The Rule 5-induced cone of silence has lifted, and the results are in! Grounded in Space did reasonably well, placing 10th out of the 24 entries, very close to where I expected it would be (I had mentally blocked out 8th to 14th as the range I was expecting, based on reviews and my own experience playing the competition games). I learned a lot and met a lot of cool people participating in this year’s competition. Here are some of the major lessons I took away:
1. I probably wasn’t ready to release Grounded in Space. I vastly underestimated the amount of work required to make the game release-quality, especially post-beta work. And I definitely did not know Inform 7 well enough to accomplish everything I wanted to; the triage required on the design to get the game playable was pretty severe. Many of the cool parts of the original design ended up on the cutting-room floor, due to either lack of facility with the language or a self-inflicted lack of time. I slacked a bit in the middle where if I’d put in more effort I might have accomplished quite a bit more.
2. I’m glad I did release. The experience of competing in IFComp ’09 was invaluable; there are things I learned from the process, from the other games in the Comp, and from the discussions on the authors’ forums, that I probably couldn’t have learned in any other way. In particular, I believe that I could not have learned the final process of making a game releasable — the testing and tradeoffs required in the end stages of development — had I not forced myself through it, even with a game that ended up deficient in some ways.
3. Reviewers are all over the map in terms of what they like or don’t like. I was pretty unlucky in that the first few reviews all either said or implied “I don’t like Heinlein.” Well, that pretty much meant those reviews were going to be bad, since Grounded in Space is directly patterned on Heinlein juveniles to the best of my ability. Later reviewers were more kind in that respect; there are some Heinlein fans out there after all! Similarly, some folks liked complicated puzzles and some probably would have punched me if I’d been to hand when they got to the engine console.
4. Notwithstanding #3, there were a number of valid criticisms of my game that were widely given:
- The premise was really off the wall, and a lot of reviewers bounced off of it. Sam Kabo Ashwell was very insightful here — it really was the result of me taking the shortest distance between two plot points. Even a little more thought and effort here would have lowered the suspension of disbelief bar substantially, I think.
- The introduction lacked interactivity — some objected to this and some didn’t, but there were certainly ways I could have improved interactivity in this section, and I simply didn’t have time to do so. That was the first section I coded, so it was the one with the least language facility backing it. I wanted to rewrite it, but bugs with the engine puzzle kept me busy right down to the wire, and I didn’t get the chance.
- I got criticism that the engine puzzle was not suitable for the text format. I disagree with this somewhat; I think that with a better text interface I could have made this more palatable for a lot of people. But a subset of players was never going to be happy with a puzzle that required you to SET THETA DIAL TO -1575, and I didn’t realize quite how large that subset was.
5. The game is likely unsalvageable. At this point there are enough flaws baked into the design that trying to improve the game experience would require gutting and rewriting large sections of it, and I’m not going to do that. I started on another work the day I submitted this one, and I’m planning to move forward with that instead. There will, however, be a sequel to Grounded in Space at some point in the future.
6. Inform 7 is awesome. The learning curve is… interesting — you can get off the ground quickly, but getting really good with it requires you to cross the natural-language equivalent of the “uncanny valley”. But the expressive power of the language is amazing, and I’m sure the pleasure (and it is, truly, a pleasure) of developing in Inform 7 is one of the main reasons — along with the great people in the community — that I’m so excited about continuing to write IF.
7. Develop like you were developing any other kind of software. I didn’t do this at first, treating it as if I were typing up an email. Oh, I designed up front, of course, and had plenty of design documentation. But I didn’t have source code control, nor any kind of issue tracking/prioritization system, and so I found myself wasting time on trivial issues or, worse, fearing to make changes in complex code (the reflectors, anyone?) for fear of breaking more things than I was trying to fix. For my next project, I’ve addressed this; I’m now using Perforce for source code control and I already feel more fearless, comfortable, and productive as a result.
8. Some of your beta testers should be from the IF community. I used exclusively non-IF friends for testers, and although they found staggering amounts of bugs, helped me with aspects of the story, gave me a great insight into how newbies might interact with the game, and really got me to widen my net of synonyms, a few IF vets in the mix would probably have latched on to the more structural shortcomings of my work and made suggestions early on that might have helped me avoid some of the big design/architecture pitfalls I stumbled into.
9. The whole experience was great, and an encouragement to proceed. Even the negative reviews usually had something nice for me to take away. The good ones (and there were more of these towards the end of the Comp, for some reason) were extremely encouraging. Knowing my work clicked in a good way for some people, no matter how few, is a very powerful motivator to continue, and I will certainly be writing more IF and entering the Comp again.
So thanks to everyone who played the games this year, particularly to those who took the time to write reviews and let us know what you thought of our works. I enjoyed writing for you and hearing both what you considered good about Grounded in Space and what you considered bad. Next year I hope to improve quality on all fronts and produce something that will knock your socks off!
#1 by Grandma Wigdahl on November 16, 2009 - 11:19 pm
Quote
Congratulations, Matt. I know how hard you worked on this and coming in 10th for your first try is impressive!
#2 by Ben Collins-Sussman on November 17, 2009 - 3:36 pm
Quote
I’m with you on #7 ! Even if working alone, you gotta have source control and an issue tracker. Don’t forget to use the ‘skein’ in I7 for testing, too! It allowed us to make crazy changes to the game and still verify that it was possible to play through the game to specific points. Every release to beta-testers was carefully run through skein-testing.
#3 by George on November 17, 2009 - 6:08 pm
Quote
Congrats Matt! See you next year.
#4 by Jeremy on November 18, 2009 - 9:02 am
Quote
I sort of petered out in writing comp reviews, but I liked Grounded In Space. I thought it was fun and daring. I really hope you do another game.
#5 by Matt Wigdahl on November 18, 2009 - 9:41 am
Quote
@Ben:
Yes, the skein was incredibly valuable. Testing the various permutations of angles in the reflector puzzle would have been completely intractable without it.
I did the same thing; every beta version had skein testing to ensure it was completable. It saved a lot of time and effort.
Congratulations on your win, by the way! It was well-deserved!
#6 by Matt Wigdahl on November 18, 2009 - 9:42 am
Quote
@Jeremy:
Thanks! I’ve got a couple works in the infrastructure phase right now, and there will eventually be a sequel to Grounded in Space. Glad you liked it, and thanks for judging and reviewing this year!