[Icehouse] IGDC Winter 2008 is ready for announcement tomorrow!

[Jorge Arroyo]

First. I'm not the author of Muntdialito (I would think that my name being
different from the actual designer it would be enough to notice, oh
well...), so save all your accusations, please... (I did translate the
rules, which is something I usually do when I can, just like I translated
Twin Win to Spanish recently). If the designer wishes to enter the contest
it's not my decision, and I woudn't discuss this point if I wouldn't believe
it worth discussing.

I appreciate your effort in posting my comment from the list to the wiki,
but also note that I did vote for the XHOUSE restriction on the wiki. This
is what I posted: "Id vote for a XHOUSE type of restriction, specifically I
think 1HOUSE would be best, but I'd go with the 3HOUSE limit. Also, I think
more games that make creative use of the Martian Coasters are needed, so
those two restrictions are what I'd vote for...
--Maka<http://www.icehousegames.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Maka>19:39,
27 October 2007 (EDT)" This post was made before Andy stated that
2HOUSE would be preffered, of course. And by saying "limit" I meant exactly
that, which makes more sense to me than artificially deciding when a game
can be played (however unconfortably) with less sets.

It could be argued that your game Chicken Run, by using pyramids to
represent the public instead of say, chess pieces, colored beads, dice, or
other material that is normally available at gamer's homes, is artificially
requiring 2 sets too... and note that I'm not saying your game shouldn't be
allowed in the competition, just pointing out how illogical this restriction
is. In fact by using different types of pieces, it would be easier to see
what piece is a player's piece or from the public.

I'm sorry you have so very little patience, but that is not a reason to stop
discussing something...

-Jorge

On 11/8/07, David Artman <david at davidartman.com> wrote:
>
> > From: "Jorge Arroyo" <trozo at makasoft.net>
> > almost any 2house game with 1 set and some extra equipment. In fact many
> of
> > the games in the 2house "what can I play" section would be rejected in
> this
>
> (Historical Note: I made the "What Can I Play?" page; and at the time I
> was taking game rules as written, not to mention trying to get through
> nearly two hundred games--reading each one's requirements, including
> different player number variation calculations--just to get it done.
> You're welcome.)
>
> Actually, only Mundialito would be rejected, because it arbitrarily
> requires the players to use matching stacks per side, when they could
> easily use Green & Blue versus Red & Yellow for the same game (use small
> and medium Black for the balls). All the other games are clearly labeled
> as player-number restricted or are variations at the 2-set level, or
> actually require 2 sets.
>
> ...Are you hoping to submit Mundialito for the IGDC, even though it's
> old and already heavily tested by those who participated in the 2007
> Ciutat de Granollers de Creación de Juegos? If so, that's sort of... I
> dunno... greedy? I mean, that game has had its testing and judging; it's
> been noticed and refined; can't you come up with something new (or, at
> the least, let others have a shot with newer, less-refined games)?
>
> ... And while we're speaking of Mundialito, it would have been nice if
> the shots at this site showed actual Martian Coasters; the Looneys could
> use the sales... and you also provide PDFs that basically keep someone
> from ever having to buy any Treehouse sets or MCs to play it or any
> other game that uses them. *sigh*
> http://www.labsk.net/index.php?topic=4157.msg35364#msg35364
> http://icehousegames.org/wiki/index.php?title=Mundialito#External_Links
>
> So, Mundialito does not actually "promote the sale of a second set to a
> new adopter," (never mind that its downloads actually *suppress* sales)
> so it doesn't qualify.
>
> Let's take it to the extreme case: Mundialito and some other random
> (explicitly, unavoidably) 2HOUSE game are the only submitted games. We
> get five hundred new judges, all of whom go out and buy a second TH set
> to go with their first set. They then discover (those clever enough to
> recognize that color doesn't really matter; just distinguishability)
> that "half" (out of two) of the IGDC games don't really *need* a second
> set. 500 people feeling gypped by 50% of the IGDC games.
>
> How many of those 500 come back next year, when the restriction is (say)
> 4HOUSE? Or "uses Martian Coasters"?
>
> Now, let's quote a Customer Service Truism: "Every dissatisfied customer
> will tell at least ten other people about the experience." So... now
> 5000 people hear "The IGDC is just a gimmick--half the games that
> supposedly 'require' a second set really don't! The value-add of this
> second set, to me, is half what was implied by the number of 'new' IGDC
> games!"
>
> So... taken to the extreme--which we'd LIKE; we WANT a ton of judges,
> believe me!--every relaxing of the 2HOUSE restriction is a potential to
> gyp a new adopter.
>
> Forget it. Not this IGDC. Not this Coordinator.
>
> If you want a different tack for the Winter 2009 IGDC, then I suggest
> that you chime in earlier--I can not find any comment from you about the
> restriction, in the Winter 2008 Talk/planning; only your vote for
> designers not self-ranking, which *I* posted there for you, from a
> message you sent to this list. (You're welcome.)
>
> > Your game Chicken Run, can be played with 1 set and some coins in three
> > sizes, so by your reasoning, it shouldn't be allowed in the contest. (I
> use
> > your game as a handy example, but many other games would fit)
>
> You're begging the question... or making a moot point (not sure which
> exactly).
>
> Nearly EVERY IH/TH game can be redone with Legos or with piecepaks
> (which mimmick pyramids, basically) or with cutout squares from colored
> Post-It notes (or with your paper pyramid download). So what? Hell, many
> IH/TH games can be played in your head, or with paper and pencil. So
> what?
>
> > I think it makes much more sense to make it clear that games will be
> scored
> > by how well they fit into the "2House" category. This requirement is too
> > subjective in my view...
>
> Your opinion is clear, it is noted, and your vote would not have been
> enough to shift the majority away from 2HOUSE requirement anyway (had
> you voted).
>
> And as a final note... I'd prefer it if one person's objective
> assessment of conformity to the restriction (me) winnows down the games
> list to solid, sales-promoting, Looney-benefiting games, than have
> thirty to fifty "subjective" opinions skew rankings all over the ballots
> (one judge might slam a 1HOUSE game to 8th out of 8 places; another
> might just drop it a rank after playing and pre-ranking all games before
> considering the 2HOUSE requirement).
>
> OK... I think I've exhausted my arguments. (I know I've exhausted my
> patience.)
>
> Fin.
> David
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Icehouse mailing list
> Icehouse at lists.looneylabs.com
> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.looneylabs.com/pipermail/icehouse/attachments/20071108/af6bd57f/attachment-0001.htm