What's the deal with FEE3 2023?

Announcements
21

I had thoughts about FEE3 a few years back at this point and would once again bring them up as something to think about.

To (hopefully) cut down on the number of submissions at once, split FEE3 into two showcases, one Summer, one Winter. Creators can submit to only one showcase a year. This would ideally make it so that no one would have to have their videos dropped/excluded for any reason and it would hopefully not cause a massive amount of work for the staff if the pool of entrants was smaller per showcase. Maybe set a hard cap on the number of entrants per window if it’s absolutely necessary, and you could have one set of staff for each showcase so that one team isn’t always under the gun the entire year.

If a creator would miss the window due to slots being filled or wanted to showcase things before the other FEE3 season, then they would be free to post it on their own in the meantime but could still submit to the second season and would get priority if they were “bumped out” from the previous showcase?

I dunno, that’s my two cents.

3 Likes
22

I think this would be a reasonable idea to cut down on the viewer fatigue, but it doesn’t really help the manpower issue, it only spreads the workload out over an entire year (which, if you ask me, is honestly worse). The fact that there are 80 entries per year is a big factor in organizer burnout, and I don’t think that splitting it into two chunks of 40 is going to make things that much easier to stomach.

23

I think the FEU channel would be good for posting more technical minded videos, but I don’t think that needs to have anything to do with FEE3. It might be an idea to just post regular content rather than exclusively posting videos during FEE3.

As for the actual content of the event, I think maintaining the current status quo is the best option aside from canning it. If you want your stuff featured, produce the video yourself, and make it meet some basic video quality and forum policy guidelines. The only real work involved there is producing thumbnails (which can 90% be offloaded onto creators by just having an image template) and screening content (which can have the workload reduced by increasing video length restrictions).

As much as I love ragging on bad hacks, enforcing “hack quality” beyond objective measures is obviously going to be an unpopular decision and really a nonsensical one - the goal was never high viewership in the first place, nor was it expected for people to view every single video. It’s not like we screen the forums for hack quality so I don’t see why FEE3 would be different.

I think the greatest issue is finding an organizer which is understandable because I definitely wouldn’t want to do it.

20 Likes
24

that’s because they’re here on this little forum; on a public space it’s best to put your best foot forward
having poorly done projects being shoved into the limelight does everyone a disservice, the creator included

this is cool, but that involves more management in general and some kind of media team to handle that stuff i’d think; having videos not only during fee3 would be interesting though

1 Like
25

This is a public space, I don’t see the argument there.

1 Like
26

high traffic public space, happy now?

27

I’m fairly sure the forums are actually higher traffic than the YouTube channel, considering it only existed for a few years and only has uploads once a year.

6 Likes
28

For just minimising burden of the organisers, I believe it’s way easier to have 80 videos that are self-produced (with perhaps a small team to check for minimum video quality and rule infraction) as compared to have needing specific conditions and considerable debate to have to select 40 out of 80, causing a lot more drama in the process. Last year’s model seems considerably streamlined.

16 Likes
29

TL;DR the event will be held in Cam’s way unless someone else steps up, or it will be suspended.

30

So to start with; I’m not active here, but I have taken an interest in FEE3 with submissions in the last two years. Especially last year, my project performed way beyond my expectations last year, and I think the way it was presented was definitely part of the reason.

Last year we had (roughly, probably miscounted somewhere)

  • 25 videos shorter than 10 minutes, though you could even differentiate between these and look at the 3-minute trailers vs the introductory videos
  • 14 video’s between 10 and 30 minutes
  • 24 video’s between 30 and 50 minutes
  • 15 almost hour-long videos, one actually at exactly 1 hour and most of these are so close (58 + min) that they might as well count as such.

If we’re generous and say that the first set average roughly 5 minutes, that’s just over two hours of watch time. (most are 2-3 minutes)
For the second, we’ll go middle of the road for 10 minutes, that’s almost two and a half hours. Close to the first.
24 videos worth, say 40 mins, shoots up to 16 hours.
And the last one is pretty much another 15 hours.

There’s a gigantic jump between the first two and the latter two, and even if we shift things around to 15-minute breaks, the difference will only be a bit smaller.
You’d have to spend 1.4 days watching the long-format videos out of the 20 days FEE3 was running, continuously. That’s 7% of the entire time between the first and last video.
For the same amount of videos, you could be done in 4 and a half hours, spread over 20 days.

FEE3 is not meant to be viewed in its entirety by everyone, but I don’t think it’s a bold assumption to say that the longer video’s had a large amount of drop-off after a certain point. I’d be curious to see where the drop-off point is when people stop caring. This could be used to inform what the optimal max time is for video length.
I don’t know if it is 30, maybe it is more, maybe less. I do know that 50% of the videos are almost 8 times as many hours of watch time than the other 50%, and that just seems like it is an egregious amount of overtime.

I don’t know what the workload is when hosting FEE3. But even if you limit yourself to 20 submissions, you’ll still have to watch all 80 actually submitted videos and then not only decide if they meet the lowest bar of entry, but also which one outperformed the other so that it could make the final cut.
This seems to me like a similar, in some cases even bigger workload. And if you want to prevent that you’d have to give golden tickets before submissions open, “You get to submit a video this year based on reason X”, and that also does not sit right with me.

I like the current structure, where it is open to all as long as a minimum bar of entry that is objective is maintained. It’s mostly for the creators.
But please shorten the length, cutting down to 30 minutes max means you have saved at the very least 8 hours of quality control where someone had to watch the videos. That’s quite a bit, and it is probably more than that. If 30 becomes the longest a video can run, the middle of the pack will shift. The current 30 min videos will also shift down.

12 Likes
31

I feel you there. In which case, it could just be an invitation to apply. That said, I think if the invitations are limited enough that people would understand.

For example:

  • 5 / 20 spots are invited to the 5 best-performing videos based on # of views from last year.
    • (In this case, it would be Nuramon’s Animation Showcase, Radiant Dawn: Daybreak, Sacred Echoes, Cerulean Coast, and Pokemblem.)
      • (I did not realize mine was the 5th spot until now lol.)
    • If declined, the number of accepted applications can be higher to reach 20 videos.
  • The remaining 15 spots are applied for.

What’s the point of this? Why not just have everyone apply?

If the application process is somewhat rigorous, then giving out a few invites just saves on the work required for those applying and those judging. If I were judging Nuramon’s application, for example, I’d remember their previous showcases and immediately accept them. Even if they had an egregiously poor application, I would contact them and encourage them to adjust their application a bit in order to be accepted.

All that said, if it seems fairer to you to have everybody apply, I’m not against that by any means. Just brainstorming here.

3 Likes
32

We should think about how to make FEE3 more relevant. I’d rather have a submit your own trailers event than whatever it is we have now. FEE3 in general has a lot of frankly low quality videos simply because the format (submit a rom, a chapter and a save) does not allow the playtester to fully invest in the hack. Compounded with the massive amount of videos last year people just watch the most relevant hacks and leave.

6 Likes
33

I may not be an expert on FEE3 as a whole. But I have watched a couple of other E3 ROM hacking communities that did their own way.
For example: the Pokemon Mystery Dungeon community which did a showcase of trailers from the spring and fall of 2021 called Skytemple Hack Showcase. It’s quite different, but you could learn a thing or two from it.
But that’s my suggestion and I couldn’t help out and make a difference.

2 Likes
34

Stream of consciousness incoming…

Come to think of it, a stricter time limit is going to have a further implication: it’s pretty much going to make pure chapter showcases impossible, unless they’re of very short chapters, which heightens the barrier to entry above ‘get in touch with someone and give them a ROM’; whether this is neutral, a bad thing or indeed a perk is to taste, of course, but it’s the clearest knock-on effect beyond just reducing the number of minutes, and it seems like it’ll inevitably reduce the number of submissions. All in all, I remain in favour, and it feels like a 30-minute timer kills multiple birds with one stone; the people who want fewer submissions get that, the people who want a higher bar of effort get it by default (with something that is more clearly-defined than just ‘it will be judged’), the people who just think it shouldn’t be so time-consuming to get an idea of every hack get that.

That said, for me, the fewer submissions are a legitimate sacrifice. Emerging and established projects should both get a chance to shine at this event, and being blown away by projects you’d never heard of is surely part of the joy of it. We just don’t know yet what the standouts of FEE3 '23 are going to be, and isn’t that a good thing? But encouraging a… tighter submission will, I think, help encourage newer projects to showcase a more complete picture of their hack, and why others should play.

Besides, you can still show off chapter gameplay in 30 minutes; what are you going to learn about a hack in minutes 31-60 of someone playing a chapter that you didn’t pick up from the first half-hour? Past that point, it becomes more about closure from an LP perspective, almost. Speaking personally, I definitely stopped watching a few after about 20 minutes; even when I liked the hack and liked the LPer, I had an idea of the hack, and that was what I had come for. It’s just going to require a bit more care about what part makes the cut, since a chapter won’t fit.

TLDR, I guess, is that I feel:

  • FEE3 is a chance for newcomers to make a mark
  • FEE3 is a celebration of the community’s achievements
  • FEE3 videos should give a good idea of what the hack is about
  • The quickest and most hands-off way to submit to FEE3 '22 was to give someone a chapter and let them take care of it, and a lot of people willing to do that won’t be willing or able to edit something themselves
  • (Which is fair enough)
  • Chapter showcases aren’t inherently bad, but they lend themselves to being long, and show about the player’s LP style than the hack itself
  • It should be an opportunity to properly show hacks off, especially newer and more obscure ones that people don’t know about other than from FEE3
  • In my view, a more rigid time limit will help encourage more thoughtful showcases that are more revealing about the hacks themselves, at the cost of bleeding a little participation
  • But bleeding that participation is a genuine cost
  • If there’s going to be a higher bar to entry, by God make it something clear and unambiguous
  • FEE3 '22 was still really good, and honestly, if more hands are all that’s needed to make it work again, and if there are people willing… great. We’re iterating from a position of strength, not forced to reinvent from a position of weakness
14 Likes
35

I think if selection/cutting does take place it would be nice to offer differing grades of exposition. Minimum being the applicants that didn’t get showcase get a link/thumbnail to their FEU topic in some big wall of text somewhere around the end/start of the show.

If the submission process remains self-serving then it seems like it could strike a balance on organizers being able to quickly determine if a submission’s material fits the showcase vs. applicants determining how much time they should invest on making promo material (if worst case it’d only be on their thread and not the FEE3 channel).

5 Likes
36

I believe that limiting the number of submissions to the best N will only serve to fracture this community (especially considering best is extremely subjective.)

My Experience With FEE3
In my own experience, FEE3 2021 Doubled or Nothing was a bit of a sloppy performance. I backseated, I stammered, and the audio balance was pretty rough, even after a ton of adjustments. But despite that, being in FEE3 really motivated me to participate in the community a bit more actively. And through my slip-ups the first time around, I learned to calm my nerves for 2022, and that showcase went a whole lot better. I think it’s important to let people show off their passion projects, regardless of quality, because it can be a huge motivator (Of course, content against site rules can and should be handled separately. That’s different.)

Limits Would Change FEE3
Limiting the number of submissions to the best N can and will turn hacks on each other. If each hack is “taking” a spot, then there’s a huge expectation that comes with that, and people will probably end up whining about hacks that they don’t believe “earned” that spot. If you don’t get in, you can’t show off your passion project. If you do get in, your passion project is going to be picked apart by people who feel cheated.

9 Likes
37

Oh that’s definitely a possibility…
We don’t really see a lot of negativities towards hacks now, especially here, but who knows how much that could change, especially on various discord servers. I wouldn’t even be able to blame the people too, they had their project rejected from a huge opportunity for something that they may see as inferior, no one likes to be treated unfairly.

4 Likes
38

And will? I’m sorry, where has this been the case given this literally has not been implemented. Such inflammatory statements are not helping. People whine already about projects, people already pick projects apart relentlessly; none of that has anything to do with fee3 and everything to do with inflated egos. It’s fine to disagree but this response feels dishonest/trying to stoke flames.

39

I’m really sorry if my comments came off as inflammatory. I don’t mean to spread paranoia or stoke flames, and I can promise my intention is not to engage in bad faith.

Regardless, I do think that’s it important to consider the environmental changes that would come with limiting access to FEE3. If you only allow so many people in, how might creators react to being denied entry? How might this change perspective on the projects that did get in? How much better is the Nth best project than the (N+1)th best project, and is that fair?

I think questions like this need to be answered before a major change like this is even considered.

1 Like
40

I think the “bad feelings” would only come up if the selection process is arbitrary / not clear. if there isn’t a clear answer as to “why was this project picked?”, it’ll lead to complaints.

3 Likes