[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Single Comment Cataclysm. Large board game with short-range pieces designed to be dramatic without being overly complicated or dragging on too long. (12x16, Cells: 192) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Greg Strong wrote on 2007-08-18 UTCGeorge, I understand your feelings about the fact that there are thousands of variants here, most of which would not be the slightest bit interesting to most people, and many of which have never even been played. But it seems unfair to me to use that opinion to assert that Cataclysm is pointless. It is quite different from any other variant (that I know of.) It has a large board with predominately medium-range pieces. And, as such, it plays unlike any other variant that I have tried. And I like it. Of course, others may not - this is a radical change from Chess, and is not intended to be the next Chess, or the logical successor to Chess, or anything like that as others claim about their variants. This is just a game that hopefully is fun to play. UNPLAYABLE?!? The other criticism doesn't bother me, but it does bug me a little that this game has now be labeled as 'unplayable' by two people now who have not played it, or even tried. Is it too hard to understand the rules? I doubt it. Lasts too long? Maybe - games probably average about 80-100 moves. Some may consider that too long. But the tempo is very different from Chess, however, and a lot less rides on each move. I consider it to be more strategical and less tactical than Chess, and, to my tastes, that is a good thing. Unplayable? Nonsense. Seriously, there's a big difference between 'I don't want to play it' and 'I can't play it.'