4E is NOT a V3.75!

[Jürgen Hubert]

I think where we may differ here is that you seem to think that "sucks" is necessarily to be taken as an objective statement of value, whereas I see it as so inherently emotionally loaded a term that it's hard for me to attach any objectivity to it.

Some games objectively suck. Or blow. Or reference other bodily functions which are not to be discussed in polite society.

F.A.T.A.L., for instance. I think it would be very hard to find someone who would argue that this game does not objectively suck - and if you do find someone who does this, back away very slowly...

 

[BlackMoria]

I think that when someone says that something sucks or blows, they really mean that it sucks or blow (for them, or in their opinion), with the (for them or in their opinion) unspoken but generally understood.

However, sweeping generalizations on the norm on the interweb, so I tend to ignore such statements and refuse to substitute their value judgements for my own.

Love 4e, Hate 4e or somewhere in the middle. Everyone is somewhere on that continuum and no one is more right or wrong in their opinon than anyone else.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I hate 4E for not being more like Toon.

 

[SPoD]

Your arguement here is flawed due to the fact that it was widely known that 4e was not going to be just a new version of 3.5.

Knowing something unpleasant for a long time does not make it inherently more acceptable when it happens. One can have known that 4.0 was not going to be an updated 3.5 for the last year and still not be pleased by it.

If I tell everyone that on October 23, 2011, someone is going to drive a 12-inch railroad spike through your left eye, does that mean that when it happens, you have no right to be annoyed by it? I mean, it was widely known!

 

[mcrow]

Knowing something unpleasant for a long time does not make it inherently more acceptable when it happens. One can have known that 4.0 was not going to be an updated 3.5 for the last year and still not be pleased by it.

If I tell everyone that on October 23, 2011, someone is going to drive a 12-inch railroad spike through your left eye, does that mean that when it happens, you have no right to be annoyed by it? I mean, it was widely known!

Not a good example you have the choice of buying the game you have no choice if you are going to die or not.

 

[BlackMoria]

Not a good example you have the choice of buying the game you have no choice if you are going to die or not.

Still, whether someone has a choice to buy the game, whether they buy it or not doesn't invalid their opinion on the matter.

Virtually everyone on these boards has some opinion on 4e. Love to hate and all point in between have equal validity. All have a equal voice.

What is the issue? Why do some people choose to take offense if others don't think that 4e is the be all / end all? And vice versa.

 

[Andor]

I don't have the books yet, haven't played it yet, and don't have a firm opinion on 4e yet therefore.

However most of the negative comments I've seen here on EnWorld are less "It's not how it was done in 3.5!" and more along the lines of "This is not how it was done in 1e, 2nd, 3e or 3.5 and it no longer feels like D&D to me." 4e is not merely a new game it is also successor to a long gaming tradition and therefore can fail on the basis of it's failure to maintain that tradition as well as on it's own merits as a game. Shadowrun 3e for example was an excellent game, but if it had been released with "D&D 4e" on the cover it would have been a resoundingly bad edition of D&D. I'm not saying 4e has failed btw, I haven't seen or played it and won't form a definiative impression until I have. However those who have seen and played it are perfectly within their rights to form an opinion and are not any less right or wrong than you are.

Fact: D&D 4e is one of the best desinged RPGs on the market, if not the best. There may or may not be better games but I think we can all agree that it is one of the better games. The quality of the art and layout are also among the best. It was design and developed by many of the best game desingers in the field, the overall quality cannot be denied. You can say similar things for 3.5 and pathfinder.

First: The word is spelled "designed".

Second: It is damm difficult to say if an RPG is good, better, or best, although it's pretty easy to spot bad. The designers of 4e are amoung the best, but they also had a dammed rushed production schedule and were very clearly designing under a different paradigm than the "take however long it takes but get it right" approach that was at work at WotC back when 3e was developed and no wonder. WotC back then was a Giant, flush with Magic cash and was run by a dedicated gamer who had bought the remains of TSR to save a game he loved. Now WotC is a minor division of Hasbro and all that crew are long gone.

The test of if a game is good or bad depends on it's goals. Does it suit the genre? Does it give the GM the tools he needs? Does it give the PCs the tools they need? Is it fun to play? If the answer to of all these is a resounding "YES!" then it is a great game, maybe the best.

For 4e I'm not hearing "YES!" on all counts. Not everyone says it feels like D&D. Some GM's feel like they want more monster/items/fluff. Some PCs want more or different races and classes. Some don't enjoy it.

No game is perfect for everybody, but I think you may need to consider that your own opinion on 4e is not an objective fact.

And when I've got it, and played it I'll form my own opinion.

 

[Nellisir]

Your arguement here is flawed due to the fact that it was widely known that 4e was not going to be just a new version of 3.5.

And your argument is at least as flawed:
1) the fact that something is "known" does not make it good.
2) 4e is not a "new" game; it's an update to an old game. 4e is intended to replace 3.5e. WotC wants people to play 4e and not play 3.5e. Not allowing comparisons between the two would be disingenious at best.
3) It's totally fair to compare 4e to other games - in fact, that's how you arrive at an estimate of something's value or quality. You compare it to other items in the same market. If Game A does 3 things well, and Game B does 5 things well, Game B is a better game in the absence of other information or factors.

It's fair to say "4e isn't to my taste"
It's fair to say " I like game X better"
It's not fair to say " 4e sucks because I like game X better"
I guess the hang up here is I'm talking about being objective.

I think it's interesting that you don't give an example of how to say 4e is bad; you give two ways to not judge 4e, and say it's not fair to compare 4e to another game. If you want to play fair/not fair, you need to give contrasting examples, which yours aren't.

Fact: D&D 4e is one of the best desinged RPGs on the market, if not the best.

Not fact at all. Blatant opinion statement.

The quality of the art and layout are also among the best.

The art that seamlessly integrates 3e era art? This is meaningless as a statment of quality - some of the art is 5 or 6 years old.

 

[Kichwas]

most of the girpes just boil down to "that's not how V3.5 did it!".

No...

Its more like:

that's not how oE, 1E, basic, 2E, 2Er, 3E, or 3.5E did it, nor conceived it.

You can only kill so many cows before you need to take down the sign that says 'cattle ranch.'

 

[apoptosis]

Fact: D&D 4e is one of the best desinged RPGs on the market, if not the best. There may or may not be better games but I think we can all agree that it is one of the better games. The quality of the art and layout are also among the best. It was design and developed by many of the best game desingers in the field, the overall quality cannot be denied. You can say similar things for 3.5 and pathfinder.

That would be hard to call a fact.

What are you using to rate the quality of the design.

How are you validating your metrics.

First question would be "what is its design goal?"

Second question "is this design goal itself a very good one?" THIS ONE IS VERY TOUGH TO ANSWER.

Did it meet its design goal?

Are there better ways to meet the same design goal?

PS..this was kinda joking