Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginger Power
Stronghold: "We shoot dodge balls which are called boulders into a tower. We drive over field obstacles which are called defenses. At the end of the match we climb a bar. It also has a cool medieval theme going on."
Steamworks: "We shoot wiffle balls which are called Fuel into a high goal which is called the Boiler. We also place Gear shaped pieces onto lifts which are connected to a big platform on the field called the Airship. Team members stand on the Airship and retrieve the Gears from the lifts and place them on the Airship for points. At the end of the game we climb a rope. The whole game has a cool steampunk theme."
|
That's a pretty long description for a "simple" game.
But regardless, I chose the wrong word in my first post. "Explain", the term I really should have used is "introduce".
I have two main examples for this, neither of which involved someone on a team talking to the people involved.
The first was before me (and basically my entire nuclear family) became members of FIRST teams. Every year, my dad and I would go to the NASA/VCU/Virginia regional in Richmond at the VCU Siegel Center. We would walk in with very little idea about the game objective, robot designs, or who was playing, but sometimes (2008, 2010, 2011), the objectives were relatively clear and obvious. Most of the time, it was pretty easy to tell where the majority of points came from, even in 2009 (although that game was easily the worst of the four). It didn't take someone explain the game to us to understand: the result was relatively obvious.
The second is much more recent. My sister has only been paying attention to FRC the past two seasons (2015 and 2016, joined a team this season). Of those, she found Recycle Rush the more interesting game (a travesty, I know). Why? Because it was simpler to understand. The scoring mechanic was obvious. Sure, there's always going to be added complexities to a game. But it was pretty clear pretty quickly what was a score, what wasn't, and how much the score was worth.
I don't disagree with anyone in saying 2016 and 2017 have been and will be fun games. I especially appreciate this year's game. But I can understand how an outsider will enter the arena this year and quickly have a hard time following the match. Simpler games with distinct, followable scoring elements and value correlation (2010-13) can be challenging to participants while still easily understood by an outsider.