I agree. I've never played this game, but the fact that many of the puzzles don't have solutions does indeed seem like a failure of design. Needing a "lucky starting configuration" completely defeats the point. I can't solve a Rubick's cube, but I know that if I worked hard enough at it I could without needing to buy a different Rubick's cube.I hate how some levels are unwinnable. To me, that's a violation of the contract between the designer and the player. With the monetization, it just feels like they're trying to squeeze me.
What I mean is that some levels are just not winnable because of the distribution of candies. I agree the game is well-made, and adds some interesting dimensions to the match three genre (the comparison to Geometry Wars is good), but the luck factor bothers me.
The FreeCell game that came with Windows XP is a good example of a game that even if it was hard, was still winnable the vast majority of the time. When I know that >99% of the games are winnable, I feel better about losing. When I know that ~10% are, I feel like an idiot for wasting my time. This may be my own psychological quirk, not a fault of the game, unless most people feel like me.
This is why I've never understood solitaire
Man I loved Sharknado. It was the first SyFy film I saw that I was actually satisfied after. All the others are such balls I can't stand them. They're not even amusing bad. Sharknado was so over the top, and some of the stuff in it was seriously awesome.
That bit when he chainsaws out of the fucking shark and somehow the girl is inside and alive WOW I really did not see that coming, that was ridiculous.
It does suck that that cool old guy gied so fast. He was the only character I actually ever liked in a SyFy film. Coincidence????
Anyway that's my own oppinion. I am really enthusiastic about Sharknado, but I will probably never watch it again.
How do you like Reflektor? I never liked their other stuff but I like this album.