The real problem, in my opinion, is, that the indie sector is still very much ignored by the media and gamers. Once this changes, i guess you acutally can live from the money made with indie games. But there is a lot of work to be done before that happens.

Its interesting to get an opinion from someone who its a lot more critic to the industry than a lot of people i heard in the last… like… 12 months.

In here (Argentina) the industry is taking baby steps, so we shit pretty much often in our pants; we see devs come out with georgeous proyects that everyone wants to play, but see none of them fail.
When you get to a conference, everything is like “wooo Facebook Gaming”, “wooooo XBLA”, “woooo PSN”, etc but none of them can explain really the real costs of one of this proyects, and that the top tier games aren just “a good idea” (and even if you have one, it will damn cost you to get there).

You’v been very VERY sincere, straight and clear. Me and some of my friends find this very explanatory… and of course… puts our feets in the ground.

Thnx from the other side

And it’s really back for real, not just a blip

A couple of questions:
1. What happens if the last player doesn’t have any cards of the one suit that’s left? It probably won’t happen all that often (they have to be short a suit, and they have to be the last player, and the suit they’re short has to be the one that the other three people didn’t pick), but it will happen. And there’s also the rarer-but-still-possible chance that the 3rd player is short both suits, etc. Maybe make a player discard and draw until they get something they can play?
2. You say that the player “may” draw one card and “may” draw two cards, but I can’t think of any situation where they wouldn’t want to draw more cards. It doesn’t seem useful/elegant to have the rules allow someone to choose not to draw cards when it would never be beneficial to do so. So maybe just get rid of the word “may” in both instances?

I’ll chime in if I get a chance to playtest this.

That Monty Python version features an interesting and amusing twist on the original Tetris that I enjoyed… the guy who’s not quite dead yet.
Turns what is often the most coveted Tetris piece into one that is challenging to successfully use.
The straight line piece isn’t dead, so he moves unpredictably around the screen, making him difficult to place anywhere.

Changing the context of THAT mechanic (which originated from its original context as being based on the funny scene from the film) could provide some interesting dynamics. Whereas in the context of the Monty Python skit, the difficulty of stuffing the still alive guy into the mass grave is amusing, putting the same mechanic into a more serious game about the death tolls of ethnic cleansing could provide some interesting emotional content that could be quite powerful.