<PERSON> @hoffcorp
<PERSON> @maxz
<PERSON> @hoffcorp
It is a metaphyiscal question - does something constitute a choice if it doesn't matter what you choose? Damned if you do and damned if you don't? In board gaming I don't consider anything a choice if it doesn't ultimately pair with other choices to determine the binary outcome of win or lose. If you can only choose to lose by a large margin or by a modest margin, then that is not a choice. If you can only choose to win by a large margin or by a modest margin, then that is not a choice.
If you disagree then you disagree and we have nothing to talk about. It is a fundamental underpinning of the entire review. Many people have posted that they disagree and then some form of rejecting this fundamental principle ensues.
This entire "metaphysical" question hinges on, IMHO, a faulty premise. It doesn't take randomness into account and ties the concept of choice to win/lose. Unless you let your choices handle random events from dice throws or card draws it is a bad definition for use with board games in general. You are describing a game like chess for example. When it comes to choice being strongly tied to the notion of winning/losing, I consider it to be separate from the concept of choice, albeit related (that win/loss should be affected by choices, but not determined, since other factors like chance will play their part).
My loose view of what a choice is, is when a player has to decide between different options he/she is facing and weigh in factors (like chance) to try to determine which choice would lead to a desired outcome (or in some cases the best or least bad possible outcome) based on the knowledge of the game that the player has at the moment. The desired outcome of a choice usually is to improve ones chances to win. A win or loss is a long term outcome, but even choices that ultimately didn't affect your chance are still choices in my opinion, as long as the player thought it mattered in at the moment of choosing. An example would be in a city building game where a player could choose to build one of two buildings. 885
Both buildings will give you a possible end of game bonus if specific criteria is met when summing up the points at the end of the game. But when it comes to tallying neither criteria is met and it didn't matter which building he bought. No bonus was awarded. Wasn't that a choice just because of that? In my opinion it was, but it ultimately didn't matter.
For me choice is about free will. If I can choose freely, it is a choice. If someone forces me to take a specific option of several, or offers me only one option, it is not a choice. It doesn't always have to be about the ultimate binary win-or-lose goal. But here we differ, I play to be with friends and have fun playing (not necessary winning), whereas you sport the microbadge "Out for blood - I play without mercy" which is the polar opposite of who I am as a gamer.
So yes, I strongly reject your "fundamental principle" as I don't see it is ever applicable to board games in general, only a specific subset of board games (ie those without chance). Since Nemesis is a game with a lot of random elements in it, I feel that writing a review based on this "fundamental principle" is a cardinal fault and makes the review even more questionable.
Also I have yet to see where in Nemesis the choices were to either "win by a large margin or by a modest margin" or "lose by a large margin or by a modest margin" and no other types of choices possible. Since you claim to lack agency in Nemesis and use this view of choice I would like to see where you find this in Nemesis.
Since I have experienced a game where choices led to two players winning and others have testified to people winning the game based on what they did in the game, I find it very hard for you to produce such support convincingly.
So yes, I strongly reject your "fundamental principle." That is all you needed to write.Is it? Then the other people wouldn't know why I rejected your "fundamental premise" and that it IMHO is deeply flawed with regards to writing game reviews in general. (Something that I firmly stand behind and it seems cannot be repeated enough.)
The latter is much more important to the other readers, than them knowing that I just don't agree with you. By knowing why they can better choose what argument they feel most at home with.
<PERSON> @hoffcorp
You literally posted the 'ensues.'
Ok, how is that forbidden?
Let me get your line of reasoning straight: You are allowed to post something. 885