« Back to blog

Our judging panel

Once all the entries for pocketgame are in, we’ve put together a great panel of judges from an interesting range of backgrounds who’ll help create a shortlist which will then go out to public vote,.

Given the relatively unknown nature of exactly what might be entered, we’ve tried to cover all the bases of what we’re trying to achieve… we felt we needed judges…

-          …who are good at making physical-objecty things

-          …who understand what it takes to invent a great game

-          …who understand the social contexts in which these games might be played , shared and talked about.


Nowadays, of course, nothing’s really cut and dried in terms of what people do.  Some of the people who came to mind as being perfect were at least one, if not two, or maybe even three of those things.

I tried thinking about it in terms of a Venn diagram (with circles representing ‘making’, ‘social’ and ‘games’) to see it would help in forming the panel.  Which it kinda did:

 

Image002

 

 

The first thing worth saying about the above is that everyone’s got a least a firm interest in all three areas.  I then tried to pull them in directions for where they’d sit more than the others…

…which is hugely presumptuous of me, and I just hope they agree to at least some extent…

So Adrian and Holly are different in the nature of their gamesmithery, but both felt like the most naturally ‘gamey’ people.  Katy’s a socially-commsish-gamester hybrid (it’s like the games bit is her secret superhero identity).  Mark’s understanding of the different ways people influence each other will, I think, be crucial in thinking about which games will work in that competitive, social context.

I couldn’t really work out where to move Russell beyond the central ‘generalist’ role… I guess it depends what day it is for him.  It was Russell who suggested Tom, as someone who bestrode the games & design worlds.

From a ‘makery’ perspective, Robert was going to help us with a 3D printing element of the pocketgame project that unfortunately fell by the wayside (this time…)… but he’s now our resident object-designer fella.  Meanwhile, Mark from Cadbury is the Chief Intellectual Property Counsel (yeah, get THAT for a job title), and so when it comes to making the pocketgames will make sure we can do it without any legal hiccups.

Tim is the Matterbox supremo, so not only will he be able to spot pocketgames that the community will love, he’ll get a good early heads up on what he’ll need to fit in the box.  Which just leaves Sandie & myself, who I guess are the champions of the Spots V Stripes idea, and the importance of social play that represents.

So that's our judging panel.  What do you think?  Is there any glaring omissions from our judging panel?  Someone you think is perfectly placed to spot a pocketgame and help us shortlist?  If so, we may well try and squeeze 'em on...

 


Comments (3)

Jun 14, 2010
Michael Litman said...
Now that is one sweet venn diagram, like it. Looks like you have yourself the cream of the crop on the judging panel! From a gaming point of view I'd probably add someone like Johnny Minkley or Indy Saha and the social side someone like Neil Perkin or Nick Emmel.

Lots of WIN.

Jun 14, 2010
cheers Michael... Neil I know well, the others have just made it on to my list of 'investigative stuff to do next' :)
Jul 06, 2010
You'll be pleased to know that Neil's on board, Michael :)

Leave a comment...