I haven’t entered this contest for the last couple years, but I’ve just recently decided to give it another try and haven’t submitted anything yet. 
- HC
Well, I feel very busy with just one simple game to make, so I suppose we really don’t play in the same court, considering all your projects ! And could you give us a few details about your close-to-release iPhone game ? Actually I didn’t find any information about it on your Over-The-Counter website… And my question is not totally off-topic, as this is another advertisement issue !
The JGO Comp 2009 organization was not bad at all ! Once more, it just lacked some publicity, as it seems many people discovered its existence some time after it ended. And even if the 60 hours limit for this competition is crazy ( I mean, for me ! ), I hope I will be able to give it a try if there is another one organized this year.
Don’t worry, once Apple has accepted it I will plaster the Off Topic section with details.
In the meantime, here is a screenshot.
Pushing myself on a more challenging game this year and still working on it.
Applets are good. Pack200 is a bit of a pain just because I don’t have a server set up to test. Don’t suppose there is a server out there somewhere that we can use for testing?
you don’t need a server to test pack200, just use the following parameter
and you can test locally without needing a server (only requirement is you must have java 6+)
Awesome! Thanks Kapta! Pack200 back in the good books. 
I personally like the applet concept. It’s easier and safer to test others’ games, and also gives us some extra bytes imo.
And as others have said Pack200 gives us an amount of extra bytes that really makes it worth working on it a lot more.
This is my first year, and I like that it is applet and we can use pack200. I’ve submitted one game so far, and I’m working on my 2nd (I’m sure it will be completed).
I didn’t submit my game yet (more works than last year…).
Pack200 is far more a problem for me than the applet only. Not that there is mush difference, but it was a “late” change of rules :-. I didn’t plan it and it changes a lot of thinks on what I can do… so it has droped a few my interest in the contest.
Nevertheless I will try to finish my game (it will not be well polished as usual ;D).
If anyone wants the source for the basic server I wrote in order to do local testing, drop me a PM.
As for me, I have no submissions because I got distracted by Kev’s Slick API. Also, the judging still sucks after all these years. Maybe the judges should collaborate while judging. It could be done in a series of public elimination rounds in which the judges debate who stays and who goes. Then they can rank the remaining 5. That process would certainly be more entertaining.
I was sure I’d posted it somewhere already but couldn’t find it, and didn’t want to double-post. OTOH if you don’t remember me posting it it’s probably a false memory.
i recall pack200 compatible webserver being posted… just not sure by who 
If you’re looking for different judging types, by all means ask for it and I will try to oblige.
The reason I haven´t started yet is lack of time, but I still hope to be able to do something. Letting an idea idle for some time can make it possible to complete a game in a day or two, so that is my hope :). The simplicity was what made this so appealing, but now I have been somewhat following the 4k threads and I have a vague feeling that there are a lot of things one should know to compete on even terms, but I might actually be wrong. So the idea of browsing through a few hundred posts to find out probably subconsciously made me code some simple “normal” games instead.
Yes, either I just started noticing now, or the need for a wiki has really become urgent. http://www.java-gaming.org/index.php/topic,21869.0.html Do add info to the wiki!
If we believe what has been written so far in this subject, we can count at least 15 works in progress, to be added to the 17 already finished ones. And this amount does consider neither ShannonSmith’s untitled project, nor Morre’s Little Worlds 4k. And what about some famous former participants like Keving Glass and zero.one, among a few others ?
The 15 WIP identified in this subject :
SimonH : 1
Abuse : 1
CaptainJester : 1
steveyO : 1
Markus_Persson : 2
StephR : 1
SquashMonster : 1
Demonpants : 1 or 2
pjt33 : 1
hclower : 1
Ranger : 1
icza : 1
Bonbon-chan : 1
jojoh : 1
I’ve averaged around three games per year since the 2005 compo, but this time I’ve been more busy than usual. I’ll try to submit something, at least, but I can’t say when and what. Right now, I’m doing thesis work at a mobile game dev company, which means I’ve gone from being at uni perhaps two hours per day to being at work eight hours a day.
EDIT: Oh, and seeing that Little Worlds was mentioned in the post above - yea, I would definitely like to turn that into a proper game, but I completely lost motivation to work on it. With any luck, it’ll come back to me before march.
[quote=“StephR,post:36,topic:34820”]
You can add me to that list too.
I’m a newcomer, I’ve never submitted anything to the 4k contest before. ;D
I think it’s a bit early to comment on the number of submissions, I’m sure there are more people like me spending time polishing off their games.
[quote]And what about some famous former participants like Keving Glass and zero.one, among a few others ?
[/quote]
I’m out this year due to getting distracted by Kev’s Slick API. Though you can check out the Slick game I’m working on:
[quote]If you’re looking for different judging types, by all means ask for it and I will try to oblige.
[/quote]
I think the judges should certainly collaborate. When they worked alone, they came out with independent scoring systems that were incompatible with each other. Taking the averages of those numbers to determine rank never made any sense. In fact, the numbers themselves never really made any sense. Judges seemed to be able sort the list, but the game evaluation scores made little or no sense. The score categories made even less sense and none of the judges seemed to pay attention to them anyway. For example, there were many games that had very little game play value, but were technically very difficult to implement. I never saw that reflected in the judge’s scoring. I never saw the judge write in his comments something to the effect of, well this game is no fun, but the 3D graphics are unbelievably amazing. Hence game-play = 10, technical = 95.
I think the most efficient way for the judges to collaborate would be to hold elimination rounds. The judges could separately create ranked lists. Then they could collaborate and agree together to discard half the entries. Then they could go back to the remainder and re-rank. This could be repeated until we have a top 5. The judges could argue together until they agree on ranking those top 5. The results of each phase could be posted and it would be interesting to see these partial results over time. In fact, a chat log between the judges arguing over which entries stay and which goes would be awesome to read.