On Friday, January 18, 2013 at 11:06:18 PM UTC-5, Nick Bentley wrote:
Well, I try not to enter uncivil conversations but dammit I'm too interested in games not to. I've experimented with the capture mechanic of Haz's game before but couldn't make it work to my satisfaction. I felt I was spending too much time just
identifying legal captures and doublechecking them, leaving not enough time on each turn for actual strategizing.
I emphatically *don't* mean to rain on your parade Haz. Just expressing an opinion. The problem could lie with me and not the game.
I also spent a lot of time building different mechanics around the more general concept of matching shapes, and the closest I came to being satisfied with those mechanics was in this game:
http://files.boardgamegeek.com/file/download/1mz3knyv6g/Papagra_Rules.pdf?
In this game, the "match" is between a stone group shape and a group of empty spaces of the same shape.
Look at how plagiarizers react when you create a new capture system.
They never recognize that you did in fact create something new.
Their reaction : I created something similar but it did not work and so on. They even refer to a game where there is no capture at all and talk bout matching and so on. And the same song : it is not going to work! etc... And few years after those
plagiarizers come exactly with your own idea a core mechanic of their game. The core of BUG mechanism is exactly the core of Sozee with (which is obvious) a slight difference. Connected group instead of any (connected or not). Change the goal of the game
: the last one to move lose instead of having more of your color in the board. All those tricky was to hide the main purpose of the "copy-paste" are unhelpful when you are good analyst of games. I can see quickly if a game was plagiarized of not. Diary
design is smokescreen.
The only one who try (sometimes with success) to create something original is Mark Steere. You feel quickly that he worked hard to create a complete abstract game. That does not mean that he is imaginative. He is meticulous. He starts from an idea and he
try to make his game compact (all the parts and the mechanisms of the game are focused to reach the same goal) even he borrows from others minor mechanisms.
All the other crappy game designers (Freeling, Bentley, Corey, Luigi, Nestor, Luna, etc... have no imagination at all!!!!). They are designing patchwork-games, recycled games, with no concept as basis of the architecture of the game.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)