1. Opponents: I can play most games solo, doing each player's turn from his point of view -- it's how I do initial playtesting of any game ideas I have, anyway -- so I think for most of the first pass it's ok if we play them solo. 2. Games in Development: The possibility of an award-winning game being altered later doesn't bother me -- it happens with published games a lot anyway. Eliminating all games in development up front concerns me for two reasons: A) some people haven't changed the status of their game(s) because they haven't gotten around to it (myself, for example :-); B) we could be excluding some pretty mature designs (such as Amoeba, which I like a lot even thought it's listed under "Initial Game Designs"). If we're going to exclude games in development we ought to at least give the authors a chance to reclassify their games, and/or state they'd like their game considered even though it's "not finished". Regards, Bryan On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:38 PM, David Artman <david.artman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I also think that games in dev should be excluded. Suppose the winner ended > up being further developed until it was significantly different? > > On May 17, 2010 12:33 PM, "captncavern" <captncavern@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm definitely not going to be at Origins (a long way from Japan), but I'd > be willing to help with the preliminary judging. Distance could also be a > problem when it comes to meeting and discussing the games... > I'm not likely to find more than one opponent, but both of us have tried a > fair number of icehouse games, so if there are two-player games, we'll be > happy to try them out and give some feedback. > > When browsing through the list, I also noticed that games in preliminary > development were included. I think those could be dismissed from the start, > which would reduce the number of games to judge by a significant amount. > > Julien > >