O.K.
Let a new voice try to shed a light on
this.
Jorge: yes you have a point that some
games could be played with other pieces.
As an example let’s use CHESS.
I *could*
cut up a bunch of paper squares, write the letters Q,K,P,B,Kn,R in red on one
set and black on another, creating a chess set.
I *might*
do this to play test the game, if I didn’t already have a chess set.
If I like the game, I would then probably BUY
a chess set.
Not because I couldn’t continue to
play with the paper pieces, but that the game is more enjoyable with the proper
pieces.
The spirit of the contest is to promote
the sale of a second set by increasing the number of games that can be played
with TWO sets of treehouse.
The thing we (as a group) should strive to
avoid is a game that SAYS it requires two sets, but could EASILY be played with
one set. (See the blue vs. blue & green example below)
This is what I believe David is trying to
communicate to you.
From:
icehouse-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:icehouse-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jorge Arroyo
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007
9:02 AM
To: Icehouse
Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Icehouse] IGDC
Winter 2008 is ready for announcement tomorrow!
Wow, not even an apology
for your BIG mistake and accusations...
On 11/9/07, David
Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
> From: "Jorge Arroyo" < trozo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Let me apologize: my example is not the best one because in your game the
> stacking properties are used. It could be played with one set but would be
> unconfortable...
Really? I can't see how... it takes 23 pyramids, 8 more than are in a
set.
Do I have to say this again? By using some other token for the public. It'd be
VERY unconfortable but it could be done... Furthermore, If I had only one set,
be sure that I'd do that to try the game if it was at all possible, before buying
a second set.
That's my main point about this argument, which you fail to counter. You decide
where the line is and when a game is "artificially" requiring a
second set. I say it's an arbitrary distinction, because almost any game could
be played with less pyramids.
> is what I posted: "Id vote for a XHOUSE type of restriction,
specifically I
> think 1HOUSE would be best, but I'd go with the 3HOUSE limit. Also, I
think
> more games that make creative use of the Martian Coasters are needed, so
> those two restrictions are what I'd vote for...
> --Maka<http://www.icehousegames.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Maka>19:39,
> 27 October 2007 (EDT)"
Ah, OK, sorry. Didn't know you are "Maka". But... uh, you voted for
(some form of) xHOUSE restriction, so...?
Yes, because that was the debate back then. This was before the 2HOUSE
restriction was specified. And with my vote, I supported a limit, which implies
"up to" a number of sets. So, with my vote I was supporting the same
views as I'm supporting now.
> I'm sorry you have so very little patience, but that is not a
reason to stop
> discussing something...
I think "discussion" ended about the third or fourth repetition of
the
reasons for the restriction.
A discussion ends when both parties agree it ends. If someone shuts their ears
and shouts "la la la I can't hear you" it doesn't mean it ended...
Further, I think I have shown a lot of patience, given how much time
I've expended explaining this to one person (I wonder how much patience
the list, in general, has for this continuing). *I'm* sorry you find my
effort and the patience it required (and used up) to be "so very
little."
My comment was just referring to your own sentence: "OK... I think I've
exhausted my arguments. (I know I've exhausted my patience.)"
It has nothing to do with what I think.
-Jorge