Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 3138322" data-attributes="member: 8461">I'm sorry if it seemed like I was lashing out at you. I recognize that I went into rant mode there, but even then, I didn't try to direct it at you personally. It was just annoying to me that it seemed like a debate was opening up about how to classify the article when there were much more relevant issues (again, to me) that hadn't been touched upon by the Paizo people. Again, I didn't mean to attack you.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> Hm...I can't understand that at all. I ate those articles up.This is the part that makes me suspicious. I can understand market data suggesting that people love video games. I love video games. But did your market data just ask how people feel about video games, or did it ask how they felt about them in Dragon specifically? Because I have a very hard time believing that market research would come back with results saying that people hate Silicon Sorcery but love non-D&D video game articles in Dragon.Natch.That I could believe, though I personally don't agree with. As I said, it's the idea that "preview" articles like that could possibly be more popular than Silicon Sorcery is what I have a hard time believing.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> I've always had a cool reception to First Watch, myself, but I never felt the need to say anything. Half of it always dealt with D&D/d20 directly, and the sections that didn't but still "came close" was usually only about a page in length, covering multiple things (many of which I did like). But then extending giving a single product an extra two pages, for which an entire article was written, seemed to be going too far. It's like if the editorial suddenly got an extra two pages; it's not bad unto itself, but it's detracting from the D&D content from the rest of the magazine. Add in that Dragon could have easily given it D&D-related material but chose not to, and it just seemed like a wasted opportunity to me.To reiterate, my opinion is that anything that covers video games, and is more than a page in length (total, so next month's two single-pages reviews of Twilight Princess and Pox Nora still count in this regard), should either be Silicon Sorcery, or not be in the magazine.Partially. It's a step in the right direction, at least. Thanks.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification