On the whole, I like your counter-proposals as well as my own
proposals; it's time we get input from several other iceheads.
It's sounds fine to me to have just one rating, plus nominations for
special awards. I like your proposed categories:
> * Most Beautiful To Play is basically also saying "this game will get folks
> to stop and look."
> * Best Brain Buster also points the harder-core players to the really tough
> games (i.e. gives evidence that, nope, not all 'mid games are simple).
> * Best Introductory Game is the opposite: this game is great for demoing
> 'mids or playing with kids.
> * Best Use of Theme still provides an award for conforming to some
> comp-specific theme or what-not (if we even decide to come up with one every
> time).
> * Most Innovative Mechanics is my personal love, because it will push
> designs (hopefully) away from existing mechanics... and a new base mechanic
> can influence another whole wave of derivative games (viz what Martian
> Coasters did).
But if this were done, I think each should have a strong option for
"no award", because again the field is too small to justify an
automatic award each year. Since the theme would change from contest
to contest, "Best Use of Theme" would still be an appropriate title
there; but IMO the others would be better titled something like
"Special Award for {Aesthetics, Depth, Simplicity, Innovation}".
> Are you a Origins regular? At this junction, that's probably the main
> qualification for Coordinator. That and a couple of hours here and there,
> during the run-up, to promote and do some math once votes come in. (IGDC
> Coordination takes longer than writing tthese past two long emails has taken
> me, typically.)
I have been to the past 2 Origins (2009 was my first year as a
Rabbit), and I plan to continue attending.
> I am liking the sound of this more and more....
Assuming you mean an annual IGDC and an annual Awards in conjunction
with Origins, I agree.
Bryan