I have just herd recently that there seem to be some sort of expansion for "Victory II". I contacted the designer to know more about it. It introduced some small new features that solves some bugs in the game and I know a few things were submitted by players.
Which kept me wondering about how dynamic a game could be. Most published games on the market are static. If they are good, good. If they are bad, too bad. Sometimes Fantasy Flight games publish Erratas/variants in order to rectify or correct some bugs in their game. That's what happened in Twillight imperium with the too powerful "imperial" role which gave 2 Victory point. Without even playing the game, I found that the power was too strong.
I like the fact that games could evolve. It prevents you from making a perfect game right from the start. Still, I don't like the idea use in the PC video game industry: make the game almost complete and patch later.
I am somewhat trying to develop games around an evolving model by publishing first as PDF which allows me to make a lot of correction and adjustments before releasing the real thing. Still, victory II was published physically and could still adapt his game easily. I think it's due to the fact that it might not use additional components. Also getting good contacts with your players might be the solution to get good feedback.
Do you think Dynamic games are actually a good thing?
