What is playing more important: a game whose mechanics (rules) to work, or the theme (setting, concept) is appealing? Both, of course. Back to top.
We will be quick to agree when I say that a game can be still be as interesting - if the rules do not are good, it is not fun. But here comes the inevitable "but" for me personally is the concept of the setting, the topic - in short, the "What-does-it" - in the first place. If I am not interested in the topic, the mechanics can be excellent, the game will gather dust on the shelf. Ideally, therefore, go hand in hand rules and theme.
A counter-example: "The desert
. Reiner Knizia as usual, proves that he is a master of the game mechanics. "The Desert" is well thought out, balanced, interesting. The presentation of the game is ok, provided you can stand the sight of pastel camels. But (there it is again), it makes sense that I with my camels, which attract even as caravan through the desert ", can block other caravans? "This is my sandy trail, look for its own kindly!" - Who can be influenced as a caravan Boss of such audacity is soon no more. been For most European games seems the mechanics of the starting point of development to be. The developers refine the rules and if they are satisfied with this, is grafted onto a subject, so to speak. Quite different from American games: are developed starting from the theme mechanisms. Now, the
not mean that American games are superior to European. For here again The "but" many of the American games are characterized by an overwhelming style over substance . The setting is interesting, the games are very elaborately decorated, but the rules are often weak point.
But that must not be, right? The following questions would be answered: Can really good and balanced rules can only be developed independently of the subject? I think: no. It is more difficult already, but if it works, the final game to be more convincing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment