Use this thread to post comments or questions on the October 2005 GDS, found here: http://www.bgdf.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=26573
-Jeff[/url]
Questions or comments on the October 2005 Showdown
Thu, 10/13/2005 - 06:40
Thu, 10/13/2005 - 10:42
#1
Questions or comments on the October 2005 Showdown
That's nifty - I was thinking about this exact theme yesterday!
1. Is it 3D if, for example, you have 3 game boards which represent the 3 floors of a building and players can step on staircase spaces to move from one board to the other? Certainly seems less annoying than implementing the same thing in actual 3D. If yes, is it still 3D if those 3 boards represent something abstract (like obviously in this theme, they could each be a grade)? So the player can move in 2D on the board they're on, but also move in that 3rd 'dimension', from board to board.
2. Is it 3D if your pawn collects tokens which stack up on top of it? If not, is it 3D if the order of said tokens is significant?
3. Hmm, maybe some 3D examples wouldn't hurt...
4. So no changes to word limit, picture rules, entry requirements, or voting?
Thu, 10/13/2005 - 12:11
#2
Questions or comments on the October 2005 Showdown
Hamumu wrote:
4. So no changes to word limit, picture rules, entry requirements, or voting?
You beat me to it, Mike!
So, what is the fallout from last month's discussion?
K.
Thu, 10/13/2005 - 12:19
#3
Questions or comments on the October 2005 Showdown
Kreitler wrote:
So, what is the fallout from last month's discussion?
Nothing's changed at this point ... carry on as normal. I don't think there's enough of any consistent negative trend to require correcting.
-Bryk
Thu, 10/13/2005 - 12:34
#4
Questions or comments on the October 2005 Showdown
Quote:
1. Is it 3D if, for example, you have 3 game boards which represent the 3 floors of a building and players can step on staircase spaces to move from one board to the other? Certainly seems less annoying than implementing the same thing in actual 3D. If yes, is it still 3D if those 3 boards represent something abstract (like obviously in this theme, they could each be a grade)? So the player can move in 2D on the board they're on, but also move in that 3rd 'dimension', from board to board.
I think if I had my say, in the case above, just "extracting" a building down to 2D without any 3D relationship across the floors would not qualify. There would have to be some relationship to the pieces above each other ala "Chopper Strike"
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/2446
Quote:
2. Is it 3D if your pawn collects tokens which stack up on top of it? If not, is it 3D if the order of said tokens is significant?
And along the same lines, if the stacked order is significant, I feel that would meet the 3D requirement, since it represents a positional relationship in the "height" direction.
ala "Manahattan"
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/199
Thu, 10/13/2005 - 13:04
#6
Questions or comments on the October 2005 Showdown
Oh here's a question! Do I have to spend my 800 words on the "licensing" part of the requirement, as that really isn't rules, but more of marketing?
Thu, 10/13/2005 - 15:05
#7
Questions or comments on the October 2005 Showdown
Brykovian wrote:
Nothing's changed at this point ... carry on as normal. I don't think there's enough of any consistent negative trend to require correcting.
-Bryk
I think this is how it should be... get some more data points before performing any calculations!
Thu, 10/13/2005 - 21:08
#9
Questions or comments on the October 2005 Showdown
jwarrend wrote:
A great example of an essentially 3d mechanic can be found in Manhattan, in which players place skyscrapers on top of each other; the height of the skyscraper matters for scoring, ownership is determined by the player with the topmost segment, and there are placement restrictions based on the current composition of the skyscaper. This game would rate highly in the 3d aspect of this contest.
OK -- so let me muddy things up. Strictly speaking, the Manhattan example is 1D. You're building a line. So, when you say 3D, do you actually mean "vertical"?
K.
I must sound like an idiot. Let me explain why I'm asking such a stupid question.
Suppose you have a design where you move along a 2D board collecting items that must then be stacked (stacks earn you points, etc). To me, this is a 2D mechanic loosely coupled to a 1D mechanic. Does that constitute a 3D game? (If the answer is "yes", would it still be "yes" if, instead of stacking items, you laid them in a line?)
Now consider the old "connect 4" game in 3D: you have a board with 16 rods in a 4x4 square. Each rod is tall enough to stack 4 beads. You and another player take turns placing one bead on the playing field. The first one to put 4 into a line (in any 3D direction) wins. This is pure 3D gameplay -- 1 mechanic executed in a 3D space.
Are they both 3D? Is one more 3D than the other? Is this up to the judges to decide (and if so, please weigh in with your opinions so the competitors can adjust their designs accordingly)?
K.
Thu, 10/13/2005 - 23:24
#11
Questions or comments on the October 2005 Showdown
jwarrend wrote:
Hope this helps. As I said, yes, it's all up to the judges' discretion. I think a certain amount of leniency is in order, but also that there's a fair bit of room for creativity (I hope).
-Jeff
Gotcha. Thanks, Jeff -- that does help.
K.
Sat, 10/15/2005 - 23:09
#12
Questions or comments on the October 2005 Showdown
jwarrend wrote:
Connect 4 is a tough case; my opinion is that it would qualify, but it would not earn strong points for creativity as a 3D mechanic; it's a 2D mechanic that happens to work much better in 3D, but that's enough that I wouldn't split hairs about saying the mechanic meets the requirement.
Not to be nit-picky, but I think perhaps the two of you are talking about different games. Kreitler's "connect 4" is the old Score Four, http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/3656 definitely a 3D implementation, while I think you're talking about Connect Four http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/2719 which is just a 2D game stood vertically.
Sun, 10/16/2005 - 02:22
#13
Questions or comments on the October 2005 Showdown
disclamer wrote:
Kreitler's "connect 4" is the old Score Four, http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/3656 definitely a 3D implementation, while I think you're talking about Connect Four http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/2719 which is just a 2D game stood vertically.
Yes! Score Four is correct. Thanks for the correction!
K.
My feeling at this point is that all of these decisions rest in the hands of the judges. I will answer your questions from the perspective of how I'd likely rate them as a judge, but I won't forbid anything outright...
I would not rate this highly; under the contest wording, the mechanic or component itself is supposed to be 3d; no mention is made of the thing being simulated. So, having a mechanic that simulates a 3d concept, but in a non-3d way, wouldn't, in my view, fill the requirements. In that sense, while it's true that the 3-tiered board might be more annoying, it would also be more appropriate. See "Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit" for an example.
Movement between boards in the 3rd dimension could be more appropriate, but save yourself the ambiguity and just call out a 3d board in your game specs.
Also, note that the mechanic should be essentially 3d; to me, this means that it shouldn't be possible to achieve the effect in 2d. For example, having players advance up a staircase to show what grade they are in, without some height-based effect, is only trivially 3d -- the exact same effect can be achieved in 2d. For an example of this, see Lord of the Rings: the Duel, simulating the duel between Gandalf and the Balrog; the bridge is a 3d component, but could just as easily be a 2D component (and should be -- it falls apart too easily!)
I would say yes, both are 3D, but I'd rate the latter more strongly, personally.
A great example of an essentially 3d mechanic can be found in Manhattan, in which players place skyscrapers on top of each other; the height of the skyscraper matters for scoring, ownership is determined by the player with the topmost segment, and there are placement restrictions based on the current composition of the skyscaper. This game would rate highly in the 3d aspect of this contest.
I would also argue that yogurt's Arcadia mechanic would qualify as essentially 3d because of the "covering up" effect, but I'm willing to hear rebuttals on that.
Hope this helps!
-Jeff