[Bloodcat]

Originally Posted by Bochi

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.

That actually brings up a good point. These books came out at one a year if I understand it all correctly. What were they used for as they came out? Most likely they were replacements in part for various OD&D, or as upgrades to the Holmes Basic Set. (Which might be an interesting thing to review as well. Originally Holmes Basic was just the jumping point into AD&D as opposed to the seperate line Moldvay/Cook and Mentzer ended up being.)

Interestingly enough I sort of used AD&D 2nd books like that when I played the game. Mentzer Basic with 2nd ed PHB for much of my actual time where I liked playing AD&D with whatever Monstrous Compendiums i could get ahold of. I eventually got the DMG and the full core MC (enough to decently fill both binders!) but pretty much didn't use the DMG all that much. Of course in 1st ed the DMG was FAR more important than the 2nd ed one..

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?

Bleh was more "in general" as opposed to being aimed at any one person. I hate multi quoting and multi posting to handle topics. Of course by now this shitstorm over Lev's reviews is 2 threads equalling over 20 pages with at least 1 more to cause more nerd rage coming soon.

And its not hard to grasp. I think Lev did a fair job, though I must admit he was a tad harsh. (But as I mentioned, IGNORE THE SCORES and read the review itself.)

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...

Well I don't damn the graphics since that's a basis of time. Gameplay I will bash since some of its flaws were glaringly obvious even back then. (Though back then for me was Christmas 88 when it got a C64 release. Some of its flaws have been fixed in the various Japanese rereleases over the years. Japan has more respect for Wizardry than it gets in its home country. And we only got one of the modern J-Wizardries which is bloody fantastic. If you like dungeoncrawlers and have a PS2 Wizardry: Tale of the Forsaken Land is a MUST GET. Especially if you weren't fond of Wiz 6+'s change to the basic gameplay systems.) It was one of my first electronic RPGs and I took issue with its choices before I even had much frame of reference. Same with AD&D. I found much of it's choices mind bogglingly retarded when I first read it and all I had was a couple RPGs I never could get to play (I will play Runequest 3rd eventually dammit!), and a fair selection of electronic ones.

I have the original Bard's Tale on my Mac right now ironically. I got tired of it honestly. Its better in some ways than Wizardry but in other ways its got its own levels of dumb. Both games need tweaked rereleases. AD&D Gold Box series too. Getting them to run on modern machines is a pain and the gameplay is too borked for modern tastes and just general ease of use.

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.

Hell, I prefer Squad Leader over ASL any day of the week. Light years better rulebook too, even over the ASL Starter Kits.

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.

The thing is cult status doesn't give it a break. Fun is fun. Flaws are flaws. X Com's main flaw is that you fight too many pointless battles and if you miss the story mission sites you can bork yourself from ever completing the game. That and hunting down the last few aliens who like to go hide in a corner and make you hunt them down for 20 turns.

But otherwise that game is STILL one of the best turn based strategy RPGs ever made. A couple tweaks and it would be perfect. (And again, its flaws pissed me off back then.)

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.

We have been trying to figure out why AD&D is so popular and I guess its just gonna go around in circles.
We end up with "Its popular so it has to be good" and "No its not it sucks even if it was popular" with no end in sight.

And there never will be an end. AD&D lovers aren't gonna give ground and neither are the haters.

Agreeing to disagree probably won't happen. I am sure we will all talk this talk again if Lev decides he wants people to say mean and hateful things that usually get people banned in RPGnet to him in his DMG review.

I should really make a copy of all my points so I can just post the damned things again in the next thread.

Its gonna all happen again you know. I almost want to see if these threads caused an outrage at Dragonsfoot, ENWorld, or any other D&D fanforums.

I guess I am a glutton for punishment.