An Empirical Study of the Characteristics of Popular Game Jams and Their High-ranking Submissions on itch.io
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Game jams are hackathon-like events that allow participants to develop a playable game prototype within a time limit. They foster creativity and the exchange of ideas by letting developers with different skill sets collaborate. Having a high-ranking game is a great bonus to a beginning game developer’s résumé and their pursuit of a career in the game industry. However, participants often face time constraints set by jam hosts while balancing what aspects of their games should be emphasized to have the highest chance of winning. Similarly, hosts need to understand what to emphasize when organizing online jams so that their jams are more popular, in terms of submission rate. In this paper, we study 1,290 past game jams and their 3,752 submissions on itch.io to understand better what makes popular jams and high-ranking games perceived well by the audience. We find that a quality description has a positive contribution to both a jam’s popularity and a game’s ranking. Additionally, more manpower organizing a jam or developing a game increases a jam’s popularity and a game’s high-ranking likelihood. High-ranking games tend to support Windows or macOS, and belong to the “Puzzle”, “Platformer”, “Interactive Fiction”, or “Action” genres. Also, shorter competitive jams tend to be more popular. Based on our findings, we suggest jam hosts and participants improve the description of their products and consider co-organizing or co-participating in a jam. Furthermore, jam participants should develop multi-platform multi-genre games. Finally, jam hosts should introduce a tighter time limit to increase their jam’s popularity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".