Spooney review 4e

[ProfessorCirno]

Didn't see this up here, so I thought I'd stick it up. He says what I think a lot of people are feeling with a strong mix of good and bad. Please note he says one or two obscenities.

http://spoonyexperiment.blogspot.com/2008/07/dungeons-and-dragons-4th-edition-review.html

I can definately say that much of my 4e experience is very similar to this feel - combat is INCREDIBLY fun, classes are too same-y, terrain and good strategy make combat much deeper, to name a few.

 

[Jack99]

I didn't catch much positive, aside from at the end, where he says he still prefers AD&D, but he would play 4e over 3e, else I must say that he sounded pretty unhappy about a lot of things.

 

[Rechan]

Who is this Spooney fellow and why should I put stock in his opinion?

 

[Jack99]

Who is this Spooney fellow and why should I put stock in his opinion?

Because he doesn't like 4e?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Uh? He outright says several times that he enjoyed playing 4e and found the combat incredibly fun and deep, and even stated at the end that he'll probably homebrew it a bit and play it.

Is this bizarro space logic again, where anyone who doesn't like anything about 4e must HATE EVERYTHING RAAWWWWWR

 

[ki11erDM]

Who is this Spooney fellow and why should I put stock in his opinion?

Because he has the power to put words on to the internets... oh wait...

 

[MichaelSomething]

Who is this Spooney fellow and why should I put stock in his opinion?

He's a minor league game reviewer on Youtube. His audience isn't large at all but I find him funny. He has an 7+ part review of Finaly Fantasy 8 that is really worth watching.

He doesn't seem to hate 4E, his taste is just very old school.

 

[Rechan]

He's a minor league game reviewer on Youtube. His audience isn't large at all but I find him funny.

Ahha. Thank you.

He has an 7+ part review of Finaly Fantasy 8 that is really worth watching.

7+ parts?! I could review that game with one word.

 

[Tervin]

Now that was a mess.

Some things he says are just confusing, but might just be that he is not that well prepared. It also seems that he doesn't remember the rules of the game that he claims to prefer. His description of the how thieves skills work in original AD&D is for example really a description of 2E. Also his claim that rangers were more different from each other in AD&D than in 4E seems like he is misremembering. With 3E core you can make characters that are more different from each other than you can with 4E core. With any of the AD&D versions? Not a chance.

In many ways he has picked up a few things here and there of the new system, but missed a lot of other stuff. It is kind of weird to me that somebody would take the time to make a review, when he hasn't taken the time to learn his subject and check his facts. Basically he is guessing how things in the new edition might work, and trying to remember what other games are like all through his ramble.

I agree that there are things in 4E that are not perfect, some of them even quite bad. He didn't know the game well enough to get to those though.

 

[Rechan]

Among other things, the worst part of 2e rangers was the ability requirements. Serious MAD. Unless you rolled well...