First, let me say I mostly agree with what David is saying. The main goal of these kind of competitions is for the games to get played, tested and ultimately, become better games. As I said before, I don't really mind about the "1HOUSE" entries.
On Jan 2, 2008 5:13 PM, David Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(FWIW, I still do
not think that being able to substitute non-pyramid pieces is a
significant objection, as one can play nearly every Icehouse game with
only Legos or a couple of matching chess sets.)
Fair enough, I can understand your feelings, but let me just add that the entries that can be played with 1 set can really be played with one set and at most pen and paper.
> Now, if I had decided not to submit a game because of the strict
> requirement, I probably wouldn't be very happy about this (which fortunately
It is my sincere, fervent hope that a "game designer" does not withhold
> is not the case)...
an idea merely because it doesn't happen to fit a current IGDC
requirement. In fact, I'd hope that "game design" continues regardless
of the IGDC
I can see designers not submitting a game if they think it won't be accepted (which does not mean they won't publish it on the wiki) and wait for the next contest. Game design in fact goes on all through the year but the contests provide an opportunity for the games to get tested. This is a bit like in the piecepack comunity. You can publish a game and get zero feedback but then submit a game to a contest and get many useful comments. I think this is a problem with both communities. Games may get played but no feedback is given.
Also, I think the What Can I Play page should include games that are being play tested (not games in the initial design phase). This way, there'll be more opportunities for them to get played and receive feedback.
In fact, why don't we add all the games from the contest to the What Can I Play page so they all get some more exposure? (I'll do it if there's no objection)