your wordiness gives you away as always.
Ergo the handle, "OfNoAccount".
(On second thought, make that a triple entendre !
Like Godiva's masquerade, blending bland & boring would be a waste.
The voice, via text alone, has been cultivated (over the entire span of the Net's existence) to convey soul, intellectual insight, wit & empathy wholeheartedly
. The contrast can be stark & unmistakable in run-of-the-mill BB communiques, to be sure.
Then there is the relevant meat & potatoes to this topic of my original conversational impromptu:
Visually, with the new terrain renderer, map textures, new model format along with Art Revolution's unit & struct reboots, 2100 is well on its way to becoming what 2120 would have been.
It's in the area of game play that 2100 is stuck in a ho-hum rote predictability that's initially masked by the tech tree complexity & unit design permutations which as a whole are experentially way less than the sum of their parts - no synergy here in replay value once you learn the quite limited set of winning strats.
The eventual roteness falls squarely on a play dynamic that is overwhelmingly weighted on the frontend in favor of fighting WITH information. To get beyond that stasis the game play weighting would have to shift more in favor of needing to fight FOR information.
The subtle [design] expression here makes a world of difference in replay value by minimizing that rote predictability which is its bane & thus spurring on that compelling desire to voluntarily overcome the unnecessary obstacles that is in essence a game.
................(Some emphasis added.)
There's several hefty books worth of concision (& years of trenchant gaming insight) in those closing paragraphs. Perhaps, like the Bill Murray
movie of a few years past, it's been "Lost In Translation"
(Or maybe just another cognitive dissonance of flickering minds protracted web-surfing has been shown to foster.
have a great weekend.
To be sure, & back at ya !
- Mindfully in absentia, OnA.