My feeling is, as long as all of the games are played by some of the
students, ans all of the students play some of the games, the rankings are
still meaningful. Not a huge deal if not everyone plays every game.
That said, I have no problem with extending the deadline up to a week if
doing so looks likely to guarantee 25-30 more complete ballots.
As for feedback on the wiki Talk pages, that works, but I am also happy iif
anyone wants to email this designer directly. I'm also prepared to put any
feedback received directly onto my Talk page.
It's good to have options. *grin*
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Artman" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Icehouse Discussion List" <icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 2:26 PM
Subject: RE: [Icehouse] IGDC Ranking and Deadline
(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
votes. Setup, cleanup, and only one 50 minute block of time each day
each group today played one of the games. The Geomancy group I'm not
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
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
1) Go ahead an comment or provide feedback while it's fresh in your
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
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!
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!)
Icehouse mailing list