by sgosaric
He's entitled to his opinion and, thanks to public forums, entitled to voice it. You're more than welcome to disagree with it as well but there's no reason it can't be done with civility
Yes, of course it's really neat if we're civil.
Yet:
No, every person does not have an equal right to an opinion on something - opinions which understand the game, see it's structure and understand what it tries to do, when it works and when it doesn't have more validity than arbitrary opinions which speak about the bias of an individual gamer, not the game itself.
What happened: OP didn't understand the game, or doesn't want to understand the game, in any case what he wanted out of the game is not what this game gives. The ideas behind OP are not what KoT deals with. For instance this is a risk taking game with direct conflict. And risk taking means exactly that: taking risks, dealing with odds.
On the thread many people voiced their opinion on what is the correct anticipation before the game of KoT, or what kind of attitude KoT asks of its players so it can deliver a good gaming experience.
These were:
- Stategy: life is as important as points
- Kot is risk taking game with all the undestanding that comes with it.
- have fun
The last one seems weird, but let's look into it. What this"have fun"suggest is "rolling with it" which is what you have to do in risk taking games. You take chances, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but the key is accepting this (rolling with it). Another thing is "what is opposite to have fun" - being upset about loses and asking for a controllable secure environment where winning is earned. Now risk taking games don't have a secure environment and asking for one is misunderstanding the game, however winning is earned as well, it's just of a different kind of skill involved. It's the skill of dealing with odds (and not just making optimal play). As many have claimed and I agreed - being on one life is incredibly risky (though one player managed to pulled it off this Saturday, lucky bugger... :p).
And I always make a point when explaining KoT that there are two victory conditions - one is points, second is killing everyone else. Weirdly enough - it's those game where everybody is out to kill everyone than no one dies and most points win.
So what else. Well - how do we then dislike the game and make it valid. Here it could be "I need control in my games and it doesn't give me that" - I for instance need interaction in my games and will avoid most worker placement games. I know however what they are made and what is their target audience.
So I guess if there is a problem with OP is the implicit notion that luck goes against strategy. And it's not true. A good strategy should include dealing with odds.