D&D 4E Perspective: 4E as one of "Ten most necessary remakes"

[UnknownAtThisTime]

Not sure if this this was previously posted, but:

According to Geekosystem, D&D 4E was one of "10 Mostly Necessary Reboots, Restarts, and Remakes: click

Wizards of the Coast puts out a new edition of Dungeons and Dragons every now and again, and it is the stuff that internet flamewars are made of; the defining characteristic of separate generations of gamers; the red hot metal that is forged, with successive layers of home rules, into a game that just might give you experiences that you will remember for your entire life.

I am not entirely clear on the criteria of the rankings, but check it out if you are interested.

EDIT: Not sure why the links don't work well. Go right to geekosystem powergrid if you are interested in clicking through to the article.

 

[TerraDave]

thanks, but just so-so. The clunky navigation, the other things on the list, the snark. Only ok.

 

[Piratecat]

Gentle caution: any edition warring in this thread will be addressed fairly abruptly. Thanks for discussing, instead of proclaiming.

 

[Stoat]

Nobody should be happy to be on a top ten list that kicks off with Burton's Planet of the Apes remake.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

Gentle caution: any edition warring in this thread will be addressed fairly abruptly. Thanks for discussing, instead of proclaiming.

Yeah, obviously not my intent to start the edition warring that the article alluded to. If I wanted to start some rage I just would have posted this from that site:

 

[fumetti]

What a vapid bit of writing. No compelling reasons for the remakes or their inclusion on any list. That said...

Don't much agree with the list. Except for the Batman movies.

I still enjoy the original Planet of the Apes just fine (infinitely more than the remake). Sandman was so different from its namesake that it wasn't as much a reboot as a whole new concept using a dormant name. Ultimate Marvel wasn't necessary at all. Ultimate Marvel failed to become the primary continuity of the company. It simply became an interesting line of alternate reality stories.

The worst part of the article is that it give no reason for 4E. It provides absolutely nothing meaningful or worthwhile as justification for it.

 

[moxcamel]

[MENTION=94582]UnknownAtThisTime[/MENTION]: Henc! That image set off my nerd-rage initiator 3 times in rapid succession before sanity kicked in.

And yeah, I was immediately turned off by Planet of the Apes being a must-remake. So I wasn't surprised that the 4e entry was mostly hollow too.

Having said that, I do agree that 4e was a "necessary" remake. I loved 3ed when it came out (and it's what pulled me back in after a close to 10 year hiatus), but in hindsight I think 4ed is everything 3ed should have been. I'm disappointed that WotC didn't continue with the OGL, but just based on a pure "designer's hat" reaction, 4th edition was just as necessary as 2nd edition was, perhaps even more so. 3rd edition made D&D relevant again, but 4th edition is much more forward looking.

 

[MortalPlague]

I'll agree with Batman, Battlestar, Bond, and D&D. But seriously... Planet of the Apes?

 

[malraux]

I hate pointless top ten lists. Especially top ten lists with each item on a different page to generate extra clicks and some very obvious padding to get up to a round number. As mentioned, the Apes remake wasn't particularly notable and Doctor Who is pretty clearly as much a continuation as a reboot.

As for the necessity of a 4e reboot, I kind agree with the sentiment but I don't think the author made any sort of serious argument one way or the other.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Just a nitpick I guess, but I had to laugh at the way it was worded that WotC "puts out a new edition now and then".

Especially considering they mean editions now and then *before* 4e.

I guess you could call the change from 3 to 3.5 a new edition, but I dont think even one 'edition' release after the first one they did should be expressed as a new one now and then

I guess they got TSR & WotC mixed up, which isn't that strange a mistake to make for someone not into rpgs/d&d I suppose, but it does make me wonder how much experience with d&d the writer(s) had or if the 'research' even included something like looking at wikipedia for more then 2 minutes before proclaiming anything as a 'neccesary reboot/remake'.

Otherwise, it just looks like one of those 'just make a lits of some controversial stuff I know jack about just so I have something to write about' kind of 'journalism' you see all too often these days.