Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6358152" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is an important point. But it also runs both ways, I think.That is, Marvel had a lot of goes, and a lot of them were bad: I remember a Spider Man movie from when I was a boy (apparently in the US the 1977 film went straight-to-TV). The Hulk TV show was pretty dodgy. I've seen a bad Punisher movie on TV (was it released cinematically?). I personally also think the Ang Lee Hulk movie was pretty bad, although Rotten Tomatoes doesn't agree.I think this shows it's possible to come back from bad movies and other media pretty quickly. The evidence doesn't suggest that a character or "franchise" will be permanently weighed down by its past associations.This is the sort of analysis that I think has very limited explanatory value.I mean, on this thread alone we have multiple long-time D&D players - [MENTION=56051]Raith5[/MENTION], [MENTION=9053]SteveC[/MENTION], for instance - expressing a degree of doubt over whether 5e is a game they want to play. And there are plenty of other long-time D&D players who post regularly on ENworld who expres similar concerns. But you seem to be discounting that, for whatever reason.Similarly references to the "Warcrafty" quaities of 4e. That's like referring to the "Diablo-y" qualities of 3E ie basically meaningless. If an issue with 4e was mechanically rationed abilities for martial characters, let's describe it more accurately so we can actually identify the relevant design issues. Or, if the issue with 4e was that powers were laid out in coloured boxes, rather than the traditional black-on-white text of a D&D spell or magic item description, then let's describe it more accurately so we can discuss the relevant layout issue.</blockquote>

Verification