Yes, please! Any help is greatly appreciated. I have a couple of games I added last year myself, but I don't think we need to worry about such matters during the initial pass. We will discuss it more later, of course. Thanks, Bryan On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Ryan Hackel <deeplogic@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I like the idea of a Rookie of the Year award, bestowed upon a fan-made game designed in year X and determined at Origins X+1. > > I also like the Hall of Fame idea. Inclusion into the Hall should be difficult but definitive. > > I'd be willing to make a preliminary pass at the 2009 roster to pose my list of finalists. I do have a horse in the race (Dectana) so I will leave it up to de-facto organizer Bryan Stout as to whether i should advance my opinion for finalists. > > ---Ryan > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Bryan Stout" [stoutwb@xxxxxxxxx] > Date: 05/14/2010 11:16 AM > To: "Icehouse Discussion List" <icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [Icehouse] 2009 pyramid game awards: who wants to help > > Thanks for responding, Jeff. After saying "Who would like to help?", > I was thinking "I find the sudden silence ver-r-r-r-r-r-ry > reassuring." > > I agree with the idea of "no award" being possible. Your wanting an > Excellence award is similar to an idea I was going to propose anyway, > so I might as well mention it now: > > Starting next year, which will be a big year for pyramid games from > the Labs, I propose that the Icehouse community open up an Icehouse > Games Hall of Fame, which will contain games that have stood the test > of time and are still judged excellent. Ten years as the minimum time > since invention strikes me as a good amount of time, and both official > Looney Labs games and fan-made games would be eligible. The Hall of > Fame will open with a few select classic games, and every year more > can be added -- probably one game, but perhaps more, perhaps none -- > as more games reach the age that they can be considered. > > Back to your thoughts, Jeff. I think it would be good to have both > types of awards: a Hall of Fame Award for true excellence over the > years, and an annual Apex Award (or whatever its name will be) for the > best new game(s) of the year -- which could still have No Award if no > good fan-made game was made that year. > > Now, back to *my* original question: would anyone like to help with > selecting the finalists for an award this year, either with an initial > pass, or an intermediate pass? > > Even if you all don't have time to help judge, your thoughts about the > awards are desired. Let's get this off the ground! > > Regards, > Bryan > > > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Jeff Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 1. Who would like to help go through these games? >>> 2. How shall we rate them? >> >> When I originally proposed the idea, I envisioned it as an Excellence award. >> I think we should look at it through the lens of "if you could publish one >> game (and only one game), what would it be?" I suspect we will not have >> much trouble screening out most of the entries, because they are not yet of >> publishable quality. I feel strongly that this shouldn't just be "what was >> the best of the bunch?" If they're all crap, there should be no award. >> Even if they're all decent but none of them are great, there should be no >> award. I'm inclined to say that we should leave it open to all unpublished >> games, not just ones developed in the past year. That would make it harder, >> but not necessarily too much harder. Of all the unpublished games out there >> I know about, there are only a handful that I would consider to be in the >> neighborhood of excellent. >> >> So here's the vision: In five years, the award is well established enough >> that Games Magazine (or a similar publication) prints a small article about >> it and publishes the rules for the winner. Mainstream exposure. >> >>> 3. How many finalists shall we have? >> >> There should be 3 finalists. We are asking people to fit these games into >> their convention schedule, so there should be as few as possible while still >> giving them a reason to vote. The finals should be a simple selection. We >> don't want to make it complicated for people. We want to give them every >> reason to participate, and no excuse not to participate. If we want it to >> truly be about Excellence, then we should include "none of the above" in the >> voting options. >> >>> 4. When should the finalists be determined? >> >> Ideally, it should be a month in advance. We probably don't have time to do >> it that soon, so I'd say at least two weeks. We need time to prepare >> materials for the public portion of the process. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Icehouse mailing list >> Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse >> > _______________________________________________ > Icehouse mailing list > Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse > > > _______________________________________________ > Icehouse mailing list > Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse >