Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5877546" data-attributes="member: 54877">I'm cautiously optimistic that good design goals and serious playtesting is about half the battle towards something good.&nbsp; Might not be something I want to spend much time with, but it should be good for a large chunk of people.&nbsp; (And it might be something I like.&nbsp; I'm more cautious there because of the relatively niche nature of some of my preferences, not because of failure to follow through.)&nbsp; Then all we need for the other half is good development, good editing, good presentation, and solid advice to reinforce the design goals.&nbsp; They've been all over the place with those, but certainly capable of doing each one well in the right circumstances.&nbsp; Plus, good design and playtesting covers a lot of mistakes.&nbsp;My only real reservation is more about the range of &quot;Meh&quot; to &quot;Wowza!&quot; What they are trying is so ambitious that it gets into one of those situations where &quot;loss of nerve&quot; can have them knowing what to do but not being sure that they can risk it.&nbsp; I see a lot of home run attempts being needed, and relatively few bunts.&nbsp; Or rather, a lot of the bunts are things they already know--practically a sure thing.&nbsp; It's just human nature (and frequently good sense) to shrink from going for that many home runs, but every subsystem is going to require a couple to meet the ambitious goals.&nbsp; Law of averages says someone is going to pull up and go for the single base hit, or strike out, on at least a few.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm a little worried that we might get something &quot;OK&quot; that could have been much more impressive.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5877546, member: 54877"] I'm cautiously optimistic that good design goals and serious playtesting is about half the battle towards something good. Might not be something I want to spend much time with, but it should be good for a large chunk of people. (And it might be something I like. I'm more cautious there because of the relatively niche nature of some of my preferences, not because of failure to follow through.) Then all we need for the other half is good development, good editing, good presentation, and solid advice to reinforce the design goals. They've been all over the place with those, but certainly capable of doing each one well in the right circumstances. Plus, good design and playtesting covers a lot of mistakes. My only real reservation is more about the range of "Meh" to "Wowza!" What they are trying is so ambitious that it gets into one of those situations where "loss of nerve" can have them knowing what to do but not being sure that they can risk it. I see a lot of home run attempts being needed, and relatively few bunts. Or rather, a lot of the bunts are things they already know--practically a sure thing. It's just human nature (and frequently good sense) to shrink from going for that many home runs, but every subsystem is going to require a couple to meet the ambitious goals. Law of averages says someone is going to pull up and go for the single base hit, or strike out, on at least a few. I'm a little worried that we might get something "OK" that could have been much more impressive. [/QUOTE]

Verification