Maybe 'GNAT' - Game 'n a tube Fits more with the small-size themeof treehouse etc. as well. On 12/20/06, TheLoneGoldfish <thelonegoldfish@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The problem with GIANT is that people will probably confuse it for Giant Pyramids. just my 2 cents... -Evan On 12/20/06, Jeff Zeitlin < icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Back in July, I'd asked this question on the Wiki's Main_Page Talk page, > but nobody replied, so I'll ask here as well, with a note that this is a > question about the wiki, rather than about Icehouse or Icehouse pieces > /per se/. > > I'd come up with two potential categories for classifying games, and the > inquiry was essentially "Is there some sort of vetting procedure for > categories, or do I just go ahead and create the categories and add > games to them as appropriate?" > > The two potential categories were: > > (1) Non-stacking games: These are games where the Icehouse pieces are > never stacked, either treewise or nestwise. Games in this category > would be suitable for playing with the early Xyloid pieces, or with > probably the vast majority of piecenikked stashes. The original > Icehouse game would fit into this classification; Ice Towers and Volcano > would not. > > (2) GIANTs: GIANT is an acronym for 'Game In A Nifty Tube', and refers > to games that (a) use a single stash, AND (b) can be explained fully in > eight-point Courier type on a 3x5 index card. Treehouse is a GIANT, and > in fact might be considered the prototype GIANT. My own Par-Trees-i > probably isn't a GIANT, although it's a Single-Stash game. 'Single > stash' does not specify whether the game requires a monochrome stash, a > Treehouse stash, or a Whocares stash; merely that it can be played with > at most fifteen pieces, of at most five pieces of each size. I am > undecided whether requiring COMMON materials (e.g., all or part of a > deck of ordinary playing cards, one or two six-sided dice, etc.) beyond > the stash disqualifies a game from being a GIANT. > > GIANTs are more a potential marketing category than anything else, I > think, but I'm unsure whether that should be considered a Bad Thing or > not. > > Discuss? > _______________________________________________ > Icehouse mailing list > Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse > _______________________________________________ Icehouse mailing list Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse
-- ===== Work like you don't need money, Love like you've never been hurt, and Dance like no one's watching. @->>-- @->>-- @->>-- @->>-- @->>-- @->>--