Glad to see so much feedback and discussion! For that reason alone, IGDC Summer 2007 was a smash success. Some follow-up thoughts, as I find them (or make new threads, for some): * Plain text e-mail - My bad; yes, it's fine when exported. I read mostly in a browser, and it's to "blame" (for working per spec). * Previously submitted Game eligibility - There's no rule stating as much, but traditionally winners (1st place? 1st through 3rd?) may not be resubmitted. I don't care either way, mainly because it's self-limiting: unless a game is pretty seriously revamped, it will be less and less play with each subsequent submission, as folks get "tired of it" or push it to the end of their judging time in favor of new games. All that said, though, this speaks to design restriction (aka "theme" which is actually only one "class" of restriction).... * Next competition design restriction - The list has been *slightly* misleading--there is NOTHING "decided" about the next competition. Go to the IGDC Talk page and chime in with your own opinion (mine has waffled twice already, there, and I am now in favor of a theme rather than a product line or mechanical restriction). I'd prefer to handle particular responses (i.e. "what's a Martian Coaster" details) there: http://www.icehousegames.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Ice_Game_Design_Competition * RE game back stories ("themes") - I believe the theme of a game is at least as significant in both ins comprehension and the sense of "poise" that the game has. Monopoly could be colorless (the current term for "nothing superfluous to mechanics), as is proven by how easily it gets re-themed to Star Wars, various college sports towns, etc--all of that color could be gone without impacting the game rules or play at all (i.e. you could use Credits to buy Zones as you go around the board). BUT the game's FEEL would diminish; this is what I mean, in part, by poise. Another aspect is excitement of imagination (another element of a game's poise): Moon Shot (for example) isn't as "edgy" or as "frantic" when it's just some dexterity game, with no sens3e of being in a race to colonize the moon; Penguin Soccer loses all of its whimsy and ludicrousness (good thing, to me!) if you just imagine they're robots or something: the image of chubby penguins bumbling over the ice just WORKS. Even Martian Chess hooks its theme into its mechanics, with the notion that the REASON you can only control your own board's pieces is because that's the "range" of your hive mind influence (at least, that's how I help anchor the notion in people's minds when I demo the game). The colorful imaginative elements help the rational half of your brain keep the basic rules in mind. *RE: > From: "Timothy Hunt" <games@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > taking this table (assuming it's correct), I got the same result as > dale Sheldon of > pylo > subd > zamb > geom > peng > moon > mart > trip If no one else objects or wishes to correct anything, I am happy with this as the final result, being corroborated by two folks who apparently understand the method far better than I do. I shall update the wiki today with these results, in a report linked out of the IGDC page (the IGDC page itself will be "prepped" for Winter 2008).