[OLPC-Games] Anyone interested in a Game Jam?

[Bert Freudenberg]

Want to share this comment of a fellow Brasilian developer:

"At Game Jam Brasil last weekend, none of the teams used eToys. I was  
able to reproduce their games (which they took 29 hours to program)  
in just a few minutes in eToys. And using the machine itself rather  
than a separate development PC.

Though to be fair, I was programming games in Basic before any of the  
participants were born"

- Bert -

On Nov 16, 2007, at 18:28 , Samuel Klein wrote:

> I should have read all my mail before asking :-)  Also, here's a set
> of photos just uploaded to the wiki from the Brasil jam last weekend:
>
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Game_Jam_Brasil
>
> SJ!
>
> On Nov 4, 2007 10:35 PM, Andrew Clunis <andrew at orospakr.ca> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 14:33 -0400, Mike C. Fletcher wrote:
>>> Myles Braithwaite wrote:
>>>> I am definitely in.
>>>>
>>> Alright, as of now it's just Myles and I, with Soni maybe showing  
>>> up if
>>> she's got time that weekend.  Anyone else interested?  We're still
>>> thinking of the weekend of the 16th of November.  (Same time as  
>>> the CMU
>>> Game Jam IIUC).  With such a small number of people we might be  
>>> able to
>>> hold it at Linux Caffe.  I'm going to be in Taiwan come  
>>> Wednesday, so if
>>> we're going to have more people I'll need to know about it soon  
>>> so I can
>>> find a bigger venue (and/or book a table or two at Linux Caffe).
>>
>> I might be interested in coming too!  I'm the guy who was working on
>> Develop activity earlier this year, but being in Ottawa has left me a
>> bit cut off from all the other OLPC people.
>>
>> I *might* need a place to spend the night, though!
>>
>>> No way we'd finish all of that in a weekend, though... still, it  
>>> would
>>> be interesting to see how far we got.  I'm sure a smaller game  
>>> would be
>>> far more practical.  Or we could just cut it down a lot and consider
>>> basic playability the goal, with the various extra rules as  
>>> secondary.
>>
>> Yeah, I suggest the iterative approach is probably best.  If your  
>> game
>> is always at least running to some degree, more people will be
>> encouraged to jump in and contribute. :)
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Andrew Clunis
>>