Most Important Game Aspect

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

I voted for audience appeal. I think we are at a time where, to increase visibility of existing teams and attract new teams and sponsors, we need to have an event that is watchable and easy to understand. Lunacy passed the understanding test - what could be simpler than scoring a ball in your opponents' trailers? But I heard from a lot of people that it was just too disjointed to watch and keep track of who was ahead. There was stuff going on all over the field. Overdrive was simpler to watch; you got the idea of who was faster by watching who was passing.

Several of the other choices contribute to the audience appeal. For example, if the challenge is too hard to build and there are ineffectual robots out there, there is nothing fun to watch.

Of course a challenge has to be given to the teams. If the game is too easy, students won't learn much. If they don't learn, they won't be as inspired. Let's face it, drilling holes, filing and tightening bolts isn't that all inspiring. There has to be something to the game, both mechanically and strategically.

I've heard lots of comments and complaints about design restrictions this year, that not exceeding the bumper perimeter and the explicit bumper rules limited the teams' creativity. But that was part of the point of the game. Just like everyone had to figure out how to work with the provided wheels on the FRP surface, everyone had to figure out how to make their manipulators work inside this year's confines.

I also voted for audience appeal, and Gary explained why perfectly, so I won't bother to repeat it. His entire post sums up exactly what I was going to write. I'll admit that the strategy part is my personal favorite- that's what makes games most exciting to me, but overall I think the audience-friendliness is most important and incorporates many other factors.

[Dan Petrovic]

I voted for something else.

Triple Play is my favorite game because it had one, simple robot function, many different opportunities to score and the ability to de-score against opponents. The rows were important and it took a clever strategy to keep your opponents from having more rows.

The game was dynamic and I don't feel it was difficult to explain it. 3 points per tetra on top of a goal, top tetra determines who owns the goal, if the alliance owns three goals in a row (think tic-tac-toe) then they get bonus points.

Very simple. The game piece was easy to manipulate and success relied more on driver skill than robot design.

[JaneYoung]

The game has to be fun and challenging. Remove those two aspects, everything else disappears.

[Richard Wallace]

Grandmothers.

• The game should be visually intuitive, so your grandmother will immediately see what your robot is doing on the field.
  
• Successful game tactics and tournament strategies should require cleverness and skill, and the game should not reward destructive tactics or strategies based on deception -- winning play should make your grandmother proud, not confused.
  
• Game rules should be simple and penalties few, so that your grandmother can spend her time in the stands watching with pride and cheering with excitement, not trying to explain what is going on to her friends.

[Norman J]

Originally Posted by RMS11

Most importantly, AWESOME!

Seconded, Awesomeness is always a plus.

[NorviewsVeteran]

My dad was not happy with the robo-blender effect that went on during the matches this year. He did mention that last year (despite pileups) the games were easier to follow and that if you want an audience, they shouldn't have to be briefed on what the heck is going on every second of a match.

[BradMello]

I think one of the most important aspects of any game is for it to be able to be played more than one way. Game designs that promote one type of robot design are not interesting. This year, there were two types of robots (basically), shooters and dumpers. I think the gdc does an awesome job at making the game playable in different ways every year. An example of a game design that didn't allow for much diversity in design is this years VRC (vex..) game, "Elevation". There was pretty much only one basic design, (an escalator type).

Diversity in robot designs could also lend into the "spectator friendly" category, because seeing different types of robots compete each other is probably more interesting than seeing duplicates of the same robot.

*edit*

oh yeah, and making sure the drivers are able to see the field, like last year that middle lexan divider was very reflective under lights.

[Enigma's puzzle]

I would have to say the best game is the one that allows many different and effective variations of robots. Essentially a chance to innovate and make a large range of designs.

[BigWhiteYeti]

I think the most important thing is to create a game in which a very wide variety of designs and strategy can be employed. The main reason I didn't like this year's game is that all the robots looked pretty much the same, with only a few exceptions.

[Duncan Macdonald]

I feel that the most important thing is to allow teams to make the game as difficult as they choose.

06 - shuttle balls to the corner all the way to camera tracking turrets
07 - ramp bot to a transformer that went from effective ring scorer to double ramp
08 -drivetrain to five line autonomous removing two balls and hurdling on the run

I don't believe "leveling the field" is the right goal. I support making sure everyone has the ability to impact the game.

[1086VEX]

i'd have to say that robot to robot interaction is very important(ramp bots in '07). its really a cool sight to see two robots interacting with one another to gain an advantage. its both a interesting thing to watch from the spectators point of view, and a great challenge for the teams.