by Vandlys
I agree that's far worse than the base game components, although that doesn't excuse it to me. The game creator has put his name (literally) to these components and it saddens me that a level of professionalism didn't shine through.runtsta wrote:
Only the Livingstone scenario is still this bad, but it's not part of the core game, so that matters less. The Z-Man edition was worlds better than the first Portal English edition, and the current Portal edition is far better than that.
Why would an expansion or addition be less worthy of quality than a core game? That makes no sense to me... Fan-made freebie? Sure. Paid version with creator's name to it? No way. Needs as much scrutinizing as the base game.
Whether it was originally fan-made does not matter either. I paid for it, so I can expect quality. Sure, I could have sent it back, but I feel that would not resolve the issue whatsoever.
It's a shame, it really is. The base game is so much better, but here, too, my friends and I find many design oddities that baffle us from time to time. The weapon level 6 with an ellipsis next to it for example. Why not two columns of 6? Or even three columns?
Why does the counter have to be put above it, and not simply start counting from 0? Why does the four player camp improvement marker have such a huge, black border, that obscures some of the icons on the board? Why do they always use numbers to indicate plural goods (food, wood, furs) but sometimes a number to indicate a single good (like on the board) but not always (the numbers are absent on the cards).
It's one of the games that gives me the most vivid idea of what they want to express, and a lot of sides work wonders to its advantage. It's ashame that there are many small near-misses that make the game lower its to me.
But yeah, aside from ranting, what can you do about it? Unfortunately it does make me wary of new games that immediately show spelling or other language oddities, like for example UBOOT.
Ah well... : /