the games with him or something (let's face it, the rate at which this event has grown, it shouldn't be a one-person job, even though Mike should still have the final say). Considering the submitter took the time to sell themselves (someone likened the process to writing a resume earlier in the thread) if there's a reason it's rejected, why not write it down in one or two brief sentences for communication's sake? Rather than just clogging this thread up full of people asking why, who aren't getting an answer half the time anyway.

1. It isn't a one-person job (though mike has final say), they just aren't disclosing who is part of the committee so the rest of the tean isn't bombarded with hate and/or questions.
2. Do you realize how much of a waste of time it is to put down a reason for every single rejection? Over 1000 hours of games have been rejected. There isn't really much point in putting down rejection reasons when either:
-The runner already knows the submission isn't that strong but wanted to give it a shot
-It was a joke submission
-The reason's gonna be "we can't fit everything" (and it will come down to that for countless games)
It's much more convenient and makes much more sense if someone more serious about their submission asked mike personally, though that person shouldn't be surprised if the answer is something along the lines of "we can't fit everything".

So no, the transparency is not worth the time. Yes, transparency is nice, but this would take countless hours just to satisfy maybe like 10 runners or something like that, out of 1000 hours of games rejected.

And this isn't exactly something that can be done in the future since these marathons will only grow more and more. Are you seriously suggesting people start writing down reasons for every rejection when there'll probably eventually be, say, over 3000 hours of games rejected?

And people whose games are rejected just sometimes need to accept that not every game will make it. If you think your game is a good marathon watch, tough luck, not every game makes it. Just offer it next time or something. That's what I'm doing for canvas curse and I will continue to submit until it makes it.

[quote="Countneko"][quote="TheMG2"][quote="mikwuyma"]
-I can't respond to each submission anymore, there are too many submissions and not enough time. You can still ask me why a game was not accepted (or accepted), but don't be surprised if I'm slow to respond or miss your question.

[/quote]
First post[/quote]

I'm well aware of this, but i still believe the transparency is worth the time, even if Mike needs to have more people go through the games with him or something (let's face it, the rate at which this event has grown, it shouldn't be a one-person job, even though Mike should still have the final say). Considering the submitter took the time to sell themselves (someone likened the process to writing a resume earlier in the thread) if there's a reason it's rejected, why not write it down in one or two brief sentences for communication's sake? Rather than just clogging this thread up full of people asking why, who aren't getting an answer half the time anyway. [/quote]

1. It isn't a one-person job (though mike has final say), they just aren't disclosing who is part of the committee so the rest of the tean isn't bombarded with hate and/or questions.
2. Do you realize how much of a waste of time it is to put down a reason for every single rejection? Over 1000 hours of games have been rejected. There isn't really much point in putting down rejection reasons when either:
-The runner already knows the submission isn't that strong but wanted to give it a shot
-It was a joke submission
-The reason's gonna be "we can't fit everything" (and it will come down to that for countless games)
It's much more convenient and makes much more sense if someone more serious about their submission asked mike personally, though that person shouldn't be surprised if the answer is something along the lines of "we can't fit everything".

So no, the transparency is not worth the time. Yes, transparency is nice, but this would take countless hours just to satisfy maybe like 10 runners or something like that, out of 1000 hours of games rejected.

And this isn't exactly something that can be done in the future since these marathons will only grow more and more. Are you seriously suggesting people start writing down reasons for every rejection when there'll probably eventually be, say, over 3000 hours of games rejected?

And people whose games are rejected just sometimes need to accept that not every game will make it. If you think your game is a good marathon watch, tough luck, not every game makes it. Just offer it next time or something. That's what I'm doing for canvas curse and I will continue to submit until it makes it.

TheMG2

2014-09-02 01:25:27 pm

Mike is going to be going over common rejection reasons towards the end of the process (if not at the end).

moooh

Edit history:

moooh: 2014-09-02 01:27:27 pm

2014-09-02 01:26:50 pm

Exoray

I'm not on the game committe nor do I know exactly how the selection process works, but over the years there's been several factors mentioned that they look at when considering a game.
A few of them would be:

Entertainment value
Viewer recognition
Donation potential
Repetition (both repeat marathon appearances and repetition within a run of the game)
Crowd potential (tense moments, surprises, high degree of skill etc. Could also fit within entertainment value)
Run length
Run commentary potential
Schedule balance (spread among consoles and game genres)

There's likely many more since putting the schedule together so that it'll end up a most awesome schedule is quite a complex job.

Now, given that the site reports something close to a 25% acceptance rate of run submissions, this means that 75% of the runs were rejected and thus one shouldn't really expect any more than 1/4th of their run submissions to go through first round. (Which actually happens to be spot on in countneko's case)

For the most part, the reason for a reject is simply because a game submission wasn't awesome enough to be in the top quadrant of runs when taking all the abovementioned factors into account. Remember, close to 1500 hours will have been submitted, but the schedule only has room for little over a fifth of those.

I'm not on the game committe nor do I know exactly how the selection process works, but over the years there's been several factors mentioned that they look at when considering a game. 
A few of them would be:

Entertainment value
Viewer recognition
Donation potential
Repetition (both repeat marathon appearances and repetition within a run of the game)
Crowd potential (tense moments, surprises, high degree of skill etc. Could also fit within entertainment value)
Run length
Run commentary potential
Schedule balance (spread among consoles and game genres)

There's likely many more since putting the schedule together so that it'll end up a most awesome schedule is quite a complex job.

Now, given that the site reports something close to a 25% acceptance rate of run submissions, this means that 75% of the runs were rejected and thus one shouldn't really expect any more than 1/4th of their run submissions to go through first round. (Which actually happens to be spot on in countneko's case)

For the most part, the reason for a reject is simply because a game submission wasn't awesome enough to be in the top quadrant of runs when taking all the abovementioned factors into account. Remember, close to 1500 hours will have been submitted, but the schedule only has room for little over a fifth of those.

Countneko

2014-09-02 03:47:55 pm

Quote:

And this isn't exactly something that can be done in the future since these marathons will only grow more and more. Are you seriously suggesting people start writing down reasons for every rejection when there'll probably eventually be, say, over 3000 hours of games rejected?

And people whose games are rejected just sometimes need to accept that not every game will make it. If you think your game is a good marathon watch, tough luck, not every game makes it. Just offer it next time or something. That's what I'm doing for canvas curse and I will continue to submit until it makes it.

I understand. I guess things can't be quite as personal as they used to be when the marathons were smaller.

I suppose asking right now is just the better route, but it is also important for people to know the reasons so they aren't wasting submission slots in future marathons on games that will NEVER get accepted.