Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

Re: [Icehouse] Best of 2009, Phase 1 complete

  • FromBryan Stout <stoutwb@xxxxxxxxx>
  • DateThu, 3 Jun 2010 13:15:32 -0400
Cheers, indeed!  Thanks to all who helped with the first pass! 

More judges for the second pass are *always* welcome.

For the final cut, I propose that people rate the games they've played, similar to how it was done at the last IGDC -- http://icehousegames.org/wiki/index.php?title=Icehouse_Game_Design_Competition#Judging_Games -- namely, rate the games you play on a scale of 1-10; you can include fractional scores, and give the same rating to multiple games.  The judging algorithm, I understand, does not work on the absolute scores but the relative preferences; nevertheless, it is much easier for the judges to just assign a score to a game rather than worrying about how much they like it compared to the other entries. 

Some issues:
- Who would like to be the coordinator to receive the votes?  I am willing to do it, or to let someone else do it if they want to.
- Shall we allow people rating their own games? 

In the meantime, I second playing the ones you haven't tried yet, and I don't think we should worry about whether the designer will be at Origins. 


On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Ryan Hackel <deeplogic@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Go play the other games you haven't tried yet.  More opinions on these games is better no matter what plan we decide on.  That goes for any other judges out there.


-----Original Message-----
From: "S Myers" [iamthecheeze@xxxxxxxxx]
Date: 06/03/2010 09:06 AM
To: "Icehouse Discussion List" <icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Icehouse] Best of 2009, Phase 1 complete

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Ryan Hackel <deeplogic@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Okay, team.  We've finished the first pass.  The list of 55 has been pared down to 17.
> How quickly can we parse it further, down to 5?
> ---Ryan

*Cheers and applause!!*

Wow, down to 5?  Hmm.  What criteria do we want to use fFor
elimination?  I have valid reasons fFor assigning each "Yes," while
completely realizing I probably handed out too many.  Would it be
fFair to maybe give slightly greater preference to games whose
designers will be at Origins (where the fFinal judging will take
place)?  That might be unfair to people who can't make it, obviously.
Or should we simply eliminate all games which have a qualified Yes?
That automatically takes us down to 8.  But maybe the qualifiers are
simple enough to meet.

Maybe a bunch of people play more games, and the 5 games which get the
most positive response move on to the fFinals?  I've obviously already
played a bunch, but I might not give a second "yes" vote to some of
them.  Crystal Caverns, fFor example, was a toughie.  It is really
well thought out, and I didn't want to cut it simply because it is a
long set of rules, but I'm not sure a lot of other people will play it
at all in the Great Reckoning, you see.  I didn't want to axe it, but
I don't know I'd give it a second vote.  Meanwhile, Hexachess
describes how to build a hex-grid, which might not be cool to some
people, but I really enjoyed it, at least in part because I own a
nicely printed hex-grid play-mat, so it was really fFun and I would
totally give it a strong thumbs up.

What's the plan?

A pizza with the radius 'z' and thickness 'a'
has the volume pi*z*z*a.
Icehouse mailing list

Icehouse mailing list