On Nov 12, 2007 3:43 PM, Jorge Arroyo <
trozo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm not going to dissect your posts, David. You quote me, and I still agree with what I said, because I hope the games really use the 2 sets fully. I also hope they use the characteristics of the pyramids fully (pips, stacking and orientation). But I maintain that 2HOUSEness is subjective.
You take the examples to the extreme, but many games (yours included) can be played with one set by distinguishing different types of game pieces with different kinds of tokens (pyramids, coins, dice, beads, etc...).
IMO, whatever progress further discussion might make would be better served if you would STOP trying to erect this particular strawman.
Has _anyone_ (other than, perhaps, you) actually suggested that the ability to play a pyramid game with things other than pyramids should be a factor? How many pyramid games actually require ANY pyramids at all? I have not done an exhaustive survey, nor do I intend to do so, but a quick mental run-through leaves few contenders.
Treehouse? No
Martian Coasters? No
Black Ice? No
Homeworlds? No
Gnostica/Zarcana? No
Martian Chess? No
Martian Backgammon?
Tic-Tac-Doe? No
Zendo? No
...
IceTowers and Volcano? maybe -- ease of play depends on stacking and/or transparency. But the right kind of alternative pieces might work, too.
Icehouse? probably -- it seems to depend a lot on the geometry of the pieces. But maybe different shapes would work as well?
<sarcasm>Gosh -- maybe there aren't any pyramid games at all, and there is no way to tell the difference between, say, Homeworlds and Basketball (either can incorporate pyramids, neither _requires_ them). So let's just give up on designing and playing pyramid games entirely!</sarcasm>
Cheers, and good luck to everyone,
-Jorge
--
Frank F. Smith