Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodcat
Well, it was TSR's fault for making 3 seperate products needed to play the damned game so why not review them as 3 products?
|
Sure, but you ought to keep the totality in mind. Let's say TSR never produced the DMG. That would make the rest of the books useless for most purposes as half the ruleset would be missing. A review would surely have to pay attention to that. Likewise, when criticising a book for not containing certain types of information, shouldn't you be paying attention to where else in the system as a whole that information can be found? Is it appropriate for settings material to be found in settings books, rather than in the MM? Possibly, possibly not. But Lev doesn't go there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodcat
And as to "But you have to look at it SOLEY for what time it was released"?
Bleh.
|
Bleh indeed. Where did I write that? If you are trying to imply I did, shame on you. Look, is it so hard to grasp that you can write a good review of a 1920s film without acting either as if the movie was made in 2007 or as if the reviewer was living in 1920?
You picked Wizardry as an example and I agree with much of what you said, but you don't damn it for not having graphics that it couldn't have had or for catering to the market of the day instead of the market of 2006. At the same time I don't think AD&D is anything like as broken as that example. And I still play Bards Tale II occasionally...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodcat
But AD&D gets a pass in the tabletop realm? I don't think so. Honestly it was never that good or deserving of its levels of popularity. AD&D doesn't even do AD&D right and given the sheer volume of house rules, fantasy heartbreakers, and spinoffs/"homages" that threw most of the rules away and rewrote them even back then sort of proves this.
|
No, it doesn't get a pass, but it does deserve a more rounded appraisal. You went on to mention CoC and Squad Leader I would agree whole-heartedly. I would be inclined to rate those very highly in their original form, even today. Higher than AD&D.
I have written retrospective reviews of computer games and it is not easy but one can certainly spot classics and explain why they are still worth playing even if there are many elements that are not of a modern standard. A classic such as "X-COM: UFO Defense" would probably be trashed today if it was released today in its original form but it is a cult classic, arguably one of the best PC games every written and still brilliant fun to play. A good review of it recognises the good qualities, the bad qualities, and the historical context and thus explains its enduring cult status.
Saying AD&D didn't "deserve" its levels of popularity begs the question - why was it then so popular and why does it endure today? Lev's review can't even begin to answer the question because it pretends that the game is new, and has no following at all.