lamancy in the games

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Drew

has anyone been noticing the lameness of the games in the years?

...and yet more and more people and more and more teams show up to play them every year. Hmmmm. So from that I must conclude that (choose any one):

A) the quality of the games just doesn't matter - we would all build robots to play "rock-paper-scissors" if FIRST told us to, cause it is just so freakin' much fun to build a robot until 2:30am every night for six weeks!
B) the 25,000 people participating in the process of building robots to play this year's game are all morons that love to play games that suck
C) the original premise is not quite correct, there is some room to improve but the games are not all that lame after all, and they provide a reasonable challenge for the teams to design toward and a reasonable level of excitement for the audience to watch
D) the original premise is way off base, the games are perfect and absolutely impossible to improve upon

I may admittedly be a little biased, but I think I am going to go with option "C."

And, yes, if you didn't notice - Dean, Woodie, and I take these sort of comments a little personally. Believe me, if you ever saw some of the ideas that never made it into the final games, you would really know what a "lame game design" could be! (Dave thinks about the "score points by throwing Krispy Kreme donuts at Dave and Jason Morrella" game).

-dave