[EricH]

Originally Posted by roboticsgoof95

How hard was it to explain the last games such as logomotion? because i sure didnt have a hard time explaining it... i mean even when they showed it on the news paul didnt have a hard time explaining it to the public...

Logomotion wasn't that hard. But trying to explain Triple Play (3D tictactoe where every piece scored counts) could take up to a minute if you included the (seldom used) endgame (and trust me, that short description is missing the vision tetras, the rows, and the pieces under the goals); Lunacy's best description would be something like "you're playing basketball on an ice rink where the baskets are on the backs of your opponents, and the bench is shooting too, and at the end there are some moneyballs that have to be activated and scored"; 2004's FIRST Frenzy was a bit tough due to having three separate scoring objectives (dodgeballs, of which there were two values and four places to score, exercise balls used to double the score of the dodgeballs, and hanging your robot on the bar) and having certain things dependent on a time trigger.

A good game should be able to be explained in a short time to the point where it can be followed (preferably without the announcer--half the time, your remote audience isn't going to be seeing what he's looking at), but the awesomeness of the engineering and strategies will continually amaze competitors and unaffiliated spectators alike.