Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

RE: [Icehouse] IGDC Winter 2008 is ready for announcement tomorrow!

  • Fromkerry_and_ryan@xxxxxxx
  • DateMon, 05 Nov 2007 21:27:54 +0000
> As for your condition of *absolutely, positively requiring* two
> different color TH dice (I can't imagine how that would happen or what
> mechanic could necessitate that, frankly) 

Absolutely positively?  No.  I could see a game where you roll two dice and perform the action from the white die on the Xeno pieces and the astion from the black one on the Rainbow pieces.  If such a game were entered and all I had were two black dice, I'd just roll them sequentially and say "Here's the 'black' action... and here's the 'white' action."  I could even see a game designer reworking her entry to be worded that way once she realized that white dice are no longer available.  BUT... as a judge, I would notice the difference between the entry's new dice-rolling mechanic and the usual simultaneous roll mechanic and perhaps give the game lower marks for being kludgy.

But I think we're basically on the same page here.

> then, yep, it's going to hurt
> the game because, as with *any* and *all* equipment requirements (say it
> along with me, kids!), equipment requirements make a barrier to entry
> for any game, IGDC or not. 

I agree wholeheartedly.

>> I cannot think of a way to use, say, one color each
>> from Xeno and Rainbow the actually requires specific colors.
> No, false, if the game (as I said) actually depends upon the additive
> color results of colors from two different sets. A quick and dirty
> example:
> Find The Green Mid! ...

Ahhh... I see now.  Ok, I agree that counts as 2HOUSE.  

I was thinking some chess-like game where the rules just happen to written to allow pieces to attack only their complement.  e.g. Cyan<->Red and Yellow<->Blue.

Thanks to your example, I think we're on the same page here too.

> I am just adding the clarification that "forcing" a game into 2HOUSE by
> assigning Xeno v Rainbow colors to arbitrary color assignments isn't a
> valid 2HOUSE game, until the number of requisite transparent color
> stacks exceeds four... or five, if you agree with Ryan's assessment that
> an opaque can serve as a transparent--that's one "gray space" where I'd
> *would* let such a game enter, if the only way to "1HOUSEify" it is to
> deal in a kludgey manner with an opaque stack which one would rather be
> transparent.

Ok, so we disagree on such the 2HOUSEitude of a game that "needs" just five transparent colors.  You would let it in the contest because you think it just barely passes a relatively high level of 2HOUSEularity.  I, on the other hand, would let it in because it just barely passes a relatively low level of 2HOUSEishness.  However I'd give it low marks on the grounds that a potential consumer would, IMO, feel cheesed off at having to buy two sets when a single one would "work".  Is it a 2HOUSE game?  Yeah, I suppose.  But it's not a good selling point for TreeHouse sets, which is (at the base of it) what this particular competition is about.  

This works out good enough, I suppose, until you get to the opportunity cost of considering such a game.  I know... I can pre-judge certain aspects of the entries, such as the number of transparent colors required, etc.  Then I'll let that initial ranking determine the order I actually playtest them.

Is this discussion of judging criteria a good thing?  I think so.  I'm not (necessarily) trying to get everyone to use my, or any other single set of, criteria.  But by having a bunch of ideas out here in the ether, other potential judges can start thinking about what THEY think are appropriate criteria.


Current Thread