Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

Re: [Icehouse] What is 2HOUSE?

  • From"Carlton Noles" <carlton.noles@xxxxxxxxx>
  • DateMon, 12 Nov 2007 11:39:10 -0500
Well, then I suppose I will go forward with my current idea for a game and hope it gets in. And if not I have an appeal process. Seems reasonable.We shall see.

On Nov 12, 2007 11:09 AM, Avri Klemer < avri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Hickman" <tophu@xxxxxxx>
To: "Icehouse Discussion List" < icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Icehouse] What is 2HOUSE?

> This sounds like a decent compromise and an excellent end to the
> argument. :)
> I'm glad you decided to see it through.
> On Nov 12, 2007, at 10:45 AM, David Artman wrote:
>> OK, I have re-read the thread, given it some thought, and now I just
>> want to see the end of this whole discussion (if at all possible--I
>> have
>> my doubts that some participants are capable of conceding).
>> What is a 2HOUSE game? That's all this boils down to, when stripped of
>> alleged allegations, aggravations, and accusations.
>> I thought I summarized it rather well, in the portion of the
>> discussion
>> that involved Ryan:
>> "So the only games I'd reject are those which are mechanically
>> indistinguishable, identical-in-play games when converted to
>> 1HOUSE; but
>> conversely, if they can scale up well (ex: Icecaster, Martian Chess)
>> then I say so much the better for sales promotion!"
>> ...and...
>> ""Will this game absolutely require a new Icehouse System adopter
>> with one set to buy his or her second set?" If the answer is no,
>> then the game doesn't qualify."
>> The (repeated) reasons are also summarized:
>> "But relaxing to "1 or 2 sets": no, not now. The whole point is to
>> encourage new Icehouse System players to buy a second set in order to
>> gain the capability of playing several new games. I think a "1 or 2
>> set"
>> requirement would lead to more 1-set games--not a *bad* thing, per se,
>> but we already have about thirty-six 1-set games (not counting those
>> languishing in development) but only nine 2-set games, most of
>> which are
>> limited variations or only support a limited number of players in a
>> 2-set setup. Andy made it pretty clear that "2HOUSE" games would serve
>> Looney Labs best, once one accepts that thirty-six-plus 1-set games is
>> "enough" to motivate first-set purchases."
>> ...and... (from Jorge, before he switched opinions)
>> "While that may be true in some cases, in other cases it may lead to
>> games
>> that are  "almost 1HOUSE"  and that may even work better removing
>> those
>> artificial elements... but you're right: now it's not the time to
>> change
>> the
>> rules... Let's hope that people do games that really need 2 sets, else
>> newcomers to the system that bought a second set to play more games
>> may
>> feel
>> a bit cheated :)"
>> ...and...
>> "What you fail to mention is that you would have invested time and
>> effort
>> into reading a game that you would, in turn, then rate very lowly
>> because it basically spurned the requirement or tried to circumvent it
>> in a trivial manner.
>> Now recall how much trouble we had getting complete ranking from every
>> judge--why should we exacerbate that problem by admitting games which
>> spurn the requirement just to "get seen" or whatever (as we presume
>> winning would be neigh impossible)."
>> To enumerate:
>> 1) A game which doesn't promote sales of second sets to new adopters
>> doesn't qualify. ("Must Sell Some Plastic")
>> 2) New adopters should not be put in the position where they might
>> realize they didn't actually need a second set. ("No Bait and Switch")
>> 3) Several judges' time to read and reject is worth more than one
>> designer's time or submission. ("The Needs of the Many...")
>> 4) The judges should be focussed on what game is "best" without having
>> to adjust that due to an orthogonal element of judging: conformity to
>> the restriction. ("No Men in the Mrs. America Contest")
>> 5) It has already been announced. ("Don't Change Horses in Midstream")
>> As Coordinator--or should I say, if I am to remain the Coordinator--I
>> would be the "first gateway" for submission acceptance. If (*if*) I
>> reject a game because it's trivially 1HOUSE, then the designer may
>> appeal to the list and, if he or she gains a consensus in favor of
>> letting it be judged, I will list it among the games.
>> If that doesn't make my position clear, let me add to it one thing:
>> I am
>> running this competition for Looney Labs' benefit and for the
>> expansion
>> of the Icehouse System market, NOT for the community on this list and
>> NOT for the designers to gain recognition. Should the latter two
>> benefits accrue, so much the better, but I will not place them at a
>> higher priority than promotion of sales and the System.
>> Those of you who simply *must* make a 1HOUSE game--or make a game
>> which
>> is aesthetically more pleasing as 2HOUSE but which anyone could see
>> can
>> easily be played with 1 set--are encouraged to do so and seek
>> playtesters. But I won't let such a game "pad" the list of
>> submission or
>> "water down" the requirement which other, conforming designers
>> struggle
>> to meet.
>> If someone feels that being the first gateway makes me a dictator,
>> then
>> he or she has one recourse: take over the IGDC, re-announce the
>> relaxation of the requirement in all location online where it has been
>> announced, and proceed with the general management throughout
>> autumn and
>> early winter.
>> The restriction is clear, reasonable, and good for the business. I am
>> serving ONLY the best interests of Looney Labs, and will not tolerate
>> further implications that I have another agenda (or a swelled head).
>> Until this competition, Coordinator of the IGDC was a merely
>> administrative role: wiki-work and cajoling someone to do the math for
>> me. Now, it has a managerial aspect--vetting games for
>> qualification--and if I have to occasionally so "no" to a game, it's
>> only for the benefit of the business and of the judges (and new
>> players,
>> of course); NOT because I am reveling in my glorious power. And,
>> again,
>> anyone who wants the "fun" of being in this damned shooting gallery is
>> welcome to it.
>> If anyone has a logical argument to make which conforms to the above
>> enumerated priorities and justifications but reaches a different
>> conclusion than I have, feel free to present it and I will respond. If
>> someone has an opinion that "it's too arbitrary," then I welcome
>> them to
>> further detail precise aspects of the requirement to remove the
>> (alleged) subjectivity and make it objective, NOT to remove the
>> requirement completely (we were doing a fine job of detailing such
>> nuances until the noise kicked in).
>> Beyond that, I am just too insulted, tired, and (frankly) busy with
>> the
>> real world to continue to go back and forth over whether or not the
>> requirement will be enforced by me as Coordinator. It's my job, I
>> do my
>> best, and I *always* ALWAYS ***ALWAYS*** am thinking of the best
>> for the
>> Looneys and building the brand, not what's best for any of you.
>> Sorry if
>> that sounds "harsh" or unfeeling--I am not, in fact, anyone here's
>> adversary, in spite of obvious grudges held against me for my past
>> transgression--but them's the facts. It goes:
>> God > Country > Looneys > Customers (Judges) > folks on a listserv
>> > me.
>> David
>> _______________________________________________
>> Icehouse mailing list
>> Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse
> _______________________________________________
> Icehouse mailing list
> Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse

Icehouse mailing list

Carlton "Kermit" Noles
"Joy Multiplies when it is shared among friends but grief diminishes at every division. That is life"
-Drizzt Do'Urden
Want your own GMail Account?
Ask Me for an invite.

Current Thread