🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3201@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> kerchen@iris.ucdavis.edu (Paul Kerchen) writes:
>In article <1719@nunki.usc.edu> jjung@nunki.usc.edu (John Jung) writes:
>> [stuff about how much I like Risk and hated Lords of Conquest]
>I don't have Lords of Conquest, but it seems to me that the idea
>behind it and Risk is not to be an action-packed, flashy game but a
>cerebral, plotting game involving strategy and thought.  All the bells
>and whistles are just extra fluff.  Therefore, who cares what the
>graphics look like or what noises it makes if all one is interested in
>is good game of Risk?

  I don't care about the sound or the graphics, I guess I was more disappointed
with the overall execution of Lords of Conquest. I like Risk a lot, but Lords
of Conquest doesn't have many things in common with it.

  I like cerebral games as much as the next guy (hey I love Infocom stuff), but
Lords of Conquest ain't it. I would much rather play something like Geopolitik
than Lords of Conquest any day of the week.

(Heck, I'd much rather play Risk than Geopolitik!  :-)

  Overall, I have to say, if Lords of Conquest was supposed to be Risk for the
ST's, it failed miserably. If it has some other theme, I sure as heck don't
know about it.

						John