Sean, I appreciate your explanations of your review criteria, but I think that, in dedicating space to them, you sort of forgot to include the review of the actual product. Having read the review, I have absolutely no idea what this game is about or how it works. All I know is the title and that "Wellstone City" has something to do with it.
Also, you might want to review some of the articles at the Forge, as I think your use of the various GNS terms are a bit off.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
Re: [RPG]: Aether Source Book, reviewed by sean2099 (3/3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz
Also, you might want to review some of the articles at the Forge, as I think your use of the various GNS terms are a bit off.
In Sean's defence here I have to point out that not everybody acknowledges the Forge's right to define terms, or the definitions for the terms that they have created. I personally find their use of terminology counter-intuitive in many places. Not that I'm very fond of the over-use of Jargon in any case; I'd much rather see a review or discussion that was accessable and instantly readable by even a novice to the hobby than one that was well clued-up on the latest buzz words.
I do agree that the review could have been a lot more informative though, but beggars can't be choosers and as the only review of this system, at least it is there to be seen. Maybe a more in-depth review will be forthcoming soon.
Re: [RPG]: Aether Source Book, reviewed by sean2099 (3/3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destriarch
In Sean's defence here I have to point out that not everybody acknowledges the Forge's right to define terms...
I was making the assumption that, if one is using the words "Gamism/ist", "Simluationism/ist", and "Narrativism/ist", that you're referring to GNS theory. GNS theory is the Forge's creation, ergo, I can see them as the source for those terms' defintion. If the reviewer were to have sued "Dramatism/ist" in place of the last term above, I might assume they were using Threefold Model terminology, and thus we'd look to that source for correct usage.
If the reviewer's intent was not to reference either of those, I'd suggest not using the terminology.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
Re: [RPG]: Aether Source Book, reviewed by sean2099 (3/3)
I would be interested in more detail about the game setting, background and rules. After reading this review, I don't have a very good sense of what the game is actually about, except that the name sounds neat.
__________________
You awaken in a large complex, slightly disoriented. Glowing dots hover mouth level near you in every direction. Off in the distance you hear the faint howling of what you can only imagine must be some sort of ghost or several ghosts.
> look
You are in a long corridor. You may go forward or backward and there are glowing dots in every direction. There is a glowing dot hovering near you.
Re: [RPG]: Aether Source Book, reviewed by sean2099 (3/3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz
I was making the assumption that, if one is using the words "Gamism/ist", "Simluationism/ist", and "Narrativism/ist", that you're referring to GNS theory. GNS theory is the Forge's creation, ergo, I can see them as the source for those terms' defintion. (...) If the reviewer's intent was not to reference either of those, I'd suggest not using the terminology.
The only problem I see with this is that the words pre-exist the Forge, neither does the Forge provide the only conceptualization and usage of the same. Why should we be forced to think in Forge terms? The author of the review has all the right to use the words as he pleases as long as their meaning is clear. If that meaning diverges from the Forge that's well and good as long as the author is not claiming to be using them in Forgite terms.
Other than that you are right about the shallowness of the review. The style is clear and concise but it's also content-free.
Re: [RPG]: Aether Source Book, reviewed by sean2099 (3/3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by smascrns
The only problem I see with this is that the words pre-exist the Forge, neither does the Forge provide the only conceptualization and usage of the same. Why should we be forced to think in Forge terms?
I was not aware that "Narrativism/ist" w/r/t RPGs pre-dates the Forge. The most similar term I'm aware of is "Dramatism/ist" in the Threefold Model (though it's not quite the same).
I understand what you and Destriarch are saying, but I don't think it's an unreasonable leap to think "GNS" when seeing "Gamist," "Simluationist," and "Narrativist" mentioned in quick succession in an RPG review.
Ergo, for clarity's sake, I think that if your intent is not to talk GNS, just eschew using its (or similar) terminology, or make clear what you mean by your use of the terms.
Granted, I basically got what he was saying... though given the lack of any info about the RPG being reviewed, I wasn't 100% certain.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
Re: [RPG]: Aether Source Book, reviewed by sean2099 (3/3)
Hi all,
Thanks for reading my review and for the comments. As you can see, this was my first review. I come from a time when you could speak without having to have your terminology approved. I agree, after reading other reviews, that people like to see rule/game summaries.
I hope all of you decide to try out Aether despite my poor review. I'll remember to summarize the setting and rules next time. It's true what they say, any kind of press is good press.
Sean2099
__________________ Divinity - an RPG where players become Gods and have to actually worry about pleasing their followers.
Re: [RPG]: Aether Source Book, reviewed by sean2099 (3/3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sean2099
I come from a time when you could speak without having to have your terminology approved.
When in this thread has the idea of "approval" ever come up? I just thought you were referencing GNS. Apparently, you're not. That's fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sean2099
I agree, after reading other reviews, that people like to see rule/game summaries.
RPG.net reviews --unlike, say, Amazon reviews-- don't presume the reader knows anything about the product in question. So, yes, the usual schtick is to first describe the product and how it works and then assess and give your opinion. If you're able to play/use the product in preparing the review, all the better.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
Re: [RPG]: Aether Source Book, reviewed by sean2099 (3/3)
I don't know if it's kosher to post in the review of my own system, but for those of you craving more, click the link in my sig and it takes you straight off to the web site. On the main page, hit the What is Aether link and you'll be whisked off to the description of the system.
Parts of the page are still under construction and I REALLY need to get a fire going under my web designer for the rest of the page to get done.
Linear Mode
