Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

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

  • From"Timothy Hunt" <games@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateThu, 8 Nov 2007 09:39:32 -0600
On 11/8/07, David Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Ugh... I ain't running another product-based design restriction IGDC.
> Too many damned corner cases and alternative setups and scaling issues
> and applicability issues (e.g. in an MC design restriction competition,
> using Martian Coasters just as a 6x6 board with no consideration of
> their colors or arrows or significant squares--ex: MegaVolcano could be
> an "MC game," with such trivial/irrelevant usage of the MCs).


It's a shame you feel this way - a product based design restriction is
the kind of restriction that LL is most likely to appreciate as it can
emphasise the purchase of uh... product.

I suspect that the better way to approach this in future is to direct
the judging a bit more.  Saying something like "THe purpose of this
contest is to come up with games that encourage customers who have a
single treehouse set to purchase a second, without requiring them to
purchase a third." and then leave it up to the judges to factor that
in.  A game for which a single treehouse set is *clearly* sufficient
would get a low ranking from me in such a situation, as would one
where play was either impossible or impeded unless you had 3.

To take your MC example, if you said something like "The purpose of
this contest is to encourage people who have one or more treehouse
sets to buy martian coasters, and not simply use a chessboard", I
think that would be sufficient direction to the judges to decide.
Perhaps even going so far as to say that the things to consider when
judging are:
1) Is this a good, playable game?
2) does it encourage the purchase of $PRODUCT?

(note that (1) will automatically take factors like rules diction into
consideration - if I can't understand the rules, then I clearly cannot
answer "yes" to that question)

In other words, I hope this doesn't discourage you from taking on this
great task, but that you reconsider *how* to run it in the future.


Current Thread