I thought a guy running around in mazes shooting and whacking robots in 3D would have fared better in a one week competition. It was lacking in some polish, like menus and music, though it did have sound effects. The technical side, making a custom Python binding to Irrlicht for 3D and Audiere for sound, and then compiling for both Windows and Linux didn't play as big of a role in the voting as I had hoped. Ostensibly, the competition was trying to promote new tools for Python game development, but did not actually reward that effort. Another frustration is that only 20% of the people even tried to play my game, while most games were tried by 35% to 40% of the participants. The games that won did not introduce any new technology, but were just pygame-based platformers. They won due to decent artwork, polished sound and menus, but not new technology. Since the voting was democratic, the safest and most traditional entries won.

The competition further dissuaded the use of new libraries by requiring that they be released one month before the competition, or made from scratch or changes, during the competition. In other words, the month leading up to the competition could not be used to develop new Python game making tools. This is very much working against the goal of encouraging the creation of new Python tools. Why update your libraries or tools in the weeks leading up to the competition if you can't use those changes for the competition? The fact is that I made my binding ahead of time, but had to remake it during the competition from scratch, which was a big waste of time that could have been spent adding menus, music, or some of the other items of polish that the game needed to score better.

------------------
+---------+
|steveth45|
+---------+