Thanks to my pack-rat friend Greg,
I’m in the process of restoring most of my content. Things will still be
shakey for a while as my ISP stabilizes the environment. I have a backlog of
content to publish as well, including a glorious day of gaming yesterday where
we had about 19 people at our home.
I’m still sorting through some configuration challenges on the host machine,
so if you aggregate the site with an RSS reader, it will be broken for a
while. Hopefully we’ll get this resolved tonight.
My ISP crashed the box where my weblog was hosted. I may have lost quite a bit
of content as well. My own fault for not having a better backup strategy.
I’ll be gradually replacing content as I recover it from various sources, so
please be patient. If you happen to use a news aggregator and have an archive
of my postings, please let me know! You might be able to help me out.
I read in the nimrods blog about this
Jacob Davenport, designer (or co-
designer) of some great
Icehouse games like
Few topics have garnered such praise and criticism as
Agile / Extreme programming (XP) over the past 4 years.
Its proponents argue that XP is a deliberate and disciplined approach to
software development, while its opponents often claim that it is nothing more
than a chaotic, shoot-from-the-hip approach that eschews formal requirements
analysis and design. The Truth is, when applied to certain classes of
projects, XP is a very attractive, effective approach that can be very
Jacob’s juxtaposition of XP on top of game design is interesting, though I
wonder what point he is trying to make. I’m not a game designer, but the two
seem so very different to me. Software methodologies exist for one primary
reason – to reduce the defects (or, to put it a different way, increase the
quality) of a software product. Usually this means bringing some formality to
how we figure out what the problem is (requirements), how we plan to solve the
problem (design), solving the problem (programming), and verifying that we
solved it (testing).
Game design isn’t so much about solving a problem as it is producing a system
for entertainment – an act of creativity. I’m not sure that any sort of
methodology would help me become a game designer. But I will concede that
Jacob’s ideas make a lot of sense around the area of game and rule refinement.
He has some nice things to say about refactoring and testing that sound
applicable to game design.
Mark Jackson took some time to
summarize what are
called “5 and 10” or “five and dime” reports culled from
this year. This was a bit late in coming, but better late than never. The
results were taken from 64 different gamers, with 5 points awarded if the
gameshowed up on their five list (played 5-9 times) and 10 points if the game
showed upon their dime list (played 10+ times). Here is a list of the top 10:
The games on the list clearly fall into a few distinct categories: light
filler games that people tend to play frequently (Liar’s Dice, Can’t Stop,
Transamerica, Lost Cities, Take 6) and deeper strategic games that are hugely
popular (Puerto Rico, Settlers). The game in a category by itself, dexterity
games, is Crokinole. You can put Carcassonne in either the light filler
category or deeper game depending on your preference :-).
I’ve played all of these games except for Lost Cities and Take 6. Actually
I’ve played Lost Cities online against an AI, but never in real life.
Judging from the session reports I’ve been reading so far this year, it looks
like Puerto Rico will again be at the top of the list for 2003. A few
predictions for new games that we might see in the top 10 for 2003:
Likely it will be tough to displace some of the tried-and-true fillers (like
Can’t Stop and Liar’s Dice) and classics.