Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

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

  • FromDavid Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateTue, 06 Nov 2007 08:48:47 -0700
> From: kerry_and_ryan@xxxxxxx
> 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.

Exactumundo! In the end, we want good games that encourage purchase of a
second set: that's my gauge as Coordinator for accepting a submission.

> Is this discussion of judging criteria a good thing? I think so.

Me, too (obviously).

> I'm not (necessarily) trying to get everyone to use my,
> or any other single set of, criteria.

Sure... but I feel obliged to clarify elements which will result in
rejection of a submission, early and clearly, for the benefit of all. I
am loathe to do it--I love new games, of all shapes and sizes--but I
have to honor my judges' time more than that of one designer, and I have
to promote pyramid sales above all. In the end, I'd rather have six
really solid 2HOUSE games to judge than twelve games with a range of
quality, some of which are "pseudo-2HOUSE."

> 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.

Oh, absolutely... for those still reading this thread. ;)

In the end, folks will judge quality in numerous ways: play style
preferences, available time, format and diction of rules (*ahem*),
replayability, strategic depth, tactile or visual appeal, etc, etc....

For instance, my buddy and I have debated whether Stacktors! (Limited)
would be a good contender (because it could be a very solid RPG system)
or a really poor one (due to its rules length, time to learn, and
relative complexity). He's of the opinion it would "stand out" for
*both* reasons (my "too complex" is his "meaty goodness")--I feel it's
likely to suffer from 'I'll-get-to-it-eventually-ness' and not be judged
by many people. As primary collaborator on that game, it's my call as to
whether it's submitted... I think not. I'm encouraging him to finish
Icecaster for his submission--although, we *have* debated whether
Icecaster is a 2HOUSE game or is a one-set-per-player game. Perhaps we
should discuss that distinction a bit, vis a vis submission acceptance?

Folks, if a game is *actually* one-set-per-player and it's presented as
a two-player "dueling" game (regardless of whether it scales to more
than two players), is that 2HOUSE? One clearly can't play it with less
than two sets--it requires 15 mids per player--but it could also be (and
is probably more fun as) a three- or four-player game; it is
"artificially" constrained to two sets by "forcing" two-players-only
with a rule... almost as if the 2HOUSE version is a variation on the
main game.

(Refer to http://www.icehousegames.org/wiki/index.php?title=Icecaster
for example.)


Current Thread