Looney Labs Rabbits Mailing list Archive

Re: [Rabbits] Giant Pyramids

  • From"Superdairyboy" <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateThu, 7 Sep 2006 16:42:44 -0500

  Ditto I agree I do not like Treehouse either. Nor do the other 5
IceHouse players here. the game is verging on Gay.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Tyberg <dfunkmale@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:49:51 -0400
To: Rabbits Discussion List <rabbits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Rabbits] Giant Pyramids

Elliott C. "Eeyore" Evans wrote:
>You're not grasping the reality of the curent situation. Treehouse is the
>center of the Icehouse world right now.

That may well be true, but I think there's less incentive to buy giant
pieces to play turn-based games than to play real-time games.  Gameplay
changes drastically for Giant Ice Towers, requiring action that borders on
athleticism.   Meanwhile, Giant Treehouse is simply a scaled up version of
its tabletop sibling, thus offering an identical gaming experience.  So if
you've bought three or four stashes to play Giant Icetowers, buying a
more for Giant Volcano seems more within reach.

And granted, I'm not taking a Treehouse-centric view of things.  Having
played it a bunch just recently, I've developed a bit of a bias against it.
I don't think it's that much fun, specially when I compare it to the other
pyramid games I play.  So what's the point of there being a game you can
play with just one stash if you don't like that game anyway?  Besides, I
thought one of the biggest selling points of Icehouse pyramids was their
multifunctionality for a myriad of games.  Should we be downplaying that
when we demo and just tell people that Treehouse is THE game that uses
pyramids?  I personally don't think I would've been sold on icehouse
pyramids to play any single game with them.  But the fact that I was
essentially buying a whole raft of diverse games that use the same pieces
made it worth it to me.  Meh, maybe I'll learn to like Treehouse over time.
I'm going to keep giving it chances.

And granted, the giant pieces have always been a bit pricey.  You could
as easily argue that ALL games are luxury items.  But at $40, you're
about almost double the previous price.  To me, that's a hard sell.  And
sure, you can play Treehouse with just one stash, but at the same time, you
now need to buy 5 Treehouse sets to play Giant (or regular) Ice Towers as
opposed to before when you could buy three solid color stashes and be on
your way.  And if you need six or more stashes, you need to buy ten
Treehouse sets. (five each of the two different color schemes...) So even
though Treehouse has decreased the initial cost of getting into icehouse
pieces, the cost of utilizing the pyramids as a multi-game system has gone
up.  Of course, developing more games that can all be played with 1-4
Treehouse sets would alleviate this situation.

~David Tyberg

On 9/7/06, Elliott C. Evans <eeyore@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> David Tyberg wrote:
> > I dunno about that.  $30-$40 strikes me as a bit prohibitive.  At $40 a
> > stash, you're talking $120 to play Giant Ice Towers and $240 for enough
> > stashes to play Giant Volcano.
> You're not grasping the reality of the curent situation. Treehouse is the
> center of the Icehouse world right now. Before, you needed to collect
> several stashes before you could even start. Now, buying *one* giant set
> gets you a complete game. A single purchase entertains four people
> instead of each person having to buy their own stash or one person having
> to buy multiple stashes.
> > A price like that makes them quite a luxury item.
> The giant pieces have always been a luxury item.
> --
> Elliott C. "Eeyore" Evans                              eeyore@xxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> Rabbits mailing list
> Rabbits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/rabbits

Rabbits mailing list

Current Thread