Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

My condolences on Space War - I just looked at it and it seems very
interesting. 
 
Regarding your garage - I sort of agree with you but your idea allows
people to play around with suspected 'bad' games and ignoring the
thousands of 'not sure' games out there.  Assuming you get a group of
people to playtest(that may not happen..), it seems the time is best
spending on games that no one is quite sure about. So more like a center
for test driving new cars or never before driven cars , or exotic cars ..
) 
And there is no need in removing it from chessvariants is there?



Regarding comments on games, there are different directions this site can
go. Like Youtube which is essentially (in my opinion) a complete spam site
where everyone just flames the other videos - almost no constructive
criticism. I feel sorry for some of the real performance artists on
youtube - they get the worst comments of all. 
Or like a writing workshop (e.g. critters.org) where members try to read
each the other's work and ideally give some constructive criticism. Being
a member there - it does work for the most part.  

Or maybe stay the same - a  little bit of both ..) 




Anyway maybe my point being maybe Joes Garage can do more test drives of
new cars or never before driven cars as well . Or give some results of
already driven cars ..)

I think Juan's idea is fine and does not seem overly ambitious to me. We would just need to see if enough designers were interested and enough first-time designers were interested. If not, then the garage is an option.

In regard to defending your games... do they really need defended? Just list your critic's points, then use logic to tear them down. It should be a simple task. In event you cannot tear down a point, then (in that case) you would likely need to say, 'I think you are right about this aspect.'

I think it is best for a critic to play a game before attacking it... but there is a lot of the 'Green Eggs and Ham Syndrome' and they will be quick to say they do not like it without trying it. Perhaps some required reading is in order for all would-be game critics?

P.S. Another idea is to take a critic's points and apply them to one of his (or her own games)... the results can be interesting.

If any novices want to be paired with a designer, feel free to get paired
with IAGO Chess and play out the B-Class.  I would love to hear feedback. 
As soon as I can get a thing or two tweaked in a Zillions adaptation, it
should be good to go.  I do want to get the recycling working correctly on
it, before it is up.  As is a guideline for B-Class and greater (outside of
V and X Classes) the piece mix and the rules need to match up.

Charles, Gary, thanks for your responses. First I'd like to say that I
floated the idea of the garage in addition to, rather than instead of,
Invent and Play. And I think Juan's idea is quite interesting [and
ambitious, but I certainly don't have anything against ambition] and
surely deserves to be tried out as a third separate idea. However, the
rather loose structure of the garage lends itself to taking on [at least
most of] the functions of the other 2. So I offer it as a fallback
position, should there be need of one. As designers, Gary, I think I've
been drafted, and you just volunteered... :-D

As far as defending my games, well, actually, George went to a lot of
trouble to pan those games, and I don't want him to feel bad that I
didn't keep up my end. That line I wrote in my previous comment was more
of a throwaway line to introduce the garage than to really defend my
games. Guess I shoulda put the smiley face in my statement, I didn't mean
it to be taken very seriously.*

The point about SpaceWar is that, as a concept game, it's interesting,
but now that I know it's unworkable in its present form, I don't think
it should be onsite, because now it's a fraud, in that it purports to be
a game, but it's been shown to be unplayable. And all the games I've
posted were intended to be playable. So, it gets booted. If/when it's
fixed, it'll come back. I do like the idea, and thank you, Charles, for
the kind words. 

And this leads me to the CVwiki, which we are not really using all that
much. It's a great place to play, I hope more people join us. I've been
using it to work on games that may not yet be ready for prime time. I
think it's the perfect place to put those !?!? games, the ones you're
not sure of, but really want to do. They're out where everybody can see
[and play] them, but they're not yet 'official' CV games, so you can do
things and take chances you might not with a 'serious CV'. Well, that's
my take, for what it's worth.

*don't believe any of that, George, you're killing me - keep up the good
work

Asking for help, Joyce says ''apologies for cross-posting.'' Joe's new
pollutant index under ''Very Large CVs,'' applicable he says to
''anything,'' belongs here at Joe's Garage. Joe says this is ''a
place where you can dump a lot of stuff.''  Joe's Garage states, ''I
have games posted that are terrible; SpaceWar is unplayable as is.''
Five-Comment thread Joyce started suits Joyce's developing 1%, 10%, 99%
analysis. He assures there is more to come, well and good. Back at Large CVs topic, I individually rated 200-300 Large CVs
under each individual article in 2005; and over 10% are Excellent. None are over 256 squares
16x16 by simple nature of CVPage conformist design practice. Huge CVs Joyce
now emulates are very rare. Neatham's categories may be coarse at
approximately 40-80, and 80-160. It was useful to refine categories
further for Game Designs, one range of 72-84 being called Large. No great moment, in that exact number of spaces is clearly operable. However, there are shadings. Is
game-of-the-decade Rococo 100 squares -- considering the way border
squares are reachable only to capture? For earlier formulaic evaluation in
2004, we count Rococo as but 82 squares, each outline square being estimated 1/2.