Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

Re: [Icehouse] IGDC - Question

  • From"David Artman" <david.artman@xxxxxxxxx>
  • DateFri, 14 Mar 2008 12:54:26 -0400
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Scott Sulzer <ssulzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But, when is the design done?

When it's designer says it's done and takes it out of Games Under Development.

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.

So? Feedback and refinement is one of the points of running the IGDC. Think "release candidate" versus "patched", if using a software paradigm helps you better follow the flow.

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.

Completed before a design restriction? Huh? That's cart-before-horse. If it was "before" a design restriction, then it's eligible to "open design" and we've alternatted, so far. Or one could easily tweak my rule rewrite to say "the conclusion of the previous open IGDC" and eliminate this objection.

And this is a red herring anyway (see Summer 2008 Talk page): a Game Designer will post a game because Game Designers Design Games. Someone trying just to win some tiny contest with no prizes or remuneration will wait to post a game until there's an open competition (or, if they wish, until a design restriction fits their game elements). So what?

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.

That term was, apparently, clear for five previous competitions; it's only been an "issue" in the two most recent. Given the history and timing of the original IGDCs, it seem patently obvious that the term meant "not published in print for money" with the point being to keep the 'pro' games out of the 'new/amateur' games competition.

That said, this is still the best phrasing:

From: icehouse-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:icehouse-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Artman
I, personally, think it should just become "any game whose design was completed since the conclusion of the previous [ed-OPEN] 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).

As a side-note; I'd advise folks to avoid getting too literal with their reading of the IGDC procedures and focus on promotion and excitement. It's enough work to run it and document it without having to spin and gyre on semantics for hours worth of posts. (Anyone got a clue, now, as to why I quit running it? One guess....)

New Games -> Tested Games -> Recognition and Feedback for Participation -> Better Games. No room for "ringers" or for games that have been rules-tweaked for 6 years or for games that got massaged and modified prior to publishing (ex: Gnostics after Zarcana).

It's not about winning; it's about participating and getting new games to play. All the "rules" are so much noise and process to achieve those basic aims. (That should be the "Frozen Rule" of the IGDC, akin to the Golden Rule: Do Unto Other's Games as you would have them Do Unto Your Own.)