Here's their brief wrap-up of IGF:
http://www.gametunnel.com/html/section-viewarticle-46.html

Here's an article on the award winners:
http://www.gametunnel.com/html/section-viewarticle-44.html

Though in the article the author raises concerns about Savage, a game with over a million dollar budget, receiving the lion's share of the IGF awards.

As Indie developers, what are your guy's thoughts on this?

I don't think I'd take it quite so melodramatically, but the question has been raised since the game was first nominated. It's a tough call. After all, what's the most famous indie game of all time? Doom, right? I don't know what Doom's budget was, but I expect that in adjusted dollars it exceeds that of Savage.

So at what point does a game get EXCLUDED from competition because too much money was spent on its development? Do we start having categories for "best game built on under $50,000" and "Best game built for under $5000?" When do the larger game studios start cheating with a half-million dollars of content that has been "donated" in exchange for royalties / shares? And I don't think it would be fair to the makers of Savage to completely exclude them from such competitions, either... having a larger budget from someone shouldn't be an offense that completely bars you from competition, either.

So I agree with Russell and many others in saying it feels like an unfair competition. It seems like the IGF should focus on the game equivalent of "best new artist." Recognizing up-and-comers struggling away in their garage. They were competing with a game that really belongs in a different league. But what rules do you put in place to limit that? How do you make it fair for everyone, from the lone programmer / artist struggling in his garage, to the small team of indies hoping to make a name for themselves and enter into a series of contracts someday with a major publisher?

I wish I knew the answer to that one.

Well, I'm just going to reiterate and expand upon what I said on Quarter to Three:

Speaking as a participant, I must confess that I don't really understand the real purpose of the IGF or the competition. Is it to help small studios gain exposure that they could not otherwise afford? Is it to encourage the development of "innovative" game titles? Is it just to lend some street cred to the overall GDC exercise?

I think the interesting thing about Savage in this context is not simply that they were able to raise a lot of money, but why they were able to do so. Savage looks to be a blend of the three most popular mainstream game genres: FPS, RTS, and MMORPG. I'm sure that it was much easier for them to raise capital than it would have been for the developers of games like Anito or Fashion Cents or Fuzzee Teevee.

The IGF seems to be all about rewarding innovation. Previous winners have included Bad Milk and Wild Earth - games that explored new modes of play. On the other hand, previous winners have also included games such as Shattered Galaxy and Tread Marks that are more like conventional mainstream games. So who really knows what it's all about?

Russ, Greg, and I talked about this some at GDC.

No definition of "indie" is going to be perfect. There is always going to be some excluded who maybe should be included, or vice versa.

It doesn't bother me that "Savage" was in the IGF. They did have a big budget (by indie standards), but that's not exactly a disqualification. (It's more a point of envy for me... ;) ) Since they fit the definition posted by the IGF, it's hard to argue.

Most of the IGF entries were damned impressive, though, budget or no. Hell, some of the student showcase games were impressive enough to be scary.

As for how games are selected for the IGF, it might need some tweaking. Beyond that, I'm not going to say.

I agree that there need to be more indie game festivals. They're coming, though.

Sundance was originally funded by a millionaire moviestar--but not that long ago, really. Especially when you consider that movies have only recently crossed the century mark as an artform. There were other festivals before Sundance, of course, but most of them were very small, and usually regional.

There aren't a lot of venues for national indie game festivals, currently. GDC is about it. I don't see E3 deigning to recognize indie games anytime soon. Fortunately, other game conferences are springing up, like the XGDX and the mulitplayer game con in Austin, TX. It's not infeasible to think that independent festivals could spring up alongside these new conferences. An example is the Next Wave Festival (http://nextwave.org.au/2004/) happening in Australia this spring (well, autumn for them). The Next Wave Festival is adding an independent game sub-conference this year. Since this is the first year for indie games there, I don't think there's going to be any kind of festival or competition. Maybe next year, though.

And we mustn't forget the Indie Games Con (http://www.indiegamescon.com/), which is now in its 3rd year. Though not really a competition, the IGC provides a great oppurtunity for showcasing new indie games.

So, IMO, things are looking pretty good, and getting better.

-David

Originally posted by milo
Savage looks to be a blend of the three most popular mainstream game genres: FPS, RTS, and MMORPG.

...

The IGF seems to be all about rewarding innovation. Previous winners have included Bad Milk and Wild Earth - games that explored new modes of play. On the other hand, previous winners have also included games such as Shattered Galaxy and Tread Marks that are more like conventional mainstream games. So who really knows what it's all about?

Well, if the IGF is about rewarding innovation, why did Savage get all these accolades for apeing the gameplay model of a fairly popular & free Half-Life mod (Natural Selection)? As a hard-working indie who often wastes time as a professional game programmer, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to see a company with a budget aimed at A or B list games being categorized as an "indie" for doing something unoriginal.

At the end of the day I think that the best thing is for indies who clearly do not belong in the IGF to just not enter. The Savage guys should have bowed out. In my opinion it was bad form for them to enter given the gigantic resources behind them. There are plenty of other large game companies that are completely self funded that could enter the IGF but don't. Is it because it's not worth their time, or because they recognize that the IGF isn't there to spotlight $1m+ budget games that have widespread distribution?

I agree, it should really be a good faith thing. If you have a US$1.5 million budget, you don't really need that IGF prize, do you?

Although, since the scores multiply quality with innovation, you would think that any interesting game stands a fighting chance, regardless of budget - Savage might have had the whopping production budget, but going by the screenshots, it didn't look particularly original. A game like say, Pencil Whipped, should, in all fairness, score at least as well for graphics, if the principles of the judging system are adhered to.

But then that other article points out that the judging is a farce anyway.

Oh well. Shame. I thought the twin purposes of the competition were to promote innovation, and champion the little guy. This looks suspiciously like neither.

Originally posted by Anthony Flack
A game like say, Pencil Whipped, should, in all fairness, score at least as well for graphics, if the principles of the judging system are adhered to.

Pencil Whipped was an IGF finalist in 2002 (it didn't take any awards, though).

Back on the main topic: we had some discussion about the issue of funding in regards to IGF during our road trip back home. Personally, I'm fairly ambivalent about the whole thing. One thing to consider in these discussions is that being a finalist is a prize in and of itself. For instance, our company didn't take any of the IGF category awards this year; but we certainly made a lot of good connections from the exposure. I browsed through all of the web/downloadable entries when they were posted, and, if memory serves, the finalists were a fair representation of what was entered.

Pencil Whipped was an IGF finalist in 2002

Yeah, I know. Interesting graphics aside, the game itself was pretty rubbish though. Right - sorry, back to the main topic.

Ouch! This topic is very uncomfortable.

It really doesn’t seem like theres any real answer here. My initial feeling is that they really shouldn’t have entered. That prize money could do so much more for a smaller developer.

… but why does that opinion that make me feel uneasy? I don’t know why to be honest, but it does.

Hypothetically ( honestly! ), Lets look at a ‘classic’ independent developer. Like ….. us! ;)
We make a couple more lower budget games, and keep on going best we can. But what happens if we hit the jackpot one day and create THE game that sells us 100000 copies online sharpish.
Now we have a pretty damn huge budget for our next title if we need it… so we decide to finally create the game of our dreams, with all those ideas we’re dying to try out. After 3 years and a load of cash ( that we earned, not given ) a fantastic, original, innovative and very fun game has been created. Completely independently funded, and completely independent in nature.

Now, should we not enter this obvious champion for independent games simply because we spend a huge amount of money developing it compared to everyone else?

I think would be much happier allowing a big budget game if I knew the ‘big budget’ was earned genuinely rather that simply given(?) I, dunno…. It a tricky situation

Originally posted by Matthew

One thing to consider in these discussions is that being a finalist is a prize in and of itself. For instance, our company didn't take any of the IGF category awards this year; but we certainly made a lot of good connections from the exposure.

Didn't you guys win the Project Goldmaster contract? Congrats.

Anyway, yeah I think this is kind of a touchy subject.

Personally, I agree with the last few posters. A 1.5 million budget basically puts you with the big boys. It seems the only difference between S2 Games (the makers of Savage) and other mainstream retail developers is that Savage's publisher isn't as well known as Midway, Interplay, Acclaim, and etc. After all, Savage was available at most major gaming retail chains from the outset. That's no small feat.

Though to be honest, I do admire them for being able to come up with 1.5 million dollars for their first project. So I don't want to minimize that accomplishment either...

It's just I get a feeling in my stomach (whether it's right or wrong) that S2 is really a mainstream retail developer in sheep's clothing. Them being nominated for regular GDC Awards only added to this feeling.

Also, I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea to have a budget cap for titles to enter the IGF competition. For example, you could only enter your title if you had a budget under 150-250K. This still keeps a very open field, but it prevents titles from monopolizing the event simply because of much higher production values relative to the competition.

I think Savage may have deserved a couple of awards, but it left a bad taste in my mouth that they took home the majority of the awards.

Bongpig said he'd be much happier if he knew the "big budget" was genuinely earned rather than simply given. But I started to think about it. Using your example, if you made a big budgeted game from the success of your prior game, you'd most likely have pretty good exposure and you obviously have money. Even though you're independently funded, you really won't get much out of entering the IGF. The IGF provides exposure (though not large amounts) to the contestants and prize money to the winners. Since (in the example) you're already successful, you don't need either. You'd just be taking the small exposure and money from a smaller dev that really needs it, for the sake of a few extra accolades.

If it's just about accolades then once you reach a certain size, there are tons of awards that you can qualify for since there seems to be a new videogame TV award show popping up every year. Also, the GDC has awards for mainstream developers as well…

I wasn't picking on you Bongpig, I was just using your example to make a point. That is instituting a budget cap might not be a bad idea since the bigger budgeted titles don't really need the money or exposure from IGF in the first place. After all, I looked at S2 Games press page and Savage had been reviewed in every major online videogame news site and several gaming magazines all before becoming an IGF finalist. So it wasn't like they needed exposure... (well at least relative to other Indie games)

So an overall budget cap might help preserve the recognition of the lesser known small guy or teams that excel. But it really comes down to the purpose of the IGF for the organizers. Is it to recognize the small guys for creating innovative titles, which will hopefully inject new ideas into the game industry? Or is just to award companies who create good games that weren't financed by publisher xyz?

If it's the latter, within a few short years the IGF will just be a little sandbox for the big boys to play in while they wait for E3. This is what the Game Tunnel article was eluding too...personally I think it's a possibility.

Chris,
If you take my previous example, and assume our super-game has been made. You are right in saying we wouldnt need the money so why enter?
But its not just about the money is it?
The IGF is the 'independent games festival' right? So it cant be good for the competition in general if some of the very best independent games are left out due to a big budget.
Savage isnt a good example, but lets just imagine that a team spends a large amount on producing a genuinly exceptional and original game. A game that deserves to be represented at IGF as its the best in independent development. Surely all scales of indie development need to be covered dont they?

After a bit more thought, I think they should seperate the cash prizes from the awards a bit. By all means have a 'Best Independent game' catagory that anyone could win, but the cash should be reserved for helping smaller teams in seperate prize catagories.
So if we spend 500k making an awsome game, we would still like to win the best game award, even if we dont need the money. Lets not forget that these award are not just about the cash. They are about recognition and publicity. So even if I was loaded, these two reasons are still good enough to want to enter.
Am I making sense?

For my 2 cents the determination of indie boils down to do they have a publisher and how was their budget raised?

If their production budget was raised internally from sales of other products, a second mortgage or from non-industry investors then it's fine. If even one cent came from a games publisher (mainstream or not) then they are not "independent" by definition.

I'm torn on the budget cap issue. On one hand a budget cap is a necessity, if even to promote the fact that money doesn't create good games. The industry needs to come to the realization that it chooses to spend millions of dollars in development and that it's not a necessity - that the player doesn't care how much it costs to make.

On the other hand, if the above is true then there's no reason why a guy in his basement can't release a game that blows the million dollar products out of the water.

I mean, am I the only one who doesn't see $1.5 million dollars worth of game there? Am I the only person who thinks they could blow that game out of the water using even one tenth of their budget?

At any rate, I think people might be overvaluing these awards. I have yet to hear of a grand prize winner resulting in a top selling game. Chances are you will do just as well in sales by skipping the awards and focusing on your web community and marketing.

Bongpig: Definitely, I see your point.

I definitely agree It's not just about the money. In fact in my previous post, I said for a developer the IGF provides money (for the winners), exposure, and recognition.

But let's assume the Super Innovative game is in the IGF. You don't need the money since you already had a large budget. You don't really need the little extra exposure the IGF provides since the Super Innovative game is already in a lot of videogame sites and mags. The only thing you really gain is recognition, but if the game really is innovative most likely it will go up for a standard GDC award anyway at the same event. Not to mention your title has a good chance to appear at other award shows since you're able to hold your own with the big dogs.

With that said, I still wouldn't mind seeing a big-budgeted truly innovative title by an Independent developer at IGF. I just hope we don't end up with a bunch of mediocre derivative retail games that are simply at the IGF because they aren't published by EA, Activision, or other major publishers. I'd rather not see the IGF become a cheap promotional tool for lesser-known publishers.

Also, I agree with Kanu on both counts.

If you receive one penny from a publisher (regardless of who it is) while in development, then you shouldn't be eligible for an IGF award since you're not really independent.

Also, the award shows and especially the IGF give some exposure amongst others in the industry, but it doesn't necessarily boost sales substantially with your game unless you were able to land a good deal.

I think the reason some of us are giving this issue attention is because there aren't too many stages where Indie games receive recognition (as David pointed out). Whereas almost every few months there's a new award show popping up for mainstream games. So I guess some here are concerned that one of the few events that recognizes Indie games might slowly be taken over or at the very least diluted by mainstream games.

Chris, I think we're in agreement in general here. I agree with you completely regards games that have other means of exposure. If the IGF doesnt mean much to the developer, then they shouldnt enter.

I was trying to to think of instances where creating a blanket rule like budget caps, would eliminate genuine competitors. Basically trying to figure out if budget caps are completely fair.

Going back to my original example. What if we took the decision to spend all our money from previous games on a single super-game, that was actually very original and not very mainstream at all. A prime candidate for the IGF as I see it. Its these examples that make me uncomfortable. This game may not be getting much exposure due to its abstract nature, but the developers are taking a risk, spending alot of money, for something they always wanted to do. This is exactly the kind of thing the independent community trumpets all the time. Innovation. Breaking the mould. etc etc
But it seems to me, a developer taking this very gutsy decision to spend a huge chunk of money on a dream, would be depending quite heavily on an event like IGF. We need to leave the window of opportunity open for this possibility ... us unlikely as it seems!
If we apply a budget cap, there would be no room for these type of game at IGF. The exact kind of games the competition could really do with.

...Exactly the kind of game I cant wait to see. Imagine what some of the most innovative brains within the independent community could do with the time and money. Surely we're all interested in that?

Good point.

Perhaps any game should be eligible as long as its 100% self-funded (ie. private investors, loans, your wallet). That way it still leaves the door open for a gutsy/risky big budgeted title by an Independent developer to be recognized. But hopefully it will prevent lower tier publishers from crowding the IGF with derivative titles or titles that simply don't belong there.

This reminds me of discussions of which punk bands are *real* punk bands and which ones are just "posers" and "sellouts". Most often, "real" requires that the band be struggling in obscurity, with few fans and less exposure. Heaven help the poor band that lands a record deal and (even worse) gets radio airplay. They are labelled a "sellout" and snubbed by the "real" fans and "real" bands.

Budget-size has nothing to with independent status. Just because a team doesn't have to scrimp and save and refuse to answer the phone because it might be irate creditors calling doesn't mean they aren't independent.

-David

I don't think this is about selling out. The IGF, in my opinion, serves two purposes. It showcases games that are too small to have much publicity or a publisher, and it provides a small cash prize that could be very helpful for a small studio.

Savage fails on both accounts. They don't need the publicity; they already are in retail. They don't need the prize either. I think it's lame that they didn't stay out of the contest.

While I wasn't so sure about Savage at first, after seeing the Savage guys win the IGF award I've changed my mind. While their game isn't necessarily extremely innovative it's pretty fun and has great production values. Also, even though they had a large budget and team (by indie standards, small in mainstream), them being able to get that kind of capital, organize a team, build a game like Savage and not end up slave to some publisher's advances is very impressive. So while I would have liked to some some of the other games win I do think the Savage guys deserved to win.

They don't need the publicity; they already are in retail.
That statement doesn't make much sense. Hitting the retail shelves isn't a goal in-and-of itself. You still need to generate sales, and for that you need all the publicity you can get. I would think that was their main reason for entering.

While their game isn't necessarily extremely innovative it's pretty fun and has great production values

I haven't played it, but going on that comment, this indicates that the judging has slipped up - if the competition was being judged as they say it is, a game that balances reasonably high quality and reasonably high innovation should beat an incredibly well done, less innovative game hands down.

And then there wouldn't be a problem.