It’s hard to take a game seriously when its rulebook contains an editor’s note suggesting players completely abandon its scoring system and play for just “the pleasure of guessing and being guessed.” And by “take seriously” I don’t mean that party games are meant to be “taken seriously” by their players, but that including such a note casts some serious doubt over the designers’ understanding of — and confidence in — the appeal of their own game. Now, I fully understand that party game stalwart Telestrations conveys a similarly flippant attitude toward its own scoring rules and “winning” conditions and other things that make a game a game, but let’s not forget that Telestrations is essentially just a commercial production of the public domain game Eat Poop You Cat (why they changed the name is anyone’s guess) and, as such, wasn’t designed as much as just came to be via pre-internet meme magic like that awesome “S” we all drew in grade school. The scoring of Telestrations feels tacked on because it IS tacked on. It’s not even really a game. No one plays Telestrations to win, they play it to trick their friends’ parents into drawing wieners. Which is as noble a cause as any, if you ask me. Okay, I’m getting side-tracked. The case of Telestrations is all well and good, but why not extend the same leniency to Concept (the game this is a review of, remember)? Well, for two reasons: first, this game was designed and therefore its mechanics — including the scoring system — should feel intentional…