Thanks for starting this. I was thinking about the ICE Awards just the other day. Do we think a thread will be sufficient, or do we maybe want to try to get a forum or a group set up?
As for numbers, I think maybe there was a pent up supply last year and this may be a more "normal" number. I had proposed setting up some sort of exhibition to encourage development, but that went nowhere.
I think no more than 6-8 semi-finalists would be as much as a we could manage, then the self-appointed cabal could narrow it down to 3 finalists. Most people at Origins could manage 3 games along with the rest of their schedule, so I would say "no more than 3." And unless the alternatives are really bad, I would also say "no less than 3." Absent something extraordinary, that works out to (wait for it) "exactly 3."
Not sure, actually, if we'll need more than a single thread. It can be a long thread, that's okay by me. A whole agora of threads would probably be suited to one thread per game, but most games probably dont need that much conversation.
Perhaps it would be sensible to have one thread to discuss procedures, and one thread to discuss the actual games themselves? But maybe even that would get too splintered.
In general, I'm okay with keeping it all together.
The threading mechanism here can sometimes be hard to follow, so I was thinking that maybe it would be good to be able to break off individual discussions into their own threads.
So: Did he reply? Notification. Vs. Did he reply? Dig through the big thread until you can find the subthread that deals with what you care about.
Really? I thought the threading was pretty good. But I suppose I haven't really used Ning very much; there's probably a lot of situations I'm not thinking of at the moment.
Well, I suppose we should start with using 1 thread, which seems to be enough now, and expand as needed. No need to build Rome just this minute, but it's good to think of these things.
In the 6-Cap Volcano thread, after a while I started having trouble following along as people were responding to responses and also responding to the main thread. It was difficult for me to tell what was new without going through and looking at the timestamps on everything (and trying to remember how long it had been since I'd read it last).
I would like to open up a question: Last year we simply said "Amateur Games Only." This easily excluded all Looney Labs games, and made sense at the time. But this year, Jan Divecky has 2 games, Flags and Pyramideto, which are being sold commercially. Are they also excluded? I dont imagine Jan makes very much money off of the cards (which could theoretically be used in other games as well, in the same way that a Decktet could be used in other games, although less likely.)
What is it to be? "amatuer" meaning non-Profit, or "amateur" meaning non-Looney? I fFeel it is unfair to include Looney Games in the competition, but beyond that?
May be I am too fresh in this community but as I see there are so many pyramid games no one can know all of them well and no one can play all of them. For me it is great i can follow some hints (Awards) what to try and what game is really good. If experienced gamers say: Theese three games are the best we had in 2010 it will push me to try such games.
I do not see any reason why to delete new Looneys pyramid games from the list. (Oh, well, except keeping my fingers crossed for Pyramideto and Flags :) )
As you said the goal is to promote Looney Labs catalog. I see the pyramids there :). In my opinion - more people playing pyramid games, more pyramids sold. It should be good for Looney Labs, don´t you think so?
I see the rules fFor fFlags posted here: Flags Rules
I am basically okay with these as being rules which are "fFreely available to download." All that is missing is the goal cards. I would prefer to see a collection of images made, possibly with Denis Moskowitz's Pyramid Images, to use as Goal Cards. (maybe that should be my contribution towards playtesting that I am quite delinquent on reporting! As an official playtester, I should make that my bound duty.)
But, in summary, I am of the opinion that the requirement of "fFreely available to download" has been fFulfilled here. Jan has provided every aspect of the game, probably more than was available fFor other games last year.
Is it the best game of the year? I cannot say =) I like a lot of games fFrom the past year, actually. But I think it's eligible, yes.
Proposed eligibility guidelines:
- The games we consider must be freely available. The existence of a "pay" version does not preclude consideration of a free version if they are the same game.
- Our goal is to promote games beyond the Looney Labs catalog, so Looney Labs games are ineligible for consideration.
This sound like a perfect plan to us. These are the ICE awards - C is for Community - so Looney Labs games should not be eligible.
Thanks again for organizing this - we will provide a table again in The Big Experiment to promote the playing/voting, and can promote it online in advance of the show!
Iceminers looks like, from the history page, to have been created in 2010. Also, it looks to be in its final form (though I haven't played it yet). Perhaps that belongs on the list.