by DavidT
pmbrill77 wrote:
DavidT wrote:
pmbrill77 wrote:
DavidT wrote:
kbrigan wrote:
getdafunkout wrote:
I hope that Rob and Matt continue to make the games they are passionate about making.
Agreed. I think that's one of the reasons the artificial imposition of component destruction interrupts the game so much for me. It feels like they decided to go with a single-use version without really thinking about other possibilities, i.e. assuming that since Risk Legacy was single use so P:L must be, too.
It's difficult to swallow the double-standard here. When people suggest playing the game as-designed is the optimal way to play the game, you take great offense because you believe people should be able to play the game however they want (which, aside from the indignation, is a premise I agree with).
But when it comes to the way *you* want to play the game, all other methods are so artificial and sub-optimal that the designers weren't even thinking when they created the game.
She did not say the designers were not thinking.
She said "without really thinking about other possibilities". Her use implies, to me, that she believes they were only thinking of one possibility: a close duplication of Risk: Legacy.
If you suggest game designers are so narrowly focused that they designed a game without thinking of any other way it could possibly be designed, that's essentially suggesting they were not thinking about the design. To design something requires a consideration of all the various ways it could be designed.
I believe I responded to her post in context.
pmbrill77 wrote:
I do not believe she is correct, but I do not believe she is trying to insult the gods of Pandemic: Legacy that must be obeyed or the mountains shall shake.
I don't think she is trying to insult anyone, either. I never said she was.
As for gods and shaking mountains, misplaced sarcasm noted.
She suggested it; not you.
pmbrill77 wrote:
If "not thinking of all possibilities" = "not thinking" and "thinking" = "thinking of everything" are the only two options, then we are certainly done here and my sarcasm is then not misplaced.
That was not my proposition.