Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

Re: [Icehouse] IGDC - Question

  • From"Carlton Noles" <carlton.noles@xxxxxxxxx>
  • DateFri, 14 Mar 2008 09:40:34 -0400
to refer once again to 'the old way' one of the original rules was that agame could be entered more than once as long as there was significant change to the rules and/or design. Again the point was to reward game development. Keep that in mind and we should be fine.

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Scott Sulzer <ssulzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But, when is the design done?  After all, many of the games get re-written to some extent after the completion of the competition.  If for no other reason than to clarify the rules and/or make them easier to read.  Also, by placing that restriction, you outst anything which was compleated before, but was not qualified for, a restricted competition, which can delay someone putting it up on the Wiki as well as reducing the potential play-testing before it gets submitted to the contest.  I do understand that what published means needs a tighter definition of what is meant by it, so that there is a greater clarity to the rules, but I don't know if that will do.


-----Original Message-----
From: icehouse-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:icehouse-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Artman
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:54 AM
To: Icehouse Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Icehouse] IGDC - Question


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).


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.