Review of Heroes of Neverwinter (Facebook App) by Atari

[jeffh]

See, your arguments are based on the idea that he's completely misreading his audience.

Actually, they're based on the things I said they were based on - namely, failure to use reasonably well-understood best practices - not on something else. It's not so much misreading his audience as (A) writing for far too narrow an audience and (B) writing things that are not maximally useful even for that intended audience.

But, let's run with your current misunderstanding for a bit anyway, since it's at least closer to the mark than your previous one...

I look at En World, a site that has spent vast amounts of bandwidth decrying 4e based solely on how it changes what came before, and I think he's reading his audience pretty darn well. If we can spend THREE YEARS condemning a game for basically not following what came before, I'm thinking that panning a Facebook game for exactly the same reason isn't much of a stretch.

"EN World" has done nothing of the sort. I don't think it has an official position on the matter, and as an organization, continues to support and even produce products for 4E.

Some individual EN World members have done things that superficially resemble what you describe. Not all; not a majority; not even a lot; but some. But in general, edition warriors don't simply say "they changed it, now it sucks"; for every one that does, there are at least three that give reasons why the changes negatively affect their enjoyment of the game. Nobody, or at least nobody worth listening to, thinks the bare fact that it changed is a sufficient criticism all by itself. They give reasons.

TL;DR version: (A) "ENWorld" does not speak with one voice on, well, anything I can think of really, beyond maybe the basic idea that tabletop RPGs are kind of cool; and (B) I think you misrepresent even the smallish part of the ENWorld membership that does sort of look the way you describe if you squint at it right.

(And (C) As per the newly-added top part of my post, even if I were wrong about (A) and (B), which I'm not, it would do little to undermine my actual argument anyway, only your caricature of it.)

 

[Dannager]

Well, actually it does tell me whether the game is good or not, if being true to the 4e game mechanics is important to me.

One game matching the mechanics of another game does not have any bearing on whether that game is a good game, especially when the two games are in entirely different mediums and formats.

You can say that you have a preference for matching mechanics, but calling the game better just because it has the same mechanics as another game (with absolutely no regard for how those mechanics impact the play experience)? That's silly. I mean really, really silly.

It's not important to you. Fine. No problems. You judge a game based on different criteria. The source material is not important to you. And that's groovy. It is important to the reviewer and, presumably, to at least some of the readers.

Those readers don't need a whole review dedicated to their "criteria". They need one sentence: "This is a Facebook game, and as such deviates from the traditional 4e rules in a number of places - don't expect a necessarily faithful implementation of the 4e mechanics."

That gives him the rest of the review to actually review the game.

See, you're presuming that your tastes are universal.

Hardly. If I presumed my tastes were universal, I'd be chiding him for not praising HoN. But I'm not. I'm chiding him for failing to review the game at all.

I do presume that there are right ways and wrong ways to review something, and that this review is an example of the latter.

 

[Dannager]

See, your arguments are based on the idea that he's completely misreading his audience.

I look at En World, a site that has spent vast amounts of bandwidth decrying 4e based solely on how it changes what came before, and I think he's reading his audience pretty darn well. If we can spend THREE YEARS condemning a game for basically not following what came before, I'm thinking that panning a Facebook game for exactly the same reason isn't much of a stretch.

I'm firmly in the pro-4e camp, and even I can understand that there's a difference between criticizing the next iteration of a game for its departures, and criticizing an entirely new game in a different medium and different format with a loose association to the original game for its departures.

I mean, you can understand this, right? How changes from 3e to 4e might be worth getting up in arms over, but how changes from 4e to D&D: The Facebook Video Game aren't really something to get up-in-arms over, assuming the rest of the game is good?

 

[Hussar]

One game matching the mechanics of another game does not have any bearing on whether that game is a good game, especially when the two games are in entirely different mediums and formats.

Really? So, if I put up a Facebook game called, "Chess" and bill it as a chess FB application, the fact that it uses a round board, allows pieces to be placed on the board every round, and uses dice in no way affects whether or not this is a good game?

Now, I realize that's hyperbole, because obviously the FB game isn't that far removed from D&D. Fair enough. But, it's just as wrong to claim that the inspiration for a game is unimportant as well. Heck, look at the criticisms of I Robot the movie. There is a fairly large segment of the audience that is turned off by the fact that I Robot deviates considerably from the novel. Are their criticisms likewise invalid and unimportant so long as the movie was fun?

 

[Hussar]

This obviously isn't going to go anywhere, and people have started playing the "Oh, you just don't understand my argument" card so I'll be bowing out now.

Personally I think Neuroglyph's response in http://www.enworld.org/forum/en-wor...verwinter-facebook-app-atari.html#post5705465 pretty much says everything that needs to be said.

 

[jeffh]

Really? So, if I put up a Facebook game called, "Chess" and bill it as a chess FB application, the fact that it uses a round board, allows pieces to be placed on the board every round, and uses dice in no way affects whether or not this is a good game?

Nope. There are lots of kinds of chess, and don't quote me on this, but I think all the elements you mention have been part of at least one at some point (though not all at once). It should probably at least have an adjective in front of "chess", if for no other reason than to attract the audience you'd want to attract with such a game (not particularly an issue for HoN) but I wouldn't automatically assume the word "chess" had no place there.

Oh, and when your response to my argument is a complete non sequitur, albeit one that is moderately interesting in its own right, what the hell am I supposed to do other than "play the 'you're misunderstanding my argument' card"? You were, and to judge by that comment might still be, misunderstanding my argument, and I think I showed that reasonably effectively. You seem to be insinuating that there's something underhanded or otherwise inappropriate about pointing that out, but I don't see what.

 

[Dannager]

Personally I think Neuroglyph's response in http://www.enworld.org/forum/en-wor...verwinter-facebook-app-atari.html#post5705465 pretty much says everything that needs to be said.

Yes, unfortunately, it does.

 

[Dannager]

Really? So, if I put up a Facebook game called, "Chess" and bill it as a chess FB application, the fact that it uses a round board, allows pieces to be placed on the board every round, and uses dice in no way affects whether or not this is a good game?

Now, I realize that's hyperbole, because obviously the FB game isn't that far removed from D&D. Fair enough. But, it's just as wrong to claim that the inspiration for a game is unimportant as well. Heck, look at the criticisms of I Robot the movie. There is a fairly large segment of the audience that is turned off by the fact that I Robot deviates considerably from the novel. Are their criticisms likewise invalid and unimportant so long as the movie was fun?

I love when people bring up chess as a sort of inviolate, pristine game that has never been altered or messed around with.

No, what you're talking about would be if someone put up Steve Jackson's Knightmare Chess on Facebook, and then someone reviewed it saying it was terrible because it changed the rules of chess to something else.

Of course, even then it wouldn't be a solid analogy, since chess could easily be implemented with perfect rules faithfulness to the casual Facebook game format (and I'm quite sure has been already), something that is impossible with D&D, but I'm sure you get my point.

 

[Mark CMG]

Maybe the D&D brand name is being spread too thin for some folks?

 

[DonTadow]

It doesn't surprise me that an online game dosnt have skills. I have no idea why, oh why, are there no skills in MMOs of any kind. It's like designers think that options are too complicated. 60 buttons on my keyboard and I"m limited to using 7.