It does a good job of promoting the idea that when creating a world (or a game) you should have a consistant vision for it instead of basing a whole setting or system around one or two 'kewl' things. It should have gone into more detail about the case study, though. Why did the group end up with the choices they made instead of something else? What other options did they consider?<br><br>
<b>LIKED</b>: Raises some good points and doesn't cost that much.<br><br><b>DISLIKED</b>: Too short (about eight pages of content) and somewhat vague.<br><br><b>QUALITY</b>: Acceptable<br><br><b>VALUE</b>: Satisfied<br>
Rating: [3 of 5 Stars!] |