AGDQ 2016 Game Submissions Information (Submissions are now closed)

2015-10-15 10:25:28 am

Quote from Antilles58:

Beyond that though- GDQ is not a democracy, folks. It's a private organization that makes decisions in their best interests through a process they deem necessary. It's not about being fair, or representing a full picture of speedrunning at large. It's about putting on a show, and it's up to them to craft the specific show they want to see.

And that's why I supported the idea of a community block as mentioned earlier in the thread (Though it's too late to make it happen this year). Even though the event has grown to the point where a private organization is running everything, in the end AGDQ is, without a doubt, the biggest speedrunning event there is, and some of it should definitely represent the wishes of the speedrunning community.

Ultimately, however, I understand why you can't have every single good game submitted on the schedule. I don't envy the people selecting the games. No matter what, for every new game that's finally getting a chance, there's another game that would have been great too but there just isn't enough time to accept everything. If only AGDQ could be forever, then we'd be set. Tongue

I've thought about the idea of doing a 'rejected games marathon' post AGDQ, but you couldn't accept every game for that either. It's salt all the way down.

[quote="Antilles58"]
Beyond that though- GDQ is not a democracy, folks.  It's a private organization that makes decisions in their best interests through a process they deem necessary.  It's not about being fair, or representing a full picture of speedrunning at large.  It's about putting on a show, and it's up to them to craft the specific show they want to see. [/quote]

And that's why I supported the idea of a community block as mentioned earlier in the thread (Though it's too late to make it happen this year). Even though the event has grown to the point where a private organization is running everything, in the end AGDQ is, without a doubt, the biggest speedrunning event there is, and some of it should definitely represent the wishes of the speedrunning community.

Ultimately, however, I understand why you can't have every single good game submitted on the schedule. I don't envy the people selecting the games. No matter what, for every new game that's finally getting a chance, there's another game that would have been great too but there just isn't enough time to accept everything. If only AGDQ could be forever, then we'd be set. :P I've thought about the idea of doing a 'rejected games marathon' post AGDQ, but you couldn't accept every game for that either. It's salt all the way down.

Antilles58

2015-10-15 10:27:44 am

#FailFish

Quote from Countneko:

And that's why I supported the idea of a community block as mentioned earlier in the thread (Though it's too late to make it happen this year). Even though the event has grown to the point where a private organization is running everything, in the end AGDQ is, without a doubt, the biggest speedrunning event there is, and some of it should definitely represent the wishes of the speedrunning community.

I really liked that idea. It may not happen given how difficult the logistics would be - how to make it fair and all, but it's a great thought.

Gildersneeze

2015-10-15 10:31:28 am

Next, we can try to get the speedrunning community to agree on the best toppings for a pizza. I'm sure a community vote will leave everyone happy and certain that the best toppings were chosen. I'll need full transparency from every single one of you didn't vote for dill pickles and banana peppers, though. And a good reason, not just "that sounds gross."

WeForgot

2015-10-15 10:35:50 am

Quote from Gildersneeze:

Next, we can try to get the speedrunning community to agree on the best toppings for a pizza. I'm sure a community vote will leave everyone happy and certain that the best toppings were chosen. I'll need full transparency from every single one of you didn't vote for dill pickles and banana peppers, though. And a good reason, not just "that sounds gross."

As much as that is funny, it is hardly constructive. Although I agree that the block for rejected games is not something that would work for popularity reasons as well as (if a committee was used) more committee woes, I don't think a sarcastic response is helping anyone. That is, unless, we are bulk ordering pizza's for GDQ consumption in which case this is pretty serious business Wink

MegaMasterX

2015-10-15 10:41:15 am

N1GP Tournament Organizer

I certainly apologize if any of my responses or thoughts came off as inappropriate or aggressive. Everyone's so passionate about this community and this event, it makes the emotions run high. I can totally appreciate that the GDQ staff have a monolithic task of managing this landslide of entries and think they're handling it the best they can given their limited resources/staffing.

For now, Matty, thank you for the time and work your team put in. Looking forward to seeing Battle Network in future GDQs Wink

Antilles58

Edit history:

Antilles58: 2015-10-15 10:42:20 am

2015-10-15 10:42:14 am

#FailFish

Quote from Gildersneeze:

Next, we can try to get the speedrunning community to agree on the best toppings for a pizza. I'm sure a community vote will leave everyone happy and certain that the best toppings were chosen. I'll need full transparency from every single one of you didn't vote for dill pickles and banana peppers, though. And a good reason, not just "that sounds gross."

That does sound gross. Tongue

Cool Matty

2015-10-15 10:42:31 am

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from Antilles58:

You're right, I think the expectations are pretty clear. But is there a description of the process? Like what factors y'all consider when making the decision? Is there like a checklist you run down or something while considering runs? I haven't seen that anywhere. Or is it just more of a "gut feel" kind of thing?

There's definitely a list of things they look at, and I'm sure we've mentioned this elsewhere:

1. Are you providing good commentary?
2. How long is the run? (longer run = harder to pick)
3. Is the game easy to understand (basically auto-reject any complex puzzle/card game) visually?
4. How many times has this run been in the event?
5. If it's been in the event before, how well did it do?
6. Has this runner been in some sort of event, and if so, did they perform well under the pressure and did they provide good commentary?
7. Do they have a stream? (A stream means we can check if you're practicing)
8. Does the video show the whole run, and is the run shown a good representation of the submission? Does it have a good time?
9. Is someone else running with a better time?
10. Will this run fit as a race? Many games are not good fits, because they can lead to blowouts.
11. Is this run risky? Could it easily result in a mercy kill from running over, or end early?
12. Is the run entertaining or technically impressive? Awful games are chosen because they're entertainingly awful. A mediocre game is arguably the worst game to pick.
13. Does this game fit in the schedule well? When the picks get difficult, some games might get cut because a different game would result in less setup, for instance.
14. Is the runner reliable? Chances are, if you're dropping out of the event at the last second, particularly for dumb reasons, we're not going to pick you next time.

This isn't even an exhaustive list. It's just a list of things that can influence your submission. By the final cuts, you can be pretty sure that they've exhausted all these reasons. Then it goes into what just feels right, based on the committee's experience with the previous events.

[quote="Antilles58"]
You're right, I think the expectations are pretty clear.  But is there a description of the process?  Like what factors y'all consider when making the decision?  Is there like a checklist you run down or something while considering runs?  I haven't seen that anywhere.  Or is it just more of a "gut feel" kind of thing?
[/quote]

There's definitely a list of things they look at, and I'm sure we've mentioned this elsewhere:

1. Are you providing good commentary? 
2. How long is the run? (longer run = harder to pick)
3. Is the game easy to understand (basically auto-reject any complex puzzle/card game) visually?
4. How many times has this run been in the event?
5. If it's been in the event before, how well did it do?
6. Has this runner been in some sort of event, and if so, did they perform well under the pressure and did they provide good commentary?
7. Do they have a stream? (A stream means we can check if you're practicing)
8. Does the video show the whole run, and is the run shown a good representation of the submission? Does it have a good time?
9. Is someone else running with a better time?
10. Will this run fit as a race? Many games are not good fits, because they can lead to blowouts.
11. Is this run risky? Could it easily result in a mercy kill from running over, or end early?
12. Is the run entertaining or technically impressive? Awful games are chosen because they're entertainingly awful. A mediocre game is arguably the worst game to pick.
13. Does this game fit in the schedule well? When the picks get difficult, some games might get cut because a different game would result in less setup, for instance. 
14. Is the runner reliable? Chances are, if you're dropping out of the event at the last second, particularly for dumb reasons, we're not going to pick you next time.

This isn't even an exhaustive list. It's just a list of things that can influence your submission. By the final cuts, you can be pretty sure that they've exhausted all these reasons. Then it goes into what just feels right, based on the committee's experience with the previous events.

Antilles58

Edit history:

Antilles58: 2015-10-15 10:47:39 am

Antilles58: 2015-10-15 10:44:38 am

2015-10-15 10:44:09 am

#FailFish

Thanks, Matty!! That's perfect. That's exactly what I was hoping for. I think it's reasonable that if any of us are rejected in round 1, something doesn't match up here. If we're rejected in round 2, then they liked us, it just didn't work in the event for some reason. And of course there's the blanket "it's just not a fit right now," which is a perfectly acceptable reason.

Hopefully that helps satisfy some of the salt and we can get back to arguing about pizza.

WeForgot

Edit history:

WeForgot: 2015-10-15 10:50:45 am

WeForgot: 2015-10-15 10:49:02 am

WeForgot: 2015-10-15 10:46:55 am

2015-10-15 10:46:19 am

Quote from Cool Matty:

Quote from Antilles58:

You're right, I think the expectations are pretty clear. But is there a description of the process? Like what factors y'all consider when making the decision? Is there like a checklist you run down or something while considering runs? I haven't seen that anywhere. Or is it just more of a "gut feel" kind of thing?

There's definitely a list of things they look at, and I'm sure we've mentioned this elsewhere:

1. Are you providing good commentary?
2. How long is the run? (longer run = harder to pick)
3. Is the game easy to understand (basically auto-reject any complex puzzle/card game) visually?
4. How many times has this run been in the event?
5. If it's been in the event before, how well did it do?
6. Has this runner been in some sort of event, and if so, did they perform well under the pressure and did they provide good commentary?
7. Do they have a stream? (A stream means we can check if you're practicing)
8. Does the video show the whole run, and is the run shown a good representation of the submission? Does it have a good time?
9. Is someone else running with a better time?
10. Will this run fit as a race? Many games are not good fits, because they can lead to blowouts.
11. Is this run risky? Could it easily result in a mercy kill from running over, or end early?
12. Is the run entertaining or technically impressive? Awful games are chosen because they're entertainingly awful. A mediocre game is arguably the worst game to pick.
13. Does this game fit in the schedule well? When the picks get difficult, some games might get cut because a different game would result in less setup, for instance.
14. Is the runner reliable? Chances are, if you're dropping out of the event at the last second, particularly for dumb reasons, we're not going to pick you next time.

This isn't even an exhaustive list. It's just a list of things that can influence your submission. By the final cuts, you can be pretty sure that they've exhausted all these reasons. Then it goes into what just feels right, based on the committee's experience with the previous events.

That is awesome! Thanks Matty. That is pretty detailed. I know that it is still difficult but I think, given the knowledge that some people are contacted for certain reasons, we could also benefit from knowing who people should be expected to be contacted from and what qualifies for reason enough to be contacted. I know this one might be more vague but since you provided such a good list I thought I would ask anyway. Either way that is very helpful!

EDIT: Spelling is hard -_-

[quote="Cool Matty"][quote="Antilles58"]
You're right, I think the expectations are pretty clear.  But is there a description of the process?  Like what factors y'all consider when making the decision?  Is there like a checklist you run down or something while considering runs?  I haven't seen that anywhere.  Or is it just more of a "gut feel" kind of thing?
[/quote]

There's definitely a list of things they look at, and I'm sure we've mentioned this elsewhere:

1. Are you providing good commentary? 
2. How long is the run? (longer run = harder to pick)
3. Is the game easy to understand (basically auto-reject any complex puzzle/card game) visually?
4. How many times has this run been in the event?
5. If it's been in the event before, how well did it do?
6. Has this runner been in some sort of event, and if so, did they perform well under the pressure and did they provide good commentary?
7. Do they have a stream? (A stream means we can check if you're practicing)
8. Does the video show the whole run, and is the run shown a good representation of the submission? Does it have a good time?
9. Is someone else running with a better time?
10. Will this run fit as a race? Many games are not good fits, because they can lead to blowouts.
11. Is this run risky? Could it easily result in a mercy kill from running over, or end early?
12. Is the run entertaining or technically impressive? Awful games are chosen because they're entertainingly awful. A mediocre game is arguably the worst game to pick.
13. Does this game fit in the schedule well? When the picks get difficult, some games might get cut because a different game would result in less setup, for instance. 
14. Is the runner reliable? Chances are, if you're dropping out of the event at the last second, particularly for dumb reasons, we're not going to pick you next time.

This isn't even an exhaustive list. It's just a list of things that can influence your submission. By the final cuts, you can be pretty sure that they've exhausted all these reasons. Then it goes into what just feels right, based on the committee's experience with the previous events.

[/quote]
That is awesome! Thanks Matty. That is pretty detailed. I know that it is still difficult but I think, given the knowledge that some people are contacted for certain reasons, we could also benefit from knowing who people should be expected to be contacted from and what qualifies for reason enough to be contacted. I know this one might be more vague but since you provided such a good list I thought I would ask anyway. Either way that is very helpful!

EDIT: Spelling is hard -_-

saintmillion

Edit history:

saintmillion: 2015-10-15 11:10:22 am

saintmillion: 2015-10-15 11:09:51 am

2015-10-15 11:08:54 am

station

Not sure if this has been addressed, but does the game committee care about or use timestamps in YouTube video descriptions? Not editing a run for highlights, but just recommending some tech at certain times in the run to skip to so it's easier to see some of the game's good stuff.

kwinse

2015-10-15 11:50:06 am

Quote from Cool Matty:

There's definitely a list of things they look at, and I'm sure we've mentioned this elsewhere:

Can some version of that list can be included in the OP, and in future OPs?

Gantor

2015-10-15 12:27:04 pm

Quote from kwinse:

Quote from Cool Matty:

There's definitely a list of things they look at, and I'm sure we've mentioned this elsewhere:

Can some version of that list can be included in the OP, and in future OPs?

This would be very helpful. For example, I didn't know that commentary should be included in the submission video. I am new here and I almost didn't submit because I didn't know if my run would even be what the submission team is looking for. This really helped to clarify things. Thank you. Also, I'm having a great time watching all of the submission videos.

Vucious Creed

2015-10-15 01:32:58 pm

Glad my fanboy lvls aren't THIS high

I don't think commentary isn't as much "required" as it is "recommened." I'm sure there are cases in which GDQ game selections, runners/games were still picked regardless of having commentary in their submission videos or not. It's just something that helps the game's cause of being selected at best. Generally speaking, of course, as I'm on the outside as with the other submitters.

doicm

2015-10-15 01:39:52 pm

Quote from Vucious Creed:

I don't think commentary isn't as much "required" as it is "recommened." I'm sure there are cases in which GDQ game selections, runners/games were still picked regardless of having commentary in their submission videos or not. It's just something that helps the game's cause of being selected at best. Generally speaking, of course, as I'm on the outside as with the other submitters.

I think it's a requirement for longer runs. When you think about longer runs even in the most recent GDQ, people got very antsy and even upset about the quality of the commentary, whether it was relevant to the run or whether there was any commentary at all. Granted, it can be difficult to maintain commentary the longer the run, but it is a definite factor to consider. If a game does end up being selected, the commentary should be there, and it should be prepared in my opinion.

dangodofthunder

2015-10-15 02:19:42 pm

Quote from Vucious Creed:

I don't think commentary isn't as much "required" as it is "recommened." I'm sure there are cases in which GDQ game selections, runners/games were still picked regardless of having commentary in their submission videos or not. It's just something that helps the game's cause of being selected at best. Generally speaking, of course, as I'm on the outside as with the other submitters.

All opinions are reflections of myself and myself alone and are not representative of any other individuals, companies, corporations, organizations, or otherwise.

You're doing a run in front of people who have never seen your game before. This is their first exposure to the game and they need to be engaged the entire time. If they don't understand what is going on, then they will immediately tune out.

Commentary is not "recommended", quality commentary is a MUST for a run at these kinds of events. In the case where the runner cannot provide quality commentary, there is someone else who is able to do so on the couch for that runner the entire time. A run with awful dialogue and commentary is not an option.

[quote="Vucious Creed"]I don't think commentary isn't as much "required" as it is "recommened."  I'm sure there are cases in which GDQ game selections, runners/games were still picked regardless of having commentary in their submission videos or not.  It's just something that helps the game's cause of being selected at best.  Generally speaking, of course, as I'm on the outside as with the other submitters.[/quote]

All opinions are reflections of myself and myself alone and are not representative of any other individuals, companies, corporations, organizations, or otherwise.

You're doing a run in front of people who have never seen your game before. This is their first exposure to the game and they need to be engaged the entire time. If they don't understand what is going on, then they will immediately tune out.

Commentary is not "recommended", quality commentary is a MUST for a run at these kinds of events. In the case where the runner cannot provide quality commentary, there is someone else who is able to do so on the couch for that runner the entire time. A run with awful dialogue and commentary is not an option.

PJ

2015-10-15 02:25:20 pm

Is PJ

Quote from dangodofthunder:

Quote from Vucious Creed:

I don't think commentary isn't as much "required" as it is "recommened." I'm sure there are cases in which GDQ game selections, runners/games were still picked regardless of having commentary in their submission videos or not. It's just something that helps the game's cause of being selected at best. Generally speaking, of course, as I'm on the outside as with the other submitters.

All opinions are reflections of myself and myself alone and are not representative of any other individuals, companies, corporations, organizations, or otherwise.

You're doing a run in front of people who have never seen your game before. This is their first exposure to the game and they need to be engaged the entire time. If they don't understand what is going on, then they will immediately tune out.

Commentary is not "recommended", quality commentary is a MUST for a run at these kinds of events. In the case where the runner cannot provide quality commentary, there is someone else who is able to do so on the couch for that runner the entire time. A run with awful dialogue and commentary is not an option.

Creed is referring to commentary being present in your submission video, not at AGDQ itself.

[quote="dangodofthunder"][quote="Vucious Creed"]I don't think commentary isn't as much "required" as it is "recommened."  I'm sure there are cases in which GDQ game selections, runners/games were still picked regardless of having commentary in their submission videos or not.  It's just something that helps the game's cause of being selected at best.  Generally speaking, of course, as I'm on the outside as with the other submitters.[/quote]

All opinions are reflections of myself and myself alone and are not representative of any other individuals, companies, corporations, organizations, or otherwise.

You're doing a run in front of people who have never seen your game before. This is their first exposure to the game and they need to be engaged the entire time. If they don't understand what is going on, then they will immediately tune out.

Commentary is not "recommended", quality commentary is a MUST for a run at these kinds of events. In the case where the runner cannot provide quality commentary, there is someone else who is able to do so on the couch for that runner the entire time. A run with awful dialogue and commentary is not an option.[/quote]

Creed is referring to commentary being present in your submission video, not at AGDQ itself.

Vucious Creed

2015-10-15 02:29:32 pm

Glad my fanboy lvls aren't THIS high

That's exactly what I'm referring to. We're talking about submissions, not the actual event. In the event, there is no question that commentary is required, but for those that even have trouble with commentary, that's what's the commentary threads are for once the games are selected. However, that's a slightly different subject matter when the actual event happens.

Sunblade

Edit history:

Sunblade: 2015-10-15 02:59:25 pm

2015-10-15 02:57:55 pm

Only Offense Will Survive

Its been a very long time since I have posted here. Wow.

Thank you for putting both submissions into the bonus section. I did not expect that Assignment Ada and Separate Ways make it both into the second round so I suggest that you cut Assignment Ada since it is very short and basically the same. Separate Ways would suffice.

dangodofthunder

2015-10-15 03:05:46 pm

Quote from Vucious Creed:

That's exactly what I'm referring to. We're talking about submissions, not the actual event. In the event, there is no question that commentary is required, but for those that even have trouble with commentary, that's what's the commentary threads are for once the games are selected. However, that's a slightly different subject matter when the actual event happens.

All opinions are reflections of myself and myself alone and are not representative of any other individuals, companies, corporations, organizations, or otherwise.

Especially given the increased amount of submissions coming in every event, saying "I don't have commentary but we'll have it during the actual run if you accept me" seems like a very poor impression. It strikes me as coming into a formal interview in jeans and a t-shirt but telling the interviewer that if you're hired, you'll be dressing to the company standards.

rowrow_

2015-10-15 03:57:32 pm

no more umbreons pls

Damn, based on that list, I could've submitted a better Spore video. I haven't gotten to commentary for my record run because I'm waiting for SDA Verification, so knowing this list I feel I have a better chance submitting for SGDQ. Thanks Matty, these things help promote anti-salt!

VB_srl

2015-10-15 04:04:36 pm

I'd like to please know why Knytt Stories was rejected is that's not too big of a deal.

WeForgot

2015-10-15 04:58:42 pm

Quote from Prismatic Black:

Quote from Joka:

I'd really like to know why Battle Network was rejected. It's an hour and a half of solid commentary, amazing RNG manipulation and clever routing, that has never been at a GDQ.

Clarification on this would be helpful for me. It was progressed earlier this year for SGDQ, and the estimate has dropped by 10 minutes since then, and has been cut substantially by 1 hour since a year ago. We made a submission video to overview the run, which linked a full run within that description. We understand that it is hard to keep up with all of the long runs that are submitted, and we thought that it would be helpful with our submission. If the reason for rejection was due to that, then I apologize. I saw where full runs were requested, but that it was acceptable to post highlight videos as well. The most realistic and reasonable option for this run was to post the highlight. In the past, we have been told that MMBN1 was too long, that it does not appeal to a wide audience, and that there are better RPG choices for the marathon. We took those criticisms to heart and have honestly felt that we have addressed these issues. A massive amount of time has been cut from our estimate. Our community and viewership for this game--as well as the series itself--has grown exponentially since then. My final point, and admittedly one that is probably all-too-familiar statement concerning these situations is that this game is really something different. The RNG manipulation and routing paired with the style of gameplay makes MMBN1 something unique. The manipulation is not at all subtle, and at times completely absurd--and in the most entertaining way possible. Our commentary is rehearsed and informative. The game plays EXACTLY the same way each time. It fits a marathon setting, at this point in time, more than I can say about a lot of games. Please, if you can, I would like to understand more about what can be done to help us out with progressing BN1. Thanks.

I kinda want to bring this back to attention. It seems like quite a few people were curious (me included). Is there someone who can give a clear reason to this rejection and maybe the rest of the BN series submissions as well?

[quote="Prismatic Black"][quote="Joka"]I'd really like to know why Battle Network was rejected. It's an hour and a half of solid commentary, amazing RNG manipulation and clever routing, that has [b]never [/b]been at a GDQ.[/quote]

Clarification on this would be helpful for me. It was progressed earlier this year for SGDQ, and the estimate has dropped by 10 minutes since then, and has been cut substantially by 1 hour since a year ago. We made a submission video to overview the run, which linked a full run within that description. We understand that it is hard to keep up with all of the long runs that are submitted, and we thought that it would be helpful with our submission. If the reason for rejection was due to that, then I apologize. I saw where full runs were requested, but that it was acceptable to post highlight videos as well. The most realistic and reasonable option for this run was to post the highlight. In the past, we have been told that MMBN1 was too long, that it does not appeal to a wide audience, and that there are better RPG choices for the marathon. We took those criticisms to heart and have honestly felt that we have addressed these issues. A massive amount of time has been cut from our estimate. Our community and viewership for this game--as well as the series itself--has grown exponentially since then. My final point, and admittedly one that is probably all-too-familiar statement concerning these situations is that this game is really something different. The RNG manipulation and routing paired with the style of gameplay makes MMBN1 something unique. The manipulation is not at all subtle, and at times completely absurd--and in the most entertaining way possible. Our commentary is rehearsed and informative. The game plays EXACTLY the same way each time. It fits a marathon setting, at this point in time, more than I can say about a lot of games. Please, if you can, I would like to understand more about what can be done to help us out with progressing BN1. Thanks.[/quote]
I kinda want to bring this back to attention. It seems like quite a few people were curious (me included). Is there someone who can give a clear reason to this rejection and maybe the rest of the BN series submissions as well?

keymakr

2015-10-15 05:42:27 pm

Hey, I know you guys are probably busy and I asked earlier, but it's easy for questions to get lost in this thread.

Any chance of a reason for the rejection on Harry Potter 1 Any% for PC, or well...for most of the HP games. I'm pretty sure every person who submitted from the community was rejected.

Thanks!

Shaddex

2015-10-15 07:12:01 pm

I'm assuming the reason for the Two Worlds reject is just that it's so short that it's not worth the setup, but I'm extremely confident in my ability to get it going quickly. I don't need audio at all, don't need to set up my own mouse/keyboard, and there are no issues with launching the game. I ran a game at SGDQ, and those issues were exactly what slowed down setups for essentially every PC run.

Mr. Kelly R. Flewin

2015-10-15 07:35:16 pm

Learning to Stream

Quote from heeheex2:

I think we should actually just move AGDQ 2016 to Winnipeg, it's the heart of the continent and all. That's easy to do in 3 months. Wink

I would back ANY GDQ held in my hometown!! Hell, I would be hellbent to NOT find some game I could get proficient enough at to submit! Thanks HeeHeeX2 for making my night!