Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

["David Artman" <david.artman@xxxxxxxxx>]

II believe the point was that a print-published game is "finished," and the IGDC is for "refining" games. Thus, a game "locked" into a print format (err, a non-POD print format; warehoused books) can't be revised, so it would not benefit from IGDC participation. Or, rather, the benefits accrued would never reach the already-printed books, creating errata. That, and such games tend to have an unfair advantage, having enjoyed more attention (print) and playtesting (prep to print).

As this comes up every comp, perhaps that rule should be reworded to read something like "games never in print" or "any game not available in a print publication" or some-such.

I, personally, think it should just become "any game whose design was completed since the conclusion of the previous IGDC"--new games. We've had two open-design and one design-restricted comp--anyone with an older game who hasn't submitted by now either (a) isn't going to or (b) isn't paying attention to IHG.org or this list. That phrasing closes off "done" older games, but leaves open games that are languishing in development to be finalized and sent forth for judging. But it prevents (for instance) Zendo from competing (which is the extreme case of what the "previously published" thing was trying to avoid, as I mention above).

David