by red black
sigmazero13 wrote:
red black wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
red black wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
But that doesn't mean he came into the game with a neutral mind. Based on his experience with the old game, I think he came into the new version with a mindset of "prove me wrong", and in his mind it didn't.
Well no kidding.. it's a compare/contrast review.
It is indeed :) Just not one made from a neutral viewpoint :)
So what? The argument/review stands on it's own. I'd guess that the review wouldn't have been as good if the OP weren't so familiar with the original edition.
I guess it may depend on what you mean by "stands on its own" :) I don't dispute that it was well thought-out, nor that it was written with his honest opinions based on his experience with the original game.
However, the way it reads to me at least was that the review is most accurate for those who were pretty experienced and loved the original game, and not necessarily as fitting for those who aren't as experienced. I'm kind of in the latter camp; I played the original a few times and enjoyed it, but didn't come to the same conclusion about the changes as the OP. That simply means my expectations were different than his.
I guess my overall point has not been to try and ridicule or discredit the review or reviewer (and if it's come across that way, my apologies), but rather to state that at least to me, the conclusions of the review aren't necessarily applicable to those who don't have the same level of experience and passion for the original game :) I, for one, have found my few plays of the new version to be quite enjoyable :)
My impression of the review is that OP knows what he likes and he didn't find it in FFG's treatment of the game. My impression of your response is that you know what you like and you found it in FFG's treatment of the game. Looking over your top 10 that's a safe assumption.