Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Thomas T
That isn't a terribly good defense. If, as a reviewer, you're giving a game extra marks or glossing over flaws because of mitigating circumstances, then you are doing a disservice to the reader. If "all things considered" includes anything not betwen the book's two covers, then it should not be part of a final judgement that aspires to be as close to objective as possible.
By all means give credit where it's due in the review, but what should matter is how the product stands on it's own merits, not how good it is given the circumstances of its creation.
|
I don’t see my place as having to defend the game.
Based on what is
in the book and how that material stands up in play this game plays very well, if only for my group. As I said, I’m less and less impressed with the “high trust low definition” freeform gaming style that is all the rage now. It hasn’t worked for me. I have tried it since Over the Edge. I may be old school. I/we could not sustain a
campaign in such a gaming system. We prefer campaign play. CSR looks like it will provide a good framework for that endeavour.
I’m a analytical by trade and actually, I am not, of the opinion that I can truly provide review commentary in the way you have suggested. Just as we have amateur sport and professional sport and all other similar dichotomies, I think we need to account for the new entrant into the market vs the established multinational who has purchased the leading tittle and designers as part of its plan. Based on the back story for the game (CSR), I believe it’s a good property.
Its not a this vs that position I don’t think. Its more inclusive. There is room for it
all on my game shelf.
