[Icehouse] IGDC - Question

[Carlton Noles]

to refer once again to 'the old way' one of the original rules was that
agame could be entered more than once as long as there was significant
change to the rules and/or design. Again the point was to reward game
development. Keep that in mind and we should be fine.

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Scott Sulzer <ssulzer at uidaho.edu> wrote:

>  But, when is the design done?  After all, many of the games get
> re-written to some extent after the completion of the competition.  If for
> no other reason than to clarify the rules and/or make them easier to read.
> Also, by placing that restriction, you outst anything which was compleated
> before, but was not qualified for, a restricted competition, which can delay
> someone putting it up on the Wiki as well as reducing the potential
> play-testing before it gets submitted to the contest.  I do understand that
> what published means needs a tighter definition of what is meant by it, so
> that there is a greater clarity to the rules, but I don't know if that will
> do.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* icehouse-bounces at lists.looneylabs.com [mailto:
> icehouse-bounces at lists.looneylabs.com] *On Behalf Of *David Artman
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:54 AM
> *To:* Icehouse Discussion List
> *Subject:* Re: [Icehouse] IGDC - Question
>
>
>
> II believe the point was that a print-published game is "finished," and
> the IGDC is for "refining" games. Thus, a game "locked" into a print format
> (err, a non-POD print format; warehoused books) can't be revised, so it
> would not benefit from IGDC participation. Or, rather, the benefits accrued
> would never reach the already-printed books, creating errata. That, and such
> games tend to have an unfair advantage, having enjoyed more attention
> (print) and playtesting (prep to print).
>
> As this comes up every comp, perhaps that rule should be reworded to read
> something like "games never in print" or "any game not available in a print
> publication" or some-such.
>
> I, personally, think it should just become "any game whose design was
> completed since the conclusion of the previous IGDC"--new games. We've had
> two open-design and one design-restricted comp--anyone with an older game
> who hasn't submitted by now either (a) isn't going to or (b) isn't paying
> attention to IHG.org or this list. That phrasing closes off "done" older
> games, but leaves open games that are languishing in development to be
> finalized and sent forth for judging. But it prevents (for instance) Zendo
> from competing (which is the extreme case of what the "previously published"
> thing was trying to avoid, as I mention above).
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> Icehouse mailing list
> Icehouse at lists.looneylabs.com
> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse
>
>


-- 
Carlton "Kermit" Noles
==================
"Joy Multiplies when it is shared among friends but grief diminishes at
every division. That is life"
-Drizzt Do'Urden
==================
Want your own GMail Account?
Ask Me for an invite.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.looneylabs.com/pipermail/icehouse/attachments/20080314/e1661f4a/attachment.htm