Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 4531922" data-attributes="member: 1003">Because they're each quite different? Not &quot;Word of Darkness vs. Runequest&quot; different, but certainly observably different.I disagree on both points. It is not &quot;ze same&quot;, and it is not an overall improvement. Many aspects of the game were improved, but some were made quite a bit worse. But obviously that's all subjective. Just IMO, as they say. Which is why no one should look at the games as &quot;upgrades.&quot; They're different games, and each should be evaluated on its own merits.There are people who actually believe marketing? Have they learned nothing from living in a modern society? Marketing exists for one purpose, and it isn't the discovery of Truth.What is this &quot;should&quot; you speak of? &quot;Should&quot; for who?&nbsp; &quot;Should&quot; implies subjective preferences. Maybe they &quot;should&quot; have marketed it as a new game, from your point of view, but maybe they &quot;should not&quot; have marketed it as a new game from their shareholder's point of view. The belief among consumers that &quot;ze game remains ze same&quot; most likely increased sales.Now, I'm not suggesting that WotC's customers were sold snake oil, but maybe they got a bait &amp; switch. The customers may be happy with 4E once they tried it, but maybe if they thought it was a totally new game they never would have bought it in the first place.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Irda Ranger, post: 4531922, member: 1003"] Because they're each quite different? Not "Word of Darkness vs. Runequest" different, but certainly observably different. I disagree on both points. It is not "ze same", and it is not an overall improvement. Many aspects of the game were improved, but some were made quite a bit worse. But obviously that's all subjective. Just IMO, as they say. Which is why no one should look at the games as "upgrades." They're different games, and each should be evaluated on its own merits. There are people who actually believe marketing? Have they learned nothing from living in a modern society? Marketing exists for one purpose, and it isn't the discovery of Truth. What is this "should" you speak of? "Should" for who? "Should" implies subjective preferences. Maybe they "should" have marketed it as a new game, from your point of view, but maybe they "should not" have marketed it as a new game from their shareholder's point of view. The belief among consumers that "ze game remains ze same" most likely increased sales. Now, I'm not suggesting that WotC's customers were sold snake oil, but maybe they got a bait & switch. The customers may be happy with 4E [I]once they tried it[/I], but maybe if they thought it was a totally new game they never would have bought it in the first place. [/QUOTE]

Verification