@sdotco Well yes and no. This is a re-release of the original, which was the topic of Tom's original review. His new review also covers this version. So we now have two reviews of the new version and 1 of the old. However, I'd expect to see overlapping reviews more often, as it is the goal of the dice tower to get multiple opinions from different types of gamers on the same game.
@rpmetzler While I don't think it's a bad idea to get multiple opinions of one game, I do think it's superfluous to have the game explained by various people, as is the case here. With this game, the difference between versions is so minute (compared to other games that have had complete components overhauls) that to me, it didn't seem worth reviewing again, twice, just because of a new print run. My concern is you'll turn people off watching by filling the channel with these sorts of repeats.
@sdotco with such a short review, I'm not sure its that much of a big deal. I've talked with tom about it and he has made his decision that he wants to have multiple reviews from different people. He, of course, is always free to not post a review I send him. Thanks for the concern though!
This is an example of the perfect game design, when a simple card guessing and bluffing game can be such a success. Btw, i think designers don't like when people call it a Lego shark. They don't have license from Lego and they say it looks different. They think so :))
i think the shark card is cuter than a lego shark
walkerredeye 5 months ago
third dice tower review for the same game?
sdotco 5 months ago
@sdotco Well yes and no. This is a re-release of the original, which was the topic of Tom's original review. His new review also covers this version. So we now have two reviews of the new version and 1 of the old. However, I'd expect to see overlapping reviews more often, as it is the goal of the dice tower to get multiple opinions from different types of gamers on the same game.
rpmetzler 5 months ago
@rpmetzler While I don't think it's a bad idea to get multiple opinions of one game, I do think it's superfluous to have the game explained by various people, as is the case here. With this game, the difference between versions is so minute (compared to other games that have had complete components overhauls) that to me, it didn't seem worth reviewing again, twice, just because of a new print run. My concern is you'll turn people off watching by filling the channel with these sorts of repeats.
sdotco 5 months ago
@sdotco with such a short review, I'm not sure its that much of a big deal. I've talked with tom about it and he has made his decision that he wants to have multiple reviews from different people. He, of course, is always free to not post a review I send him. Thanks for the concern though!
rpmetzler 5 months ago
@rpmetzler Not a problem, I figure any sort of constructive feedback is useful. Reviewing the reviewers etc :)
sdotco 5 months ago
This is an example of the perfect game design, when a simple card guessing and bluffing game can be such a success. Btw, i think designers don't like when people call it a Lego shark. They don't have license from Lego and they say it looks different. They think so :))
wr00t 5 months ago