Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aberzanzorax" data-source="post: 5597603" data-attributes="member: 64209">I dunno man. I usually agree with yout, but not so much here. I sorta went where you went here with my somewhat silly example of "Romper Stomper Teddy Bears". I meant it as a sincere (and hopefully not biting) example of how a very horrible game could, in fact, be "the best" depending upon what people are looking for.  For instance, let's take HOL. It's somewhat polarized in its love/hate. It might be the best for some people while being the worst for others. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hol_(role-playing_game" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hol_(role-playing_game</a>)   My point about every game and every edition of every game is that it can only really be measured against what it sets out to accomplish. It can utterly fail at doing what it isn't trying to do, but be fantastic at what it attempts to do. "Hamlet? That movie wasn't very funny at all.""Die Hard? Where was the plot?""Dangerous Liasons? Ummmm. No action." You know this, of course. I'm not directing this at you, but I'm responding to your post to make a point.   I mean... If it's a parody game, then it should be a good parody. People playing it seriously should be dissapointed if they do so -- as it is a parody. If it's a drama game, the combat might be nonlethal...people playing it might find the combat boring or "not intense enough" or whatever. If it's a D&D game people might get upset if it's too hack and slash or not enough hack and slash. An intense shift in focus is an intense change in the game. Part of comparing editions also necessitates understanding what the game as a whole (WoD, D&D, GURPS, etc) and the specifiic edition are aiming for and how well they accomplish it. Measuring this can be complicated in that if different edtions of the same game set out to accomplish different things, then we are grading them against different measures. That can be a part of the edition warring as well. What if the designers decided "this combat game is now a narrative game...to hell with balance, let's tell a story!" (or vice versa, or some middle ground where the shift of focus was real, but much more subtle). If the focus of a game is changed to such a degree that it no longer represents the same "purpose" in playing, it's not unreasonable, in my opinion, to claim "this doesn't feel the same to me" if the purpose was the reason for playing the game. If one played the game for the theme or "dressing" or whatever else was maintained, then this argument doesn't hold much water. In fact, a change in purpose with similar dressing could radically change the game and actually be an improvement! (e.g. "I always played D&D for fantasy tropes, but really wanted more balance." versus "I always enjoyed the realism of D&D and hoped it'd give worlds that much more verisimillitude next edition.") And then edition warriors on both sides discuss how much and how little a game has changed...and what that means...and if it's always been that way or if it SHOULD always have been that way...and so on and so on, and honestly, as someone (maybe Umbran) said (and I'm paraphrasing with my own words...sorry to Umbran if I'm putting words in your mouth)... It's mostly about forming an opinion based upon "feeling" and enjoyment of a game/edition and then subsequently justifying that with reason and logic.  I'm pretty sure I do it, but I also do it having given 4e a real solid chance. It's not "bias" so much as "taste".  I like it. I have friends who play it. They LOVE it. They wish I'd play it more with them. I like playing with them. I like playing with my 3e friends, not because they're better gamers (they're not), but because I like that game better...it meets my preferences. I don't hate 4e. I just don't prefer it.    My point? For me 3e is better than 4e. I have given both a very fair shot. I went into Pathfinder, 4e, Iron Heroes, Arcana Unearthed, and others with an open mind.  I can be comfortable with that. I don't understand people who are angry with me for this expression and I don't understand people who claim that any one of these games are superior to others.  Hell, I LOVED the innovations of 3e over 2e...but I respect the opinions of 2e players who want to stay old school and enjoy their game as superior (to them) over 3e.    I don't understand the schism between 3e and 4e in the same context... ...Claim your game is best for you, but don't claim your game is best for everyone.</blockquote>

Verification