Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 2942536" data-attributes="member: 172">I disagree with this. Some &quot;games&quot; are marketing with settings, some are not. Spycraft 2.0 has no setting, for example. It would have been wrong to judge as a setting. This is different than, say, Blue Rose, which has a setting and, as the author professes, the setting is the major point. The change in the game mechanics were principally to support the setting.If I offer up the gaming public a list of what are judged to be the best in various categories, and I use this &quot;mutual exclusion&quot; principle, then I am in essence, not offering the public my best, because I am not considering some of the best settings out there merely because they are marketed as part of a game.I find this &quot;mutual exclusion principle&quot; faulty (except in cases where it makes sense, and there are some) and feel that operating by it across the board would diminish the value of the awards.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Psion, post: 2942536, member: 172"] I disagree with this. Some "games" are marketing with settings, some are not. Spycraft 2.0 has no setting, for example. It would have been wrong to judge as a setting. This is different than, say, Blue Rose, which has a setting and, as the author professes, the setting is the major point. The change in the game mechanics were principally to support the setting. If I offer up the gaming public a list of what are judged to be the best in various categories, and I use this "mutual exclusion" principle, then I am in essence, not offering the public my best, because I am not considering some of the best settings out there merely because they are marketed as part of a game. I find this "mutual exclusion principle" faulty (except in cases where it makes sense, and there are some) and feel that operating by it across the board would diminish the value of the awards. [/QUOTE]

Verification