(Moving reply to new thread.) > From: miyu <xmiyux@xxxxxxxxx> > > Well if the deadline is the 17th we may not be able to meet that to submit > votes. Setup, cleanup, and only one 50 minute block of time each day means > each group today played one of the games. The Geomancy group I'm not sure > even got a game in because they kept hounding me with rules questions. At the risk of seeming biased, with a week remaining (or two, at the most, if you so request), you might want to go through the games from simplest to hardest to learn/explain. I say this primarily becasue there are DEFINTIELY two "speeds' of games in this IGDC: games that take ten minutes to explain and then play; and games than can take a half hour (or more) to do both. Now, mind you, I would want EVERY game to be given a fair shake--clarity or simplicity are not the only measures of quality in game design. But under a deadline, it seems equally unfair that (say) four other games don't get judged in time becasue one or two eat up hours of limited play time. Now, that's JUST how I see it, and I could see an easy counter-argument (of the form "a game you can learn in ten minutes and master in thirty isn't much of a game"). But I am talking all and only about deadlines vis a vis play time. You are (ALWAYS!) the final judge of what you do and how, for judging or playing or telling us to take a flying leap. But, me: I'd try to get as many attempted as possible, before I got into grokking the three or four really "deep" games in the IGDC. I also eat my peas before I tackle my steak, if that tells you anything. ;) > I'd be happy to share stories and impressions with the list each day as the > kids play the games as long as you don't think it would tread a line of Well, we debated this a bit already, and it seems the consensus is as follows: 1) Go ahead an comment or provide feedback while it's fresh in your mind, BUT... 2) DO it on the individual games' Talk pages, not the list: this keeps the IGDC from "dominating" list discussion while there's a mroe centralized (and easier to follow) channel (the wiki). Further, folks can electively ignore Talk pages, to not have their own opinions skewed; that's harder to do on a list, where one might be happily clicking through a stack of e-mails and accidentally read something before one even realizes its potentially skewing. > It is a teaser because I'm not naming the game unless one of the Masters of > judging says it is ok. :D I say go ahead... on the Talk page for that game. The designer will be thrilled, I am sure. If you really want to wait, fine... wait until you've submitted the rankings (or until the deadline) and then comment on that Talk page. And though I am the Coordinator and it's KILLING me to know what game got such a strong favoritism (though, hey, it's in a vacuum, right; or did that group already play all the other games and pick that as favorite?)... I can't condone mentioning it here on the list. I can't STOP you, but I'd prefer you take it to that game's Talk page (yeah, yeah... we'll all be refreshing Talk pages all afternoon, now!). Thanks for your efforts to help the IGDC provide solid feedback to designers while engaging in a little light competition--and do me a favor and stop acting like "a bunch of 13 to 15 year olds" are going to somehow HURT the rankings/scoring: we hook them kids now, we've got sales for decades! Muahahaha.... >:^> And, further, I don't know of many designers who'd have the gall to claim "my game can't really be appreciated by someone in their mid-teens": I'd replay "yeah, right: keep telling yourself that, bub!" (I was playing nearly every TSR RPG as well as Star Fleet Battles and a few Avalon Hill strategy games by the age of 14--and quite competitive at some of them, to boot!) David