Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

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

  • FromBrian Campbell <lambda@xxxxxxx>
  • DateFri, 9 Nov 2007 10:56:12 -0500
On Nov 9, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Bob Winans wrote:

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.

And I believe that what Jorge is trying to communicate is that while you could claim that you can play, say, Pikemen with a Rainbow and Xeno stash, and everyone remembers which colors are theirs, it really would fit a requirement that it use two monochrome stashes. Likewise, even if you could, technically, play a game with a single Treehouse stash, if the game really plays more easily and as intended with two Treehouse stashes, then it should fit the restriction. Now, I haven't actually looked at the rules of whatever the game in question are (is there an actual game, or is this all hypthetical? I haven't been following the discussion closely enough to have picked that up), but I really think that if a game makes good use of two Treehouse stashes, it should be allowed.

I have played a 9x9 game of Go with chess pieces and dice, on a chessboard. Just because I could play it that way doesn't mean that Go wouldn't fit a design restriction of requiring a goban and Go stones.

This is why I think it's a bad idea for the moderator to be the gatekeeper of what games can be entered in the competition. I mean, sure, disqualify games that obviously don't fit, like Treehouse itself, or Philosopher's Phutball, but if there is any disagreement at all (and there's certainly disagreement here), just leave it up to the judges to decide. Otherwise, it ceases being the Icehouse Game Design Contest, and starts being the Dave Artman Game Design Contest (Maybe With A Little Input From The Icehouse Community).

I understand your concern that there may be too many entries, and that the judges won't have time to play them all. I think that one solution to this is to allow, and specifically request, that judges rank games even that they didn't play. Part of the measure of how good a game is is whether you can get enough people interested in playing it. If just reading the rules you think "meh, I can't see how that game would be any good", well, that game probably needs some work. Of course, judges should always have at least read the rules of any game they rank, but I don't think that playing a game should be a requirement for ranking it.

Current Thread