|
Jamesman posted:I like dungeon crawl-type board games. Are there any good recommendations? Mage Knight is probably the best game that fits the general theme, but it doesn't have an active DM or (many) minis. The D&D boardgames are OK, but don't have an active DM. Descent 2e is dubiously balanced, but doesn't have gradual map reveal. Star Wars Imperial Assault is apparently similar to Descent but I believe with the same issues compared to your requirements. There isn't really a very good game that does all of this, you need to pick something out of the list you don't want.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Lorini posted:Jedit is welcome to his opinions of course, but Argent is not a re-framed Archon, far from it. He might try actually playing the game before criticizing, but that's just a request. I thought mechanically Dungeon Petz was really good, just didn't like the theme. I don't use the experience of one person to generalize about designers, but hey if that's what makes the world go around for you, then who am I to criticize? (World must be getting smaller all the time though....) If you'll read my post, you'll note that I said the guy who used to own Dungeon Petz played it (or rather, didn't) with friends who were also Chvatil fans. Also it was meant only as an anecdotal example, not an exhaustive list. As for Argent, I didn't mean to imply it was Archon with a different hat on. I'm just hearing a lot about all the "innovative" mechanics it has that I've already seen in multiple well known games, one of which was released eight years ago and is in the top 100 on BGG. This in turn makes me wonder how much the game is being carried by theme and, lacking anything new, the game doesn't interest me as I already have games available that fill its niche. Also, since when did I need to have played a game before forming an opinion on why I'm not interested in playing it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Chvatil games are so varied that it's a little silly to point at one game and say, "it was the game that even Chvatil fans wouldn't play!" because for almost all Chvatil fans there's always going to be one or two games they don't have any interest in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Jedit posted:If you'll read my post, you'll note that I said the guy who used to own Dungeon Petz played it (or rather, didn't) with friends who were also Chvatil fans. Also it was meant only as an anecdotal example, not an exhaustive list. You decided that the other person shouldn't be interested in playing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Mage Knight is probably the best game that fits the general theme, but it doesn't have an active DM or (many) minis. The D&D boardgames are OK, but don't have an active DM. Descent 2e is dubiously balanced, but doesn't have gradual map reveal. Star Wars Imperial Assault is apparently similar to Descent but I believe with the same issues compared to your requirements. Not true. Claustrophobia is a great game that does everything he wants provided he doesn't mind it's made for only 2 players and I really wish people in this thread would quit completely ignoring it every time someone talks about dungeon crawlers or good two player games!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
SuccinctAndPunchy posted:he describes Dominion as "basically a collectible card game" which is mindblowingly wrong on like nine different levels I don't disagree with you really, but I can see describing it like that. It's a 100% card based game, people carry around these huge boxes of hundreds of cards, it's directly competitive, and the game takes like 30 mins to play which consists of drawing cards and playing combos and stuff. I mean I have some pretty strong biases in my tastes in boardgames so while it doesn't do justice to the gameplay or anything that particular phrase calling it basically a CCG is pretty serviceable and would have gone a LONG ways towards filling me in on Dominion when I didn't know what it was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
admanb posted:Chvatil games are so varied that it's a little silly to point at one game and say, "it was the game that even Chvatil fans wouldn't play!" because for almost all Chvatil fans there's always going to be one or two games they don't have any interest in. Yeah. Looking at only the more recent/popular ones: Mage Knight - in my top 3 game purchases of all time (with Dominion and Titan) Space Alert - only got to try it once, don't think I like it for being real time but would try again if possible. Dungeon Lords - would like to try Dungeon Petz - really want to try Galaxy Trucker - I enjoy playing this but don't usually seek it out. Tash-Kalar - doesn't seem appealing. I probably shouldn't count as a Chvatil fan until I at least try the Dungeon games then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Jedit posted:If you'll read my post, you'll note that I said the guy who used to own Dungeon Petz played it (or rather, didn't) with friends who were also Chvatil fans. Also it was meant only as an anecdotal example, not an exhaustive list. There's a large difference between 'this is not a game I want to play' and 'this is a game with mechanics I've seen in other games' when you in fact have not seen the mechanics since you haven't played the game. Dead of Winter is not a game I want to play, yet I don't criticize it for having mechanics that have been used before since I have not played it. I would disagree that these mechanics in Argent have been seen before in this combination, particularly the lack of VP's and the confrontation. However you are free to list the particular game that is in the BGG Top 100 that has all of Argent's mechanics. I'm very curious as to what it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
So no one has played BSG Express? I noticed Joel Eddy of Drive Thru Review rated the re-theme Dark Moon a 10 so I'm starting to get a little hyped for this 2015 release
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:In other news, apparently Thames/Kosmos is going to reprint Legends of Andor and its expansions. Is this something worth getting excited about? I know that it was an FFG game but literally heard nothing about it since. I think maaaaaybe one post in the thread a while ago. Maybe. There's this and the 2-3 under it which should fill you in on Legends of Andor: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3687728&userid=131813#post440423428
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Whoa. This thread moves fast. I'm reading that a lot of you don't like Dead of Winter but I missed a lot of the general criticism. Can anyone sum up there problems with the game or point me to a negative review you think is helpful? I'm thinking of buying it and I'd lube more info. Also I love reading educated complaints.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Gameko posted:Whoa. This thread moves fast. Ignore what I said about it if you are interested in it. It might be the most perfect game ever for all I know, but I don't like those types of games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Lorini posted:There's a large difference between 'this is not a game I want to play' and 'this is a game with mechanics I've seen in other games' when you in fact have not seen the mechanics since you haven't played the game. Dead of Winter is not a game I want to play, yet I don't criticize it for having mechanics that have been used before since I have not played it. I would disagree that these mechanics in Argent have been seen before in this combination, particularly the lack of VP's and the confrontation. However you are free to list the particular game that is in the BGG Top 100 that has all of Argent's mechanics. I'm very curious as to what it is. Hey Lorini (or anyone else, gramps?), since you've Argent a few times now, I have a couple questions: a) How much tension is there? Would it be more Agricola or Caverna in terms of scarcity of options? b) How does this compare to Belfort, if you've played that? c) What's your biggest complaints so far about the game?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Gameko posted:Whoa. This thread moves fast. Have you ever played Battlestar Galactica? Most of the Dead of Winter complaints come in the context of what BSG does better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:I mean I have some pretty strong biases in my tastes in boardgames so while it doesn't do justice to the gameplay or anything that particular phrase calling it basically a CCG is pretty serviceable and would have gone a LONG ways towards filling me in on Dominion when I didn't know what it was. It's not that calling it that doesn't "do justice to the gameplay", it's that describing the game as basically a CCG is totally inaccurate to anything about Dominion. I don't think there's anything even slightly valid about the comparison except for the fact that both are card-based, calling it basically a CCG describes neither the core concepts of the game nor anything about the nature of the cards correctly and since those two are more or less the only thing a CCG defines, I'm comfortable in calling the entire comparison kinda bunk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Mega64 posted:What is CoB? Only thing I can think of is Castles of Burgundy, and my friend already owns that one. Yeah sorry castles of burgundy was the one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Gameko posted:Whoa. This thread moves fast. I had put some actual thought into talking about Dead of Winter so let me repost here since you asked. (It's reheated cabbage day  )Mister Sinewave posted:Dead of Winter quote:In Dead of Winter players each represent a "clique" of like-minded survivors. The game probably goes better if your group role plays it a little. The game warns that goals assigned secretly to players are not all equally difficult. If you're OK with this you'll probably be OK with the rest. quote:I will say that I did like how the zombies themselves and locations work in general in Dead of Winter. Adding and dealing with zombies is a mostly manageable process that can easily give you enough rope to hang yourself with if you push your luck or start feeling cocky. I liked the feeling that the players are in charge of how much risk you expose yourself to. Of course, if you play it safe you won't gather enough things to keep going. And others' actions can affect you -- but I liked the feeling that risk was something accepted by the player(s), so I rarely felt screwed by the game or dice, the screwing mainly came from "God drat it I told you to spend fuel before coming here and you didn't now you got bit on the way and if everyone here dies as a result I'm never forgiving you "
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Jedit's posts make more sense when you realize that he's Rutibex's mirror universe counterpart. One loves bad games and insists they are good; the other hates good games and insists they are bad. One improves the games he likes with elaborate house-rules; the other ruins the games he hates by failing to read the rules.Mister Sinewave posted:I don't disagree with you really, but I can see describing it like that. It's a 100% card based game, people carry around these huge boxes of hundreds of cards, it's directly competitive, and the game takes like 30 mins to play which consists of drawing cards and playing combos and stuff. Power Grid is basically Risk. Both have you trying to put more of your pieces on the world map, you compete for territory with other players, the game takes hours,
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:I don't disagree with you really, but I can see describing it like that. It's a 100% card based game, people carry around these huge boxes of hundreds of cards, it's directly competitive, and the game takes like 30 mins to play which consists of drawing cards and playing combos and stuff. If what you hate about CCGs is drawing and playing cards then yes, of course you hate Dominion. But describing Dominion (or any deckbuilder) as a CCG does neither genre any favors. admanb fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
It does move fast! A big thank-you to the people who answered my Imperial Assault questions. Just to regurgitate complaints I've heard about Dead of Winter:
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Well all that was unexpected
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Gameko posted:Whoa. This thread moves fast. It's a fun game to play with your friends if you like the theme, co-operative nature of the game and accusing people of being a betrayer. However the mechanics are pretty poorly thought out; higher rolls are always better, imbalance in player goals/searches, your character can die totally randomly even on the first turn, crossroad card decisions are more often than not obvious and uninteresting(unless your group gets super into theme). It's really easy for a betrayer to tank the game if they know what they're doing with little way for the other players to know other than vague tells which could apply to any number of non-betrayer goals and there can be quite a bit of downtime, it's a 60-90 minute game that plays in 120+ minutes. Obviously a lot of people still like it despite these faults, and I don't mind playing it once in awhile but it doesn't live up to hype.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:So no one has played BSG Express? I noticed Joel Eddy of Drive Thru Review rated the re-theme Dark Moon a 10 so I'm starting to get a little hyped for this 2015 release I printed and made up a copy of BSG express a couple years ago. I haven't played it in a long time, but I remember it being a pretty decent push your luck kind of game (I may be remembering wrong...). It wasn't a '10' by any standard, but it was fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Gameko posted:I'm reading that a lot of you don't like Dead of Winter but I missed a lot of the general criticism. Can anyone sum up there problems with the game or point me to a negative review you think is helpful? I'm thinking of buying it and I'd lube more info. Sure, I can complain all day about one sole problem I have with Dead of Winter that I think causes the game to collapse completely and it's that it has totally busted win conditions. The hidden objective thing makes the game technically a free-for-all despite all illusions to the contrary with the "Traitor" mechanic but whether you're the traitor or not if you play a few rounds of Dead Of Winter you will eventually be faced with the conundrum of "The main objective is about to be finished, but you haven't completed your secret objective and thus will lose if you don't tank it, what should you do?", this leads to games where people are actively sabotaging the game even if there's no traitor to buy extra time to complete their secret objective but the flipside is also that if you can complete the main objective and you've completed your secret objective, even if there's no traitor you can just finish the game and technically "win" and have everyone else lose even if nobody was a traitor. This makes the whole Traitor mechanic kind of dumb in the first place since there's no real way to sniff out the traitor with how busted the mechanics are when every single query of "Why did you sabotage this?" can be met with "Secret objective" and be totally valid as far as anyone has any way of knowing. It's also fairly trivial for the Traitor to tank the game on the last turn without anyone being able to do anything about it or it being possible for them to be any the wiser. More or less, it's a game where the win conditions and actual mechanics are at odds with one another. The main objective bills the game as either a co-op or a 4v1 depending on whether or not a traitor is present, but the secret objective makes the game a complete free-for-all at all times but the secret objective is the main arbiter of win/loss which makes winning and losing feel totally loving arbitrary and meaningless as well as also being a game likely to cause arguments if your group can't agree on a solution to the age-old problem of "I totally can't win, but I can make everyone else lose." which will crop up frequently with Dead of Winter. disjointed words about winning and I'm not sure I've even explained well what my problem with it is but I tried, but basically DoW's win conditions fail to compute in any reasonable sense with me and I can't even accept it as a game at this point. Games need win/fail conditions that make some goddamn sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Jedit's posts make more sense when you realize that he's Rutibex's mirror universe counterpart. One loves bad games and insists they are good; the other hates good games and insists they are bad. One improves the games he likes with elaborate house-rules; the other ruins the games he hates by failing to read the rules. This makes a lot of sense. But which one has the goatee and is the "Evil" one? rchandra posted:Yeah. Looking at only the more recent/popular ones: They're both good but you may in fact like one more than the other, or maybe even not like them at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
To expand upon some of these McNerd posted:
It's a 1/12 chance of losing a character (players have multiple characters) with a chance to cascade and kill other characters. It can be avoided by spending a fuel resource. But if an objective requires fuel, or your secret objective requires fuel, you can't afford to spend fuel. McNerd posted:
The traitor secret objectives are all "Group must fail general mission + some other requirement". The issue comes from how much damage a traitor can do in one turn. So, the traitor doesn't need to act suspicious until the last round. Worse, players occasionally get back-to-back turns. If the traitor gets one in the late-game, there's no way to avoid fail general mission. McNerd posted:
Crossroads cards are supposed to be thematic choices. But given often they come up in the game, far too many of them have "Nothing Happens" as one of the choices. Even worse, "Nothing Happens" is often the better choice. On another note, I played Formula D recently. It's the first luck-heavy game I've played where the most luck-based mechanics actually felt thematic instead of lazy. golden bubble fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Hey Lorini (or anyone else, gramps?), since you've Argent a few times now, I have a couple questions: A) I never really felt that much in terms of scarcity of options except actions in general. There was always stuff I wanted to do, but didn't have the actions to. I think this is ultimately a good thing, since it really required me to prioritize what I wanted out of the round. Anticipating whether someone was going to Wound or Banish or whatever me out of a spot was also a bit tense sometimes, but I also had options to save myself when I needed to (thanks, magic!). I'm not sure it's comparable to Caverna or Agricola since you're not going towards a deadline (besides the end of the game) or else you get boned. There's nothing you HAVE to do, but there's a whole lot you WANT to do, which is the kind of design I like. B) Never played this one, sorry. C) Table space is what will likely prevent me from playing this as often, since it eats up tables. It means I can't, say, take it to a meetup to play, but would need to schedule a game day with friends to do this. As a result, it will likely go in the same category of games like Duel of Ages or War of the Ring that I really enjoy, but don't play as often as I like because of convenience reasons. There's a bit of a fiddly aspect to it. A lot of time is spent reading/passing around, especially spells, and trying to internalize what to actually do with it. Other things too like when I had a spell that could only target people with more INT or WIS than me, which would have needed me to count these things that are likely splayed out all over the place. If you are AP prone or plan to play with someone who is AP prone, you will hate this game because you/they may be compelled to ask how many of "_______" other people have to see whether you're still in competition with them. Nothing is hidden aside from the Voters. Aesthetically, I wish the mage bases themselves were colored instead of having to attach a little thing that can be invisible at some angles. It would make identifying who they belong to a lot easier. One possible design issue is that if your initial mark is something like, Most Divinity, but there's dick all for Divinity anywhere, you may be twiddling your thumbs a bit. Good opportunity to get more Marks/misc other poo poo, but I know a lot of people complain that they don't like a game because they had no direction for it at the start. The first round in general is kinda boring because you have no spells (except your starting one, which isn't terribly splashy), no toys, and possibly only a vague sense of direction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Hey Lorini (or anyone else, gramps?), since you've Argent a few times now, I have a couple questions: There is tension because of the possibility of getting wounded or banished from your space or moved. So let's say I really want to buy a treasure in the vault. Well if I go there early in the turn, then there's a larger chance that I'll get moved or kicked out. If I plan on going there later in the turn, there's a chance I'll never have the opportunity because some scumbag(s) will end the turn before I get a chance to place. There's plenty of options, the question is can you hold on to them. There's also tension in trying to decide if you want to find out about a few voters, and just go after those voters, if you want to ignore the voters entirely and hope you stumble into enough votes, or if you want to simply go after the voters your opponents know about and beat them. I forgot about Belfort. It's another worker placement that uses the place then resolve mechanic, except just like Archon, there's no confrontation and no chaotic element. Belfort uses an area control mechanic and Argent does not. The biggest complaints are that the bases and tags are fiddly. I wish there was another way to implement what they did. If I had a 3D printer I'd reprint everything so that there would not be the need for the bases or the tags. Also the game even with three takes up hella table space, I mean a lot of table space, probably the biggest game that I have. I can't imagine it with five.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Not true. Claustrophobia is a great game that does everything he wants provided he doesn't mind it's made for only 2 players and I really wish people in this thread would quit completely ignoring it every time someone talks about dungeon crawlers or good two player games! If I'd ever heard of it before, I wouldn't have =)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
quote:It's a 100% card based game, people carry around these huge boxes of hundreds of cards, it's directly competitive, and the game takes like 30 mins to play which consists of drawing cards and playing combos and stuff. Dominion is not like a collectible card game, other than that it has cards and is a game. Like, if someone says a game is "like a CCG", I'd guess it's likely directly competitive (like you say above). Dominion has about the least direct interaction you can find in a game. It isn't directly competitive for any useful definition of "direct". Or, again, I might think you that you carry around a bunch of your stuff so that you can play against other people who are doing the same (like you do with Netrunner or X-Wing or pretty much all CCGs). You don't. Because it's not like a CCG. I mean, there is a lot of cards... like there is in CCGs or Agricola (I keep my Agricola cards in a CCG box even!)... but that's hopelessly superficial and misleading. Would it help you to understand Agricola to be told it's like a CCG? If you replaced the board with more cards would it be like a CCG? Of course not. It means something for a game to be like a CCG, and lots of games are like CCGs, and Dominion is not like a CCG. Unless, I guess, you figure the important, inherent part of a CCG is that it involves not just being a card game, but also "drawing cards and playing combos and stuff".. well then I guess Dominion (and Rummy and Catan) are CCGs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
SuccinctAndPunchy posted:I don't usually like dismissing people's opinions on the grounds of "You're just bad", but he really is just bad at games. You should like that, because it's often accurate. Maybe not "bad at thing" literally, but I think the assumption is that being good at a thing means you have a solid understanding of how its systems work, and being bad (assuming no meta-variables like physical or mental disabilities) is attributed to a lack of time spent with something/familiarity, or a refusal to improve or engage a game critically. All of those things are great first steps on your road to ignoring someone's ideas on game design or theory. Being bad at something isn't really grounds to dismiss someone's opinion or enjoyment of a thing, but once that starts branching out into larger theories of design or criticism then skill is absolutely relevant, though it doesn't tell the whole story of course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Jedit's the one with the Goatee, Rutibex's wrongness is cute and endearing, Jedit's wrongness is just infuriating. Never change Rubitex.  I'm kinda worried about Argent taking up so much space, as we're lucky to fit Petz on the table. Granted, that's a ful game. Still, my shop says they should have it in about a fortnight so maybe enough reviews will have come in to better make up my mind. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Jedit's posts make more sense when you realize that he's Rutibex's mirror universe counterpart. One loves bad games and insists they are good; the other hates good games and insists they are bad. One improves the games he likes with elaborate house-rules; the other ruins the games he hates by failing to read the rules. Substitute "bad games" and "good games" with "games I [don't] like" and you're closer to the truth. It's also pretty loving funny that someone else taught me the wrong rules to a game and people here blame me for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
jmzero posted:Dominion is not like a collectible card game, other than that it has cards and is a game. If you're completely dense and you look at Dominion and what stands out to you is that it has cards and decks and drawing, then yeah it's "like a CCG." Which means you also don't really understand what Magic or another CCG is. Which means you're bad at games and have poo poo opinions. Which is fine, for 99% of people. But when you start going off on the theory of gaming but can't even engage with a game to actually understand it on any basic level, then you're just a poo poo person with poo poo opinions, because you don't realize how poo poo your opinions are and in fact that your opinions are completely enlightened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Substitute "bad games" and "good games" with "games I [don't] like" and you're closer to the truth. It's pretty funny that it's just accepted to poo poo on Jedit. To be frank, you're a prickly dude who uses aggressive language. I don't discredit your opinion because of this, though. The only thing that weighs an opinion for me is whether the person has played a game and how many times this has happened. Let's not just be assholes to each other because we disagree, let's be assholes to each other over something that matters, like nationality or sports teams.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
AMooseDoesStuff posted:Jedit's the one with the Goatee, Rutibex's wrongness is cute and endearing, Jedit's wrongness is just infuriating. What size table are you working with? Petz has a pretty average footprint. Maybe i'm just spoiled by having a really nice table though. Lord Frisk posted:It's pretty funny that it's just accepted to poo poo on Jedit. Board games are Important Business and i'm on team Vlaada.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Sloober posted:What size table are you working with? Petz has a pretty average footprint. Maybe i'm just spoiled by having a really nice table though. 4 foot by 3 foot would be getting tight for Petz, if memory serves. It took up about two-thirds of the pub table we played on and that will hold three games of Netrunner at a squeeze.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Anyone had a chance to try out Trickerion? The kickstarter is ending in a few days and I am wondering if it is worth backing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Substitute "bad games" and "good games" with "games I [don't] like" and you're closer to the truth. You continued complaining about how awful Coup was even after the fact that you had been playing it wrong was pointed out. When asked if you had ever tried playing it with the actual rules, you chose not to answer. You were also flipping out over how nonsensical and broken the Resistance rules were about a week before the Coup stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:If you're completely dense and you look at Dominion and what stands out to you is that it has cards and decks and drawing, then yeah it's "like a CCG." Which means you also don't really understand what Magic or another CCG is. Which means you're bad at games and have poo poo opinions. Which is fine, for 99% of people. But when you start going off on the theory of gaming but can't even engage with a game to actually understand it on any basic level, then you're just a poo poo person with poo poo opinions, because you don't realize how poo poo your opinions are and in fact that your opinions are completely enlightened. I like that you went off so hard on this opinion, but appear to have forgotten that the person who said Dominion was basically a CCG wasn't Dumbass Game Designer, it was Mister Sinewave.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:49
|
|