I always enjoy the IGF judging.  I find it to be a bit frustrating and a hassle, but then as I work through the candidates, I really enjoy it, even the "less good" games are fun.  And I inevitably get to see some really interesting stuff and one or two games that make it all worth while. 

The frustration comes from the significant percentage of IGF entrants that don't run. Some, like one of the entries this year, demand a cutting edge high end gaming rig to run. 

Now, don't get me wrong, I understand that optimization is not something you should expect in an Alpha...but if I had not just picked up a new gaming PC this week, I would never have been able to get that game to run at all.  I tried it on my one year old laptop and it ran, but was completely unplayable.  I am not too sure what they were thinking, submitting a demanding alpha build like that to the IGF in the first place. 

Some of the others don't boot up properly on my machine.  I always wonder just how these broken games get into the competition.  I suspect earlier versions used to enter the contest got them in and then later "improved" versions delivered at the last minute end up being broken. 

One of them I reviewed fortunately had an earlier build still up on the ftp and that was the one that worked.  The later build was just totally AFU...which is sort of sad because I suspect the dev team put in a lot of work to make that final, but fatally broken, build.

Oh well, I guess I'll just do my best to evaluate the one's I can, and enjoy the process.  After all, this is all about fun, isn't it?

No details on any specific games though...that's best left for after the awards come out @ GDC.