Re: Storm of the Eye

From: "Gavin Kinsey" <ghworg@kinsey.u-net.com>

Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0000

I got a message from the man-thing MadCentral,
> >>I ended up with well over a hundred towns, I had to keep destroying
> units to prevent from crossing the 10000 limit.  It was just too
> unweildy in the end, although it was a really good game.<<
>
> Surely, with the design problems you specify, and the fact that it
> was difficult enough that you didn't want to go back to it again,
> then it *wasnt* a good game at all?
>
> It always puzzles me when people list major flaws in a game that made
> it unplayable, say it was unwieldy and difficult to play,  then say
> they chose not to play it again, and then say ''it was a good game
> though''.
>
> Surely what you *mean* is ''it had some good ideas, but the system
> was fatally flawed.''

No, I mean it was a good game despite the flaws.  Without them it would
have been an excellent game.  I chose not to continue playing because
it was getting increasingly difficult to find the time to, if the game
had more automation then I might have been able to carry on.  Just
because the game had problems does not make the game bad, every game
has problems and can be improved.

--
Gavin Kinsey     ICQ #20733693
http://www.kinsey.u-net.com/
I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it.
    -- Groucho Marx

References

Re: Storm of the Eye
jonmmorris@aol.comnospam (JonMMorris)
Sun, 16 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Storm of the Eye
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Storm of the Eye
jonmmorris@aol.comnospam (JonMMorris)
Sun, 16 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Storm of the Eye
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0000