Your place to discover great books. (I might be biased.)

Button Interaction Color Code:  New Page  Pop-up Window  External Website Scroll to Section Inactive Link

If you’re new to these Contest Archives, then welcome to the Heart of the OHR’s 2016 contest page series. If you’re taking the archive walking tour, then welcome back. On these next five pages, you’ll find curated information, as well as access to original information for everything related to the fourth Heart of the OHR contest. These pages will modify original content layouts to make the best use of this format, but all relevant information can be read or accessed through this page series. For the sake of preservation, along with curated content, this page series will provide links to forum threads and articles related to this contest for anyone who wants to relive contest history.

Formatting Note: To prevent text clutter, I’m using yellow pop-up buttons to contain extra information about contest rules, prizes, and time periods, as well as definitions for the “achievements” each game received. Likewise, I’m using red buttons to link to the original sources of this information in case you want to read everything about it or experience what contestants of that time period experienced. All links are active as of this writing, but links are known to go dead over time. If you encounter a broken link while viewing this page, please send me a message letting me know. Be sure to mention which contest year you’re viewing and which button leads to a broken link. Thank you.

Format Notes

Long before this site existed, I had to communicate contest rules and results through message boards and magazines, each subject to the standards and formats of their hosts. I’d post either plain text or a generic Microsoft Word document with a rough table designed to communicate layout without having any real control over the final presentation. In 2016, that was an OHR community norm, and many like me who hosted a contest or presented results without owning their own website or blog had the same limitations.

But now that I can customize the look however I want, I figured it’s time to adopt an official standard for the Heart of the OHR’s announcements and results. The designs for the following page series represent that standard.

I’ve done my best to make these pages exciting, but do note that I don’t want to make them crazy or resource intensive. So, I’ve decided to limit how much content I share about each game. To keep things simple and authentic, each game will reuse its original screenshot for the results section, and only through exceptional cases will I add more. That said, unlike the original articles where I first posted the results, you can click on each screenshot to enlarge it.

Also, this page series will defer certain content to other pages to streamline the current theme. In other words, this page series will cover rules and results but not statistics. For statistics, I recommend checking out the official Heart of the OHR statistics page.

This page series may also present content that either stirred up interest or paid homage to the contest. This can include videos, teases, or exclusive games. In some cases, these elements were not part of the original announcements.

Finally, please be aware that I will not post links to any of these games simply because I want to respect the right of each author to display his or her game in the spaces or forums he chooses. That said, most games can still be found on the Slime Salad game list, and links posted in the original contest thread may still be active. But given the decisions of each author, some games may no longer be available, and it is not up to me to make them available. Please understand, and thank you for understanding.

Additional Note: These contest pages were originally designed to contain all relevant content on a single page per contest year, but thanks to intensive page resources crushing delivery speed (in one case making it impossible to load the page without suffering a timeout error), I had to spread content across multiple pages to make viewing more manageable. Hopefully this change to a page series will improve your reading experience, as well as offer you more breakpoints to continue where you left off should you need a rest. And thanks again for reading. I’ve put an unreasonable amount of time into building these archives, time I could’ve spent writing books, so thank you for taking the time to revisit history.

 

The following content represents the original article announcing the 2016 contest results, first published on community member The Wobbler’s OHR site, Super Walrus Land (which also hosted the 2014 results). But if you’d like to learn more about the conditions leading to these results, please click on the respective pop-up buttons explaining each contest component so you know what guidelines each contestant was expected to follow.

2016 Contest Rules

The following is the 2016 series rule set, based on the original rules this contest was founded on plus the small additions and changes made during the 2012 and 2014 seasons. In addition, this season allows for one new acceptance condition.

Rules:

  • Must be an RPG. This is a zero rule. What categorizes as an RPG can be left open for debate, but at the end of the day it must be an RPG. In 2010, we saw one game stretch the limit of what we considered acceptable (Do You Want to Be a Hero?), and I would argue Silhouette from 2012 pushed the boundaries, as well. In 2014, we basically bent the rule as far as possible with T4R4D1DDL3. For a complete list of the games that made the cut in 2010, 2012, and 2014, consult the following link.
  • NonRPGs not permitted (See Above).
  • Joke games not permitted (though funny ones are okay).
  • Special scripting is okay (as long as it doesn’t turn the RPG into a nonRPG).
  • Game must have at least 30 minutes of playtime with a good chunk of that devoted to story (in other words, 30 minutes without level grinding).
  • Updates to previous RPGs permitted.
  • Updates to previous RPGs need at least 30 minutes of new content to be eligible. Changing a textbox to an old two-hour game and re-releasing it doesn’t make it eligible.
  • If you are posting a rereleased game for the contest, you must provide either a readme (or some document) discussing where the new content starts (if it’s a continuation) or what the new content is (if it’s integrated into earlier previously released sections), or you must supply a save file that begins the game just before the new content kicks in. If you fail to do this, your game will not be entered into the contest.

Note: I prefer the former since it’s clearer what’s new and discourages players from beginning your game halfway into the story.

Important Note: Historically, players are really bad about investigating new content and often replay the old stuff and vote on that without ever seeing the new content. This really skews the results at the end of the contest. This is especially true of long games. If you are submitting a rerelease and you care about doing well, please, please, please be abundantly clear about what’s new and give your players every possible incentive to play to the new stuff. This means improving the first 30 minutes of the game if necessary. This means making the whole game as fun and amazing as possible. Don’t turn your players off early or they may never get to the new content. Remember, just because you provide a save point or obvious information about where the new stuff begins and ends doesn’t mean your players will use it. If they end up just voting on the same stuff they played five years ago, your points may not count. Think about the whole game.

  • Fan games and parodies discouraged, but not forbidden. Original stories preferred.

New Rule for 2016: As the only exception to the must-be-an-RPG rule, you may alternatively release a game that’s “in the spirit of 1999” and still be eligible for entry. This means that you may emulate the kind of game that was made for the OHR between 1998 and 2000. This rule was made possible by T4R4D1DDL3, so consult that game to see this rule in action.

 

2016 Contest Release Categories

Release Categories:

In 2010 every entry was lumped into the same category and judged under the same conditions regardless of originality versus the rereleased. In 2012 they were divided into three categories: Original, Rereleased, and OHR Legends. In 2014, they were separate categories, but shared the same vote. We will be continuing this trend in 2016.

Original and Rereleased Games:

Original games are the games that have never been publicly released prior to March 1, 2016. These are the easiest to judge since the ground is fresh. We had eight original entries in 2010, including the Game of the Year winner, Motrya, 13 in 2012, and nine in 2014.

Note: These games just need to come with a Coke and a smile.

Rereleased games have been unleashed on the community before March 1, 2016, and are making a second life appearance in the Heart of the OHR Contest. Any original game that was released for the 2010, 2012, or 2014 contests will automatically default to this category if reentered for 2016. In 2010, we had four rereleased games; in 2012, we had three. In 2014, we had one.

Note: These games must include documents or save files that inform the player where the new content can be found. See the rules above for more information.

OHR Legends:

This special category is reserved for the games that have been submitted as rereleases in previous Heart of the OHR contests and resubmitted this year as “legendary” contestants. There are nine games eligible for Level 1 Legend status and two (Vikings of Midgard and Okédoké) eligible for Level 2 Legend status. In addition to a potential win, these games also get a “level badge.”

 

2016 Contest Window

For the last three seasons, I wanted to maintain an open window that could accommodate most authors’ active development period based on historical references (usually revolving around schoolwork). This year, I wanted to experiment with an earlier window to see if more people might participate.

Spoiler Alert: This year had the lowest turnout of any Heart of the OHR season.

Release Dates:

Unlike traditional contests, “Heart of the OHR” will not require a start time or an end time per se. Rather, this will adopt the “release window” technique made popular with Game-a-thon, in that any RPG released within the window is eligible (provided it meets the above standards).

Window begins March 1st and ends July 31sh.

I will allow a two-week grace period for bug-fixing (Note: this grace period is not reserved for adding new content, unless that new content is required to fix a bug or to tie a loose thread). Entries must be ready for voting by August 15th.

All deadlines will expire at 6am EST the following day.

 

2016 Contest Prizes

Prizes:

Note: New Prizes for 2016.

Because RPGs are harder to come by these days (especially in contests), I thought it’s only fair to combat the odds with prizes that don’t suck. Therefore, various members of the community have agreed to give special bonuses to entrants and the winner.*

Anyone out there can add to the prize pot if he or she has something to offer, so feel free to help make this into a treasure trove of winnings if you want to, and if you have the resources for it.

Specifically I’d like to see:

  • cash prizes
  • fan art
  • theme song about the winning game(s)
  • gifted games
  • etc.

You may view talked about prizes or add to the prize pot discussion here.

I’ll update the prize list here as new prizes are offered. New prizes can be added until the end of the contest.

Potential community offered prizes include:

  • OHR mousepad for winner (courtesy RedMaverickZero).
  • An official Spoonweaver coffee mug™ and some buttons and magnets to the winner and maybe buttons and magnets to second place Spoonweaver’s personal pick (courtesy Spoonweaver).
  • $20 to the first place winner and $5 to the second place winner (courtesy Bob the Hamster)
  • Another $20 to the first place winner and $5 to the second place winner (courtesy Willy Elektrix)
  • An Amazon gift card or a Steam/GOG/etc. game worth ≤$20 to first prize, ≤$10 to second, and ≤$5 to third. (courtesy Foxley).
  • The best Original Sound Track (OST) will win a presentation of its tracks on a recently made Cymascope. (courtesy Matokage). Note: This is a subjective win determined by the prize holder.
  • Free coupon for a copy of Superheroes Anonymous: A Modern-day Fantasy, Year Two, e-book version (valued at $4.95), plus one additional priced e-book from my personal bibliography, redeemable at Smashwords, for all entries, plus one additional priced e-book for third and second place winners, and my entire 2015-2016 catalog for the first place winner. (Courtesy Pepsi Ranger). Note: This prize can be redeemed at the end of the year for a greater range of choices.

Note: This list will remain open to new prize additions from now until August 15th. I will update this list as I get new volunteers.

Special Prize for OHR Legends releases:

Any game categorized as an OHR Legends release will receive a special trophy classifying it as such. This is strictly a prestige award, but it will remind future players of the game’s longevity. This trophy will receive “levels” each time it’s awarded to a specific game. OHR Legends releases should still meet the 30 minutes of additional game time rule to be eligible for the trophy.

Note: Until I get someone to draw the trophy and Mogri to provide a location for it on the game’s dedicated page, this trophy will be in spirit only. I know, lame. We’re working on it!

So, as you can see, it would be crazy not to join and make something for the Heart of the OHR Contest, so take the chance.

*Because prizes are awarded by members of the community, and because community members come and go like the wind, all prizes are subject to change.

Note: Due to a backup from past contests, James Paige will *not* be doing bug bounties this year.

 

2016 Contest Tips

Tips:

Release the best game you’re capable of making. The community doesn’t want to see or play throwaway titles anymore. Do your best to make a quality game. While you shouldn’t be intimidated by this, you still need to be aware that games like Wandering Hamster and Motrya are just as capable of making an appearance during the contest window as any game, so make it your best if you want the winning prizes.

 

​Heart of the OHR Contest Results

2016 Edition

From March 1, 2016, to August 15, 2016, the OHR community was once again given the opportunity to relive the days when world exploration, random battle engagement, and chitchatting with townies could become anticipated moments in gaming. Once again, game design was about top-down travel through middling towns, sprawling dungeons, and the fields in-between. Once again, designers were rewarded for implementing all types of throwback design into their games while innovating new mechanics that emulate a classic texture. The contest, called Heart of the OHR, had a simple rule: make, add to, or finish a traditional OHRRPG. We’ve done it before. We’ve done it again. We’ve even done it a third time. But could we squeeze enough juice out of the community to get a successful fourth outing?

With the new contest window in play (starting three months ahead of the last two windows), this year hit fast and hit early, with our first two entries, Dragon Chaser and The Successor’s Legacy, going live before the month of April. Feedback was also quick, and the designers of both games had plenty to think about and fix before the original July 31, 2016 deadline. Did they make changes in time? One did. But this was a step up from the usual contest pattern of submitting unfinished games on the last day of the window to make a deadline, which was more closely representative of the remaining entries, which may have benefitted from spending extra time behind the curtain. But with rankings coming so close to each other this year, it’s hard to tell whether earlier feedback would’ve helped them do better among their competitors. Fortunately, feedback was particularly in-depth this year, and each competitor was given a clear view of how audiences received his game. Even if it was too late to make changes for the contest, reviewers were generally helpful toward contestants who might want to improve and rerelease their games down the road. In spite of the average contest score being the lowest in the Heart of the OHR’s history, overall impressions of this year’s crop were largely positive.

One of the staples of the Heart of the OHR’s evolving life is the changes it undergoes from contest to contest, and this year was no exception. From the usual fluctuating deadlines to the contest window itself, Heart of the OHR 2016 was, in essence, a successful experiment in timing. Traditionally, the contest would begin at the start of summer and run until November 30th of that year, allow for a one-to-two-week bugfix period, and close for good in mid-December. Voting would usually last until the end of January. This year, to avoid the last-minute problems that holidays seem to have on game development, the contest window was moved back by three months and ended just before school resumed for students. As a result, we’ve gotten ten official entries this year, and all of them were originals. Yep, no rereleases or Legends entries in 2016. This alone made the contest unique among its predecessors. The way the bugfix window works was also updated for Heart of the OHR 2016. To encourage strong first impressions, the original deadline of July 31, 2016 was rolled up with the bugfix deadline of August 15, 2016, but with the condition that any game released on or before July 31st was entitled to an unrated first impression, and anything released after July 31st was officially ready for vote. This eased some pressure off of a few contestants, and many took advantage of the new deadline rule. As usual, voting got a little crazy at the end, with some late votes getting cast for one to three games only, and Hurricane Matthew prolonging the voting deadline as the contest’s host anticipated losing power during the compilation period. But in traditional Heart of the OHR fashion, everything came to a conclusion at a time when most people stopped publicly caring, hence the time to put it all together and post it was nigh. And here we are.

Heart of the OHR 2016 also marked the first year that the long-standing entry prize, the bugfix bounty by James Paige, was rendered null and void, due to personal constraints, and was replaced instead by the host giving away the novelization of his epic superhero story (adapted loosely from his own OHR RPG) for free. Hardly anyone took advantage of it, so, as was expected, the gift of reading was clearly an unpopular entry prize for this year’s contest.

In all, Heart of the OHR 2016 was a successful year, with most everything coming together smoothly. Ten games were released during the window, all original, with an eleventh game popping up on the Castle Paradox gamelist in June, to become this contest’s only unofficial entry. Though, due to its abysmal reception and questionable age, and ultimately due to its extremely low voter turnout, the unofficial title this year has been omitted from the overall ranking, and received a mention only for its release timing and ultra-throwback design. Out of the official ten, however, there was one clear winner, as the winning game not only earned the highest votes, but it also earned the most votes, with every voter but one casting a vote for it. Because the two-thirds rule of averages introduced in 2014 persisted this year, the voter skew of the top-rated game versus the rest created an unusually high number of games to take the mandatory 5-score for at least one or two voter slots (each game had to receive at least 9 votes to beat the two-thirds rule this year, and the lowest-voted-on games had as few as seven votes—half the number of the most voted-on game). Fortunately, the voter skew did not affect the rankings the way it had in previous years, so the two-thirds rule was largely unnecessary this time around. This, too, helped this year’s Heart of the OHR become one of the most successful of its contest ilk. If there’s a negative to be shared, however, it’s that this year’s overall ranking was the lowest it’s ever been, at a dismal 3.5 (3.55 with the 2/3 rule in effect), though this was not due to low voter scores, but to poor voter consistency. Very few of this year’s 15 voters voted on all of the games, and this singlehandedly brought the contest’s total score down significantly. But Heart of the OHR was never the perfect contest, and we can’t expect perfection to start now. It can only reflect the culture of the community, and the community’s culture of involvement and feedback has decreased steadily with each passing year since this contest began in 2010. As the community shrinks, it seems inevitable that the contest score will shrink with it. To get the scores back up, we would need more people to vote on more games. Extending deadlines hasn’t helped this cause, unfortunately.

That said, Heart of the OHR 2016 is now over, and with its ending comes the final march for its competitive entries.

Here again is the story of that battle for the Heart of the OHR:

Please note that rankings are listed from worst to best, and based on average votes, not rosters or quantities of total players. For this reason, abstained votes did not count against games, but in many ways helped their averages. The two-thirds rule requires that all games receive at least two-thirds the maximum votes, as set by the top-voted game, in order to receive a ranking based on its pure votes (those values given entirely by voters). Any game receiving fewer than two-thirds the maximum vote receives a score of 5 for every missing vote below the two-thirds range, thus keeping voters accountable and the ranges from suffering from too many spikes caused by too few opinions. This year, the top-voted game received 14 votes, so the two-thirds rule required all games receive a minimum of 9 votes to be ranked according to its pure average. Games utilizing the two-thirds rule (in 2016, six games were forced to succumb to this rule for having fewer than 9 votes representing their final scores) were ranked according to their 2/3 rule score.

Voting Standards

The following is an excerpt from the original announcement thread (in 2010) informing voters how I expected them to vote. Until Heart of the OHR, the average OHR contest required voters to rank their favorites from 1–10, giving scoring priority to the higher ranked items. This usually involved a Top 3, Top 5, or Top 10 vote, depending on the size of the contest, or an “include all” in the case where each voter couldn’t vote until they played all the games. But this often left the worst games unranked or with a huge disparity from the more popular entries.

Heart of the OHR didn’t want to leave anyone out in the cold, nor did it expect all voters to play every game. So, it adopted a scoring system based on average ratings to decide the difference between winners and losers. Of course, this system had its own flaws, and I’d spent the next ten years trying to perfect it. But this is how the scoring system began.

Below is a clip from the original thread. I’ve also placed a link to the entire message if you want to see the whole story, including how I expected voters to treat rereleased games.

Note: Because voters didn’t understand why I’d removed OHR Legends from voting in 2012, I allowed their votes to count in 2014 and for the rest of Heart of the OHR’s lifespan (and will continue if I ever bring it back).

Remember, we will not be voting in the usual Top 10 rankings that we’re used to doing in contests, but rather scoring each game on a scale from 1–10. Scores for each game will then be averaged by number of voters for that game.

 

For example, if Ignatious the Happy Walrus Who Sat Upon His Enemies and Smote Them earned scores from five voters at 3, 5, 6, 4, and 7 respectively, the average score would be 25 points / 5 voters or 5.0 points for the game. Conversely, if only three people vote, and those scores are 6, 4, and 7, then the average score comes out to 17/3, or 5.6—a higher average than if it had five voters.

 

So, as you can see, the fewer votes a game receives, the higher its grade point average may be, and the more likely it could climb the ranks, so it pays to vote, for the game that only gets one vote, a 10, can easily win the contest. Do you want that single vote to sway the results? No. So do your part and vote. You don’t have to vote for every game, but for every game you don’t vote on, the more likely you’ll inadvertently send it to the top. And something tells me that Ignatious the Happy Walrus should not outrank the gems that made this contest, so be sure to vote.

You can view the entire “How to Vote” message here.

Note:

I modified the scoring system in 2014 to include what I called “the 2/3rds rule,” which I explain in greater detail on the 2014 contest page. Bear in mind that if you check out the statistics page, realize that games in 2010 and 2012 may end up with different scores and rankings under this rule than they do here.

But the following shows how I presented it to the community in 2014 and how I expected the trend to continue in 2016:

The gist of this year’s changes will include the adoption of the 5-point average, the peak vote target range, and the two-thirds vote system.

 

Five-point Average: Any game that falls short of the peak vote target range will receive however many fives it takes to reach the two-thirds margin.

 

Peak Vote Target Range: Identifies the game with the most number of votes and uses its vote count as the determinate for the contest average.

 

Two-thirds Vote System: Caps the required voting minimum at two-thirds the value of the peak target. Any game meeting this minimum cap will not receive additional fives to pad its average.

 

I will get more in-depth with this system in December.

You can view the entire message here.

2016 Voting Window

Every season, I attempt to give voters a fair block of time to play all of the games and figure out what scores they’re worth. Most of the time, I undercut that estimation by several weeks. In 2016, I decided to give voters six weeks instead of the usual two to vote. Of course, I still had to extend the voting period by one week to ensure fairness for everyone. Below is the original voting announcement.

________

Voting will run from August 16 – September 30. That gives you a whole month and a half to play those games! Make it count.

Note that I will not close voting until I have a minimum of 10 votes, so if the deadline comes and goes and I have fewer than that, voting will remain open until the minimum is met. I want all contestants to have a fair playthrough and comment/critique/score for their games.

The way we handle votes will be the same as in the 2014 contest.

For full details on how it was before 2014, consult the following post.