Vacant Sky isn't getting nominated all the time. The issue is that projects that don't win that get renominated over and over. Good projects win awards at multiple sites, that's fair. It's not a good argument to say Vacant Sky shouldn't win Project of the Month here because it has won awards elsewhere.

Vacant Sky HAS won a few times not once. Its just an example so don't go looking into it too much into it. Lets not try and change the subject please. I really don't want a debate over which projects get nominated or whatever I just think the rest of the community should be more open to project of the month.

It hasn't though. If you're going to make that claim, at least have be specific in how many times Vacant Sky has been nominated or has won Project of the Month on this forum.

Again, the subject is being changed. But if you must know so bad I can remember at least twice and I wouldn't be surprised if it was more. I don't really know to be honest so you tell me. It's usually the same projects that get nominated, one of them gets to shine with enough votes and there aren't as many complete games as there are projects in development.

Lastly, stop moving away from the main subject. That isn't even that relevant to what I am saying if you bothered to read my post rather than just pick a point that was debated about earlier you would know my post isn't about that. It's about a constructive idea that the staff could either look into or disregard. That way you can have two main threads about project of the month, completed games/long demos and underdevelopment games. It's just an idea.

Vacant Sky has won Project of the Month once (March 2011) from what I can see. The subject hasn't really been changed.


I'm not moving away from the main subject. I did read your post. I specifically mentioned a point you made and an example of that point that was incorrect. I don't believe the thing I mentioned was "debated earlier".

Obsorber, there isn't a great deal of interest in Project of the Month, let alone another thread for an "Underdeveloped Game of the Month" contest.

He isn't saying that it has won multiple awards on this site, he is saying on multiple sites and in general. You're over analyzing the statement and questions he brought up, the same way you did to me.

In fact he is saying exactly what I suggested in more or less words. You should look at how others view situations and not simply your self and why you believe they are wrong and you are right. I'm trying to be nice, but you've got an anger management issue of what Anger Management Teachers say is the Always Being Right Fallacy. It may not be agressive anger, but it's definitely negative. You and I will never always be right, so what I'm saying is to take a walk in the other man's shoes for once.

He's made a lot of great points, some I couldn't word my self, and he used examples to explain what he is trying to point out and suggest.
-Axerax

If that is the case, Vacant Sky winning an award on another site shouldn't affect whether it gets nominated for Project of the Month here. I am not "over analysing" it.


I do not have an anger management issue. What specific points and arguments have I raised that are incorrect?

Thanks Axerax for your support.

There are many ways of improving the RRR community and although what I suggested may not be the best way I'm sure there are other methods that can be done.

You're welcome. I'm glad you have similar views, if I had been given the chance to continue this like I said I would in the suggestion topic that Kaz posted, I would have.

Yes it may not be the best, but it's something and funnily enough it's a common idea that a few of us on this topic have suggested or agreed with.

Just to clarify a few things.

The word Project's Definition:
Origin:
1350–1400; (noun)Middle English project( e) design, plan

The word Recent's Definition:
Origin:
1525–35; < Latin recent- (stem ofrecēns) fresh, new

Sure you can use the word Recent to refer to the age of man compared to the age of dinosaurs as being recent, but that's years upon years, but in reality the human races existence is very recent compared to other creatures that have and/or still roam Earth. The way you are using recent is exactly as the origin states, something that is new within the latest month or even few weeks/days. How can you expect that many long demos and completed games to come out within that time frame?

You can't expect that projects in development are not worthy of spotlight, especially when you have people like James Cameron, the direct of Alien and many other great movies, who spent 8 years of production to create Avatar, a blockbuster bombshell, simply because he wanted to wait for better technology to better visualize his dream/idea of this movie to the audience. All I’m saying is that there are plenty of projects out there who could live up to that potential, you don't have the right to say that no projects there are worthy of this competition, have you even taken a good hard look and analyzed some of these projects? If you have not, let me know when you do.

Didn't you just say earlier that you yourself haven't? Practice what you preach.

First, I stated my reasons for not looking at completed games and long demos earlier. If you don't want me to do my job, then I don't understand why you would tell me to practice what I preach.

Second, I'm not in charge of this competition. So I have neither need nor the ability to play projects at this time. If I was in charge of this, that would mean I have the need and the ability to play these projects, sadly I am not.

Third, I do post my thoughts and critique on projects in development that I find intriguing, when I have off time. I usually look at quite a few at a time. So when I can, I especially try to view the new ones. That's about the extent, as a member, as I should do.

Fourth, if I recall I actually provide logos to multitudes of projects in development on this forum. Considering my Graphic Art Request topic is one of the largest resource requests on the site, I can say that I've attempted my hardest to provide something good for them to give them a boost of motivation in the development of their game, something that seems to be lacking with this PotM contest.

Woo, 1000th post. Lol.

The people who spend most of their time on completed games and long demo's hardly ever look at the projects in development. I really thought this community was all about improvement. There could be a better way but at least it be good if someone tried to do something about it...

The truth is if you gave me permission to do a survey on all our users about what they think about having a new thread about projects in construction of the month or whatever I guarantee most of them will be for it. The reason, because most of our users spend their time in the games under construction section of the forums because not many have completed a game.

The only reason you are not for it is because you are fine with the way things are as it currently benefits you not everyone else or because it doesn't affect you. Take Salerius, who always receives attention on Vacant Sky which is an example so don't debate it. With the title of project of the month been given to him at least twice and being a common nominee, lets him always shine all the time. I'm not trying to pick on you Salerius I'm just using you as an example because your project is one of the best on this site, which many people like myself would agree it is currently the best. One reasons this is the case though is because of the attention you receive. I've been looking at Vacant Sky since act one was released and it made a big impact on people and continues to even now. I'm not saying your project should be disregarded because you actually managed to finish the game unlike a lot of people. However you've had so much support from the community because of the attention you receive. If people from games under construction believed they could get praise and attention if they worked hard enough, they would try their best to show off their projects providing proof of what to expect in their game. It's easy for a good developer to tell if a game is just adding features and hypes to make their project look good than those that provide proof that their project is good. More people would feel valued in the community this way, it would be meritocratic as it allows the wider proportion of the community to get as much attention in which they deserve.

With the community feeling more valued they are more likely to want to give feedback to other players and play other games. It won't be the same people trying the same games all the time.

Sorry, but I will. I don't think that Sailerius finished Vacant Sky because of the attention he received, but more than he received so much attention because he was likely to finish it to begin with.

I'm not saying that in any way. Project of the Month should be focusing on recent projects as in active projects. I did already clarify this.




Axerax, you'll have to actually quote me where I said " that no projects there are worthy of this competition", as I didn't say that at all. I'm saying that there probably aren't enough projects worthy of Project of the Month. Also, the answer to your question is yes.


That's not true at all. I have stated my reasons very clearly throughout the thread. If they're still not clear enough for you, let me restate my reasons and the reasons that others have given.

• Even with Games Under Construction being allowed, there probably won't be enough quality games for Project of the Month. (from Rob_Riv)
• Lowering the standards for PotM would just dilute the prestige of the award. I strongly disagree with projects under construction being permitted. (from Sailerius)
• Aside from the fact that the quality of games, prior to their actual demo release, will almost always be less than that of any demo or completed game; wouldn't even compare in most cases. (from X-M-O)
• It's a lot easier to throw together a cool pitch for a game and say it's under construction than to actually complete a game. (from Sailerius)
• If there are unplayable projects thrown up for vote, then it only further encourages people to not play the games that are nominated - instead, they'll just vote based on how they look. (from Sailerius)

Are you saying that Sailerius's Vacant Sky has been nominated more than once here or on other sites? [it is impossible to be nominated here twice, as per the rules].
1. Other sites shouldn't matter, if your project is good it is only fair for it to win awards.
2. If people thought their were better projects then they would beat Vacant Sky in the competitions.

What you are talking about here is penalizing good projects because the other projects that aren't as developed yet are not getting all the attention.

EDIT:
I'm not out and out against allowing Games Under Construction.
I'm more against it than for it, but honestly, how many quality projects are posted in Games Under Construction in a month?

You tell me. How many have you looked at and honestly said that's a project with potential?

Why does this competition have to be from the current month? Every other site I've ever seen a PotM ran on, simply bases the nominations within a rather large time frame. Not all developers have new information for things to put out right away. It's supposed to be the Project of THE MONTH. So June's winner could have a game that's not so recent and fresh, but had time to simmer and get a good start on. Not what is the best looking completed game. It totally defeats the purpose of this contest, which is why splitting it into 3 categories was suggested, you avoid unnecessary confusion.

And just to be clear, I'm not putting down anyone's game or saying that they should not deserve recognition because they stand out, not at all. I just am saying to split it to expand into games in contruction, sperate it into completed, demos, and projects in construction, then hold the contest with less nominations. The nominations are decided by the staff and presented to the community. That's it. I don't think I could be more clear.

Yes I am saying he has had project of them month more than once at least as far as I can remember on this site with nominations too. I wouldn't be surprised if more and I know thats allowed according to the rules. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it simply mentioning it...

Again you look too much into the example Kread. I will not allow this to turn into a debate. It's a fact that he received a lot of support for his project which some other projects require because they lack the support. Yes, he could have finished the game with supreme quality without the attention received but he had the community there to help push him. They contributed stating things that could have been improved and what the projects strong points were. Many people have posted games here and then don't bump their project threads because they feel no one actually cares. I try my hardest to give as much attention to the community but I cannot do it alone. I personally look into projects that have grabbed my interest too such as horror games or games I feel are unique in some way...

Examples of Projects In Construction that I would regard would be Demon Spore, Resident Evil: After History and Sweet Lilly Dreams. They have taken my interest personally because I feel they are unique in some way or fit the genre that I would enjoy. They may not have the quality so called standards to your liking but who are you to judge on the quality of games, shouldn't that be left to everyone not just the so called experts.
If I used films which critics may have reviewed poorly for example, even though these people are above the hierarchy sometimes the films obtain so much popularity anyways as its left for people to decide not just who are regarded as opinion leaders. Yes, you as staff are there to lead and structure the community but you should also be there to support it and try to improve it.

Rob Riv, oh my word, jeeez...then make a thread related to this only for games in construction not completed games. You can lower the standards to the community. How do you know it wouldn't compare though because you don't manage to often take a look at such games enough. The more advanced developers just look at the advanced games, the lesser so called developers seem to look at both so there is evidence of possible discrimination. Yes I know this could be a problem which is why you could make it a separate thread unrelated to Project of the Month and more like Project of the under-construction month or whatever. These games will be then rated on the evidence provided of their supposed quality through again, screenshots, videos, presentation, story and whatever else. Why do I have to keep repeating myself time and again.

Why not try it out just to see unless you are scared that the actual Completed games will be disregarded. The fact is more attention will go there anyway as more people are way more active on the games under construction section of the forums. This is just an idea by the way and I think there are a few other alternative ways I can see this playing through. I have nack for completing horror games so don't just think I'm saying this because my projects are there. I'm sure Project Viral 2 will probably be completed sometime this year so when that happens it will be a complete game which may or may not get to shine. But even still, it won't be located in the games under construction thread will it...

As Axerax suggested, staff would create the list of nominees. Project of the Month *was* left to everyone... and hardly any games were nominated. This is due to there not being enough quality games as well as a lack of interest.


I assume you're talking about the point X-M-O raised. I think he means that there is generally less progress on Games Under Construction, so if there was a single Project of the Month, they wouldn't stand a chance. Obviously, as suggested, a separate category for Games Under Construction would solve this specific point. Nonetheless, there is still the issue of there not being enough quality games for a Project of the Month and / Under Construction Project of the Month.

Not sure why you're being "oh my word, jeeez" about anything, or ask "why do I have to keep repeating myself time and again". I had to repeat the arguments because for some reason stated "the only reason you are not for it is because you are fine with the way things are as it currently benefits you not everyone else or because it doesn't affect you", where there clear arguments being made.


Where has this come from? Do you have any evidence that I don't look at such games enough?


Because of the arguments that have been stated.

Once more. If you are deadset on using Projects in Development do the following step examples....

First, there is only one solid plausbale way to use all 3 equally would be to split it into 3 categories.

Next you would need to have the staff nominate, as I've said before and Rob restated, the nominaitons were being done by the community and failing. You leave the critics to write the official reviews and the audience to make their own judgement and opinions of the actualy movie/game/book/etc.

Then, you need a catch to draw interest into PotM again, take Ty's ideas and utilize them as well, maybe even hold an IPotM as a 4th category, you'll draw people to vote for those on the site already and be brining in traffic from other sites because they were nominated.

Finally you could create a PotM Hall of Fame, which basically has a big list of previous winners with a link to their thread,, then allow the members to conversate about the previous winners, what they liked and disliked about the projects that won whatever the award was.

Vacant Sky has only won once the Project of the Month. It has won the RM awards too, simply because a lot of people nominated it. I don't know what kind of problem you have with this game but you mention it way too much "as an example" for it to stay a mere example.
As far as I'm aware, nobody never complained with the recognition (way more visible at one point) that Legionwood or the One Night games had, while their overall quality is inferior to Vacant Sky.

.
Looking too much into your example? You just stated something I feel is wrong, nothing more. And for the record, debate is healthy; there's nothing wrong with it.


Again, support doesn't mean much aside from an ego boost. If you have the necessary mindset to finish a game, you will, regardless of the support you're given. There are quality complete games you barely hear about before they are released while there are others you can follow at every step of development. It all depends of the developer.
Another thing is, threads for bad projects are generally busier than threads for good projects, because sometimes people just don't know what to say, aside from "Wow, it looks cool".
Example: The World is Made of Paper. It's a great visual novel, and it did win the PoTM, but even with that, you can't say it's a popular game. On the other hand, Valkyrie Stories, a game under construction has a lot of support (to the point of it almost became a cult) while the only thing we really know about it is the pretty graphics.


I'll just comment on Sweet Lily Dreams, because it's the only one of the three that interests me (I hate survival horror). Yes, it looks promising. Yes, the graphics are great, the atmosphere looks unique and a lot of effort is poured into it.
But getting to the demo stage takes way more effort. And Sweet Lily Dreams has a lot of support already, I might add. It's not a matter of "standards" or being "so-called experts" (why so condescending by the way) but simply that you can't really know a game before playing it. It's really not hard to understand.


You're totally missing the point. We don't decide which game is good or bad. Well, each of us has a opinion on the different games, but nominations as well as the votes are made by the members. The only criteria is that the game needs to have a playable demo. I don't see how this is unsupporting or goes in a way of improvement.

Just to summarize: to my mind, Project of the Month is supposed to serve as an example and a source of inspiration to developpers and in the same time, giving more recognition to the winners, who worked hard to actually complete their game. Meaning, we, as developpers look at complete projects (which quality has been determined by the members, not the staff), and learn from them. What they did good, what they failed, ideas that could work for our games...
It's by comparing our games to successful ones that we're able to improve.

You probably guessed it by reading all this, I'm not favorable to include Games Under Construction in the PotM. And I agree we lack nominations, so my opinion would be close to Ty's.

Last thing,

I think this is a good idea, because it would allow the members to compare directly the winners and see better which concept is successful in which cases, and work again as a source of inspiration.

I didn't want to get involved in a discussion about one of my works, but there's a point you raised that needs to be corrected.


This is false. I'm not sure if you were around in 2008, but when Vacant Sky was first posted here, it was already in demo form. It was never posted in the projects under construction forum. Ever. The "support" you're talking about that it received was very harsh (and mainly negative) criticism of the demo that I used to refine the final releases. Projects do not "require" support to be finished. On the contrary, building up hype and trying to garner support and attention for a game before it even gets a demo release is counter-productive.

Having been a member of the RM community for years, I can tell you from experience that the projects that get a ton of hype and support prior to having a playable demo are far more likely to never be finished. Once you have the mindset that you need to gain "support," you're already doubling your workload. Now, on top of needing to complete a game, you need to market your project aggressively and spend time bumping, writing up post, making support banners, logos, maintaining a thread, etc etc.

A large part of the disillusionment in the RM community are the wonderful-looking projects that are hyped up and then are never released. Developers get addicted to attention and gradually realize that they'll never be able to make a game good enough to surpass the expectations that they've set, so they abandon the project. Then everyone who was following it gets irritated and that developer gets shunned.

Instead of rewarding people who have contributed nothing but hype to the community, it's important to reward the developers who have given back to it by providing quality works. These quality works set the bar of quality for the entire community. New developers play their works and gain a deeper appreciation for the art, they get inspired, and they learn new tricks about their medium that they were unaware of before. Quality games bring attention to the community and increase its image. The purpose of an award isn't to give a developer support. On the contrary, it's to show an example to the rest of the community of what level of quality they should shoot for. It's important not just for one developer but for everyone.

That's exactly what I was gonna say, I feel the same way about this idea and glad you agree with it.

As for my own debate about how to fix this. it's my opinion and they can take it or leave it. Everyone has a different viewpoint about them, with some more credible than others. But i do agree with your points especially with the examples you gave, they are solid and explain how you feel and I agree with them.

Honestly, there is way too much for me to reply to it all, but I must point out that Vacant Sky HAS one twice on PotM, but in the same month.
It won in Complete Games and Overall.
This was the first time it was nominated too, iirc, and as per the rules previous winners aren't allowed to be nominated.
So if it was nominated again, the nomination would have been disregarded.
Unless you are referring to it winning in the forum awards, which is a separate competition.

Thanks for pointing that out Harry just to make that clear. And yeah that's what I meant however I wasn't too sure myself.

It sounds like I'm picking on Salerius but I'm not. Salerius, don't take it personally as I was using your game as an example because its one of the most recognizable on the site and I admire your work. Your game was partly the reason that inspired me to develop my own games as it let me see what was possible with the program. However, just because you received negative feedback doesn't mean that isn't support because that is support positive or negative. Pointing out flaws help it improve. Yeah now seeing the argument from both points I can see how this maybe a difficult to sort out, if theres even a point trying to or if you will attempt to and isn't as simple as I'm making it out. What you are all saying makes perfect logical sense. However I still think it would be good to try something new, as stated before maybe not my idea but another one for improvement. I'm totally for a lot of the things Averax has mentioned.

If I'm understanding everyone correctly, it seems to me like the debate is whether or not there are enough "quality" projects for a contest like this and whether or not it is possible to divine the "quality" of a project that isn't quite ready for a full demo.

I just thought I'd throw an idea out there: what if there was an "award", quote-unquote, for completed games and projects with a demo, but every month there would be a few "projects to keep your eye on" or something a little more eloquent. Basically it could offer support to projects in their early stages without the need to directly compare them to completed or further along projects. I feel like it would be hard to "grade" them like the other games without working demos, but in a list form we could still offer attention to up-and-coming developers while encouraging everyone to finish their games.

For the record, I also feel very strongly about the staff taking more direct control over the project. I know that as a developer I'm the WORST possible person to run this competition. When my project was nominated I didn't vote because there was no ethical way to partake in the competition. I'm a selfish prick, and I think it's unrealistic of me to expect everyone BUT me to be purely impartial. Not to mention that if the staff takes over the competition the number of nominees is irrelevant. The staff could choose as few or as many as they please that particular month.

The issue with that is if developers are annoyed if they aren't nominated because they thought their project is better, or if users thought that different projects deserved the nomination.
Taking it to the userbase meant that we wouldn't have that issue.

I like this idea- a "one to look out for" game- shows that it has been noticed and it may encourage a developer to continue.

The same issue remains though. If you have a few "projects to keep your eye on" each month, you will run out of active worthy projects.

I like it too. You're always going to have issues it just depends ow you try to work round it.

That's why I think the staff should take over the competition. Then maybe one month there's only two on the list, or maybe only one. You could select as many or as few as you think would be deserving that month. There would be no need for nominations, it's just a staff pick. When it's just about the end result and not the nominations, there's no need to try to find five every single month. If you legitimately can't find ONE good project each month, I'd be incredibly surprised, but then you'd at least be absolutely sure that the contest is a no go.



I understand your concern, but if you're worried that people are going to think their projects aren't getting enough attention then I'm not sure there's much you can do about it. EVERYONE is ALWAYS going to think their project should win no matter what form the contest is taking, and I can say that from personal experience as a nominee. People are always going to be upset that they didn't win (I know I was), and making the other community members the deciding factor isn't going to change that, it makes the contest about popularity. It doesn't matter who it was that decided their project wasn't good enough, it's the act of judgement that's frustrating. If you're going to have a competition, someone's feelings are going to get hurt. The only way to avoid that is to axe the contest.

People don't all agree that the staff should be making the picks though. The people that are overlooked will likely want to know specific criteria they have to meet in order to get chosen. That's why having the community decide is often the easiest thing to do.

I like it as well. The one who wins this contest would definitely get recognition, but at the same time the nominations who get picked to be voted upon will get attention as well =)

Rob, the main reason I believe using staff will work better is because take an this into consideration.

If the community picks the nominations, then they will also vote for the same nominations, you basically decide who has won with a good majority since those nominating will also vote for their nominations. Thus you've already rigged the system without knowing it. That's why it's best to let the staff pick them out. They will not be baised simply cause "it's a friend's game" or "it's just popular", but instead they take the time to analyze what game they really want to nominate and then it'll be a true surprise of the nominations.

Contests like most anticipated would work great with a community involvement to the end, because how can you know what everyone else is anticipating, it's an exception to the rule for staff judgement before voting.

Taking the easy route is not always the best route, because at times you need to put effort into making something the better route. Like baking a cake from scratch will always be the harder route as opposed to an out of the box cake mix, but the reward and satisfaction you get from the scratch cake will always outweigh the box cake mix.

I hope that makes sense.

My reasoning behind it is that people like to have their work bought to attention, this would encourage others to check the thread and maybe offer advice and feedback, This in turn would hopefully result in games reaching completion.

It gives fledgling games a goal to work towards,

We would only need 12 a year - and we have new projects being posted all the time. Maybe if word gets around that the people could get a mention even attract more topics.

But according to you there aren't enough quality projects to ALLOW a community decision. There appears to be an infinite circle of ideas that aren't going to work.

But, if I'm following your logic, you think staff picks should be avoided and there aren't enough quality projects for five nominations, so you'd prefer a community decision but with fewer nominations? If that's what you're looking for, do you have suggestions as to how to format it?

Even with fewer nominations, I would worry that there are not enough quality projects.

I really like the idea brought up by KD648, Axerax and others; I also really like the idea of a "project to keep a look out for" type of nomination.

Giving RRR staff control over which projects - for POTM as well as a potential GUC - may very well be a better route.
Allowing the community to choose nominees is a good thing, but not at the same time. As someone else who posted before me said, allowing the community to choose it then becomes a popularity contest. Having the staff choose which projects meet a certain amount of criteria and perceived quality lends more merit to those nominated.
You don't have to completely shut off community input either. You could have the staff select a certain amount of nominees for the month, debate amongst themselves as to which ones the staff really feel deserve to be there, whittle the list down to maybe 2 or 3, then make an announcement in which the community can comment and give feedback/opinions to which the staff can take into account when making the final decision.

I understand what people have said about a lack of quality in the GUC forum. However, most of the developers here are working solo, many are teenagers, working against personal disadvantages (some of us just can't art, some of us just can't script worth a damn). What the community perceives as 'low quality' and 'little effort' may very well be wrong. There are some games that the developer has actually put a lot of effort into personally, but their level of mapping may not be up to community standards and therefore are automatically cut from the list of hopefuls or honorable mentions.
Again, I understand the concerns of those that have said something along the lines of why nominate/reward projects that likely won't be completed. It's a reasonable argument, but on the other hand, why not? There's a lot of threads in GUC that get torn and slashed to bits before the developer can even really get their feet wet so to say. Why have we allowed that to become acceptable? Why can't we offer constructive criticism instead and support new, prospective developers and point them in the right direction? Yes, there's plenty of games in GUC that have terrible mapping, but a half decent story. In some ways, to me at least, we're preventing new developers from being successful by being overly harsh with criticism and that I don't feel is fair in any way.

I also like the idea of expanding nominations to projects posted on other sites. I know it means more work for staff members, but it'd garnish a lot more attention not just for RRR but within the RM community itself.

My 2 cents on the subject.

I suppose that's fair, although if you don't think we have more than one quality project a month we should start seriously considering the value of this site. I'll just put forward one final proposal and then I'll have said my piece.

While it is an incredibly valuable skill to pinpoint the flaws in an idea, no idea is ever perfect. That said, if no ideas were ever acted upon we'd all be sitting around a fire in a cave wearing leopard skins. If we don't eventually put forward something concrete and act upon it, this thread is going to be thirty pages long come December and we will have nothing but a thread about why everyone else is wrong. My suggestion is that we hold a "contest election". Basically, everyone in the community can offer their blueprint of how the contest should be formatted and run. Then at the end of a one or two week submission period, the staff (because they are the ones that will actually run the contest whether the contest itself is a community decision or not) will vote between the different proposals and decide which one is best for the community or if dropping the contest altogether is in the community's best interest. That way everyone has their say and the community will have a solid decision on how to move forward.

As both a suggestion as an example, my idea:

Project of the Month would be a community vote between two categories: three different completed games and three long demos. The projects would be nominated by the staff, and then voted on by the community to decide the winner. Any projects that deserve to be nominated but would be over the monthly limit would be put in a "project backlog" and would be put forward in the slower months where there were less projects. Projects that were nominated, but did not win, could be nominated again but ONLY if the backlog is empty. In addition to the winner of the two categories, a list of one to three under construction that deserve attention would be released in the same thread. Projects under Construction that were over the monthly limit would also be put into a similar backlog to preserve them for slower months. Any backlogged or nominated projects would be notified of their status and are welcome to share that status on their thread.

I thought the issue was that there aren't enough good projects though o.o;

If there are tons of projects, what's the problem? If there aren't enough, just put them all in a poll. If one is better than the rest that's not a problem - it's the project of the month.

Your suggestion didn't say good projects though, it said all projects.

Indeed, but for project of the month you don't need several good projects, you just need one that is better than the others available. By definition, it is saying "we've looked at the projects available and x is the best".

Then that means in a slow month, a terrible project could be selected. You presumably would want all winners to be of a particular standard.

Anyway that you look at it, it'll be biased. If you allow the staff to pick, or the members, there will always be people wondering why they didn't get picked and think favorites are being played. However, monthly does seem quite often, and there are some months that nothing good comes out.

I have one idea, but not sure if it would work as well as it would seem. Instead of monthly, we could do this quarterly (March, June, September, and December), as this would give people more opportunity to fix up and provide quality games (we hope). Those who want to participate for a chance to such fame as having their project nominated must submit their game to the staff by the end of the designated month. The month following would then be used for members and staff to vote (and they can only vote once), and the results would be made known at the end of the month or beginning of next.

So as an example, the designer gets their game submitted for nomination by the end of March. Voting takes place in June. Results of the vote are revealed at the end of June, beginning of July.

Maybe also include some runner up awards as well (if not already included), so people see how close they were. Or post all the results to see who came in first and who came in last. Another thought, what about a raspberry award for worst project of the quarter?

I was thinking about this again the other day and I thought I would try one more stab at throwing in a possible suggestion (even if it's probably been repeated many times by other members here):

What I think we should do is have one project nominated -- weither it be something to look out forward, shows the most improvement, a completed full version game, or a fantastic demo -- each month which is chosen by the staff members of the site which still will be called "Project Of The Month." The only guidelines should be:

* Full version games should generally be chosen over most projects (in most cases), considering that they ARE indeed finished pieces compared to other projects that aren't.

* A game cannot be nominated twice UNLESS the demo was nominated and then the full version game later onwards.

* People can voice their opinions, if they wish, to the site staff, but, in the end, they ultimately choose the final selection.

After the entire year is done, we should then vote for "Project Of The Year!" We should then take all the previous 12 (or less if the demo / full version of a game was chosen in the same year) and have the entire forum vote on that instead of having the staff select the winner.

--

Either way, I'm sure you guys will come up with something that should be fair and balanced. I really like a lot of the ideas that are down, so it really doesn't matter what method you guys decide to try. Either way, can we please bring this back in time for July? That would be cool.

Anyways, that's enough of my two cents on this matter. ^^