[rspurlin]

As is usual, almost every time I can add something I find that Dave Lavery had gotten there before I can post. And while I think almost any of Dave's posts can be immensely illuminating, the one just above deserves special mention. I've had game discussions with many of the GDC members and in doing gained an insight into how difficult the job really is. I don't think they have yet designed a perfect game and don't really expect them to succeed, even though I'm sure at some of them have that as a goal each year. It sometimes seems as if the major complaints from the previous year are corrected at the expense of some other aspect. I've had my share of 'what were you thinking?' discussions with some of these individuals. As long as it's a genuine question and not just complaining, I get a reasoned answer. It's not always one I agree with, but at least I've gained some insight.

Let me offer one other way to gain some insight to the process: Design a game yourself. We do this every year as part of our Fall training for new team members. They use VEX kits to play a 2 on 2 FIRST style game on Parent night after a short 'build season'.

So in designing your game, remember that you need a field that is easily and inexpensively constructed, game pieces that are easy to find. Robots should be able to manipulate them, but not too easily. The game rules need to be complex enough to challenge the participants and simple enough that they can be grasped by the audience quickly. The game has to be playable by the most basic of bots (think squarebot in the VEX world) yet difficult enough to challenge experienced builders. Avoid judgment calls by the referees. And whatever you do, don't appear to have the slightest hint of any previous game whatsoever.

And that doesn't even touch on all the issues Dave brings up.

Personally I think one of the hallmarks of FIRST has been consistently well designed games through the years. My congratulations and thanks to the members of the GDC.