by skipsizemore
DaviddesJ wrote:
I'm surprised you say, "given the number of games that prove to be broken". I think it's rare that a published game is broken, and usually it's because of something the designer expressly did wrong.
The full quote is "given the number of games that prove to be broken or otherwise faulty". Perhaps your experience has been different. But I find that quite a few games that seem great after a first play prove to be intolerably boring after a few more. It often turns out that, of the many options that are apparently available, only one or two are really viable among experienced players, and so the game boils down to a knife fight for those few options.
I am not claiming that this game will prove to be boring, but simply saying that a simpler game has less furniture behind which to hide its flaws. My one and only play of Terra Mystica was quite enjoyable, but I wonder how much I (or anyone else) will like it in a year or two. It's very difficult to say. I will probably buy it, and so I hope that it will prove to be excellent.
DaviddesJ wrote:
Does a 787 suffer from the complexity of assembling carbon fiber components?
If you had to explain to all the new passengers how to assemble the plane from its component parts before each flight, then "suffer" would indeed be the right word. I couldn't care less how complex the plane is when I'm sitting in it; I do very much care how complex a game is when (as happens four times out of my usual five) I have a new or rusty player at the table.