Salt this happens all too often these days. I think a lot of designers are so apasionate about "getting their game out there in the world" that they focus on the outcome (publishing a game) over the process (making a GOOD game). Ive been deaigning board games for about 6 years now, and only had one small game published (by a publisher). Ive worked on a couple dozen deaignz in that time, and maybe i veer too far to the other end of the spectrum, but i dont want to publish a game unless i genuinely think its good. So i havent published any of those designs. Anyway, great case in point here. Ive learned to research games thoroughly online before purchasing. Dont buy a game unless it has really good reviews. ETA oof sorry for the typos.
I agree very much with @drummerboy222 and want to add another comment on top. You may be outgrowing these kinds of games. Games are often too mechanical, just actions on a board. Players make choices, yet are they having fun together, do they feel connection amongst each other through the game. Games, I think, should be a means to an end, and not the essence itself, except chess. I feel after years designing games, I'm moving to social games. Also because the world lacks more and more real contact, so there's a need for that. This game feels like just stuff to do on a board. Snore.
@@KootFloris yes, there’s nothing original about moving around a board doing stuff. The theme is definitely original, but it takes more than an original theme to make a game fun.
Hot take: I felt the same way about Scythe. The game is beautiful in terms of artwork and materials, but mechanically it doesn't hold up (once players have intermediate familiarity of optimal play, they can predict the outcome of the game as soon as starting conditions are determined.)
Salt this happens all too often these days. I think a lot of designers are so apasionate about "getting their game out there in the world" that they focus on the outcome (publishing a game) over the process (making a GOOD game).
Ive been deaigning board games for about 6 years now, and only had one small game published (by a publisher). Ive worked on a couple dozen deaignz in that time, and maybe i veer too far to the other end of the spectrum, but i dont want to publish a game unless i genuinely think its good. So i havent published any of those designs.
Anyway, great case in point here. Ive learned to research games thoroughly online before purchasing. Dont buy a game unless it has really good reviews.
ETA oof sorry for the typos.
@@drummerboy222 yes, the mechanics need to come first, and then make it look good (and don’t over-do it).
I agree very much with @drummerboy222 and want to add another comment on top. You may be outgrowing these kinds of games. Games are often too mechanical, just actions on a board. Players make choices, yet are they having fun together, do they feel connection amongst each other through the game. Games, I think, should be a means to an end, and not the essence itself, except chess. I feel after years designing games, I'm moving to social games. Also because the world lacks more and more real contact, so there's a need for that. This game feels like just stuff to do on a board. Snore.
@@KootFloris yes, there’s nothing original about moving around a board doing stuff. The theme is definitely original, but it takes more than an original theme to make a game fun.
Hot take: I felt the same way about Scythe. The game is beautiful in terms of artwork and materials, but mechanically it doesn't hold up (once players have intermediate familiarity of optimal play, they can predict the outcome of the game as soon as starting conditions are determined.)
@@purpleniumowlbear2952 I’ve never played Scythe so that’s good to know. Thanks!
Scythe would be great, if it was less about gaining resources and popularity, but had more focus on battles/politics.
@@flow3730 it’s definitely tough to find a game that includes all those mechanics in a balanced way.
@@BeAHeroGaming Still waiting for one...