Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald
Thinking about them from an I-don't-know FIRST perspective, I've always been inclined to agree, and conversations with spectators anecdotally reinforces my inclination. The "pick stuff up and put them down" games are not as exciting for spectators as the "throw stuff into goals" games--but I do think AA suffered for lack of an end-game for the exact same reason.
|
It's really up to GDC as to what we get in terms of crowd-pleasing games, but if the past 3 years have been any indicator, they are moving away from the less-exciting pick-up-put-down games and moving towards something that is more exciting for spectators.
I think that the lack of an endgame was beneficial to AA. In the past, the endgame field components have always created an obstruction in the field. Admittedly, these obstructions often added to the challenge of the game (i.e. fitting under the pyramids in 2013). However, because of the zone-based rules and the speed required to score effectively, AA benefited a wide open field. (though climbing the truss would have been fun)