See, I don't understand the "ugly playfield and theme" knock against this game. I am unapologetically not a fan of TWD as a whole (but I don't really have a problem with it, either...just not my thing), but I feel like they did a fine job of bringing a dystopian feel to the machine and the playfield. If I were to have a knock on this particular machine/title, I would say that the clunkiness factor on it is a goodly bit more than other titles of its era, but I don't have a problem with the way they integrated the theme, and the art/aesthetics package as a whole reflects that, to me. If you want to poke some fun at the callouts or something, well, sure: there's a cheese factor there, but it's a zombie-based theme...I think, by nature, you need to have a cheesiness factor there, even if it's a bit tongue-in-cheek.

The ugly nature of the theme sort of fits. It's like Tales From The Crypt: I think that artwork is *hideous*, but I don't really criticize it as the theme is a grotesque one as well, so it sort of works in that way.

Fair enough. I don't, and have not watched the show, but I find the aesthetic of the game to be correct.

*Someone* has never played Wheel of Fortune...

Calling WOF's code "mostly-finished" is an insult to mostly-finished code *everywhere*. Munsters is more complete than WOF's at this point, from what I have seen, by far.

Okay, but now we're talking about different things/aspects of code, then. Which is fine, and discussing the *quality* of the code of each machine is certainly on the table for debate, but when you reference "completeness" or "finishedness" of code, I differentiate that from the quality of the thing a great deal. Does that make sense?

Does it, really, though? I mean, I don't know that I can agree with that, as "size of code" can be wide-but-shallow, or narrow-but-deep, and yet both could be the same size...just differently oriented.