Here (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11245.phtml).
Phew! My hosting-folks got the web-site back up just in time, I guess.
For what it's worth (and especially before anyone leaps to "defend" me from Matthijs's wholly informed opinion) I think the review rocks. Matthijs was very sweet about checking it with me, and seemed (to me at least) to be all nervous about what I would think. But hey, I (a) made a game that is all about how people can productively disagree about what they want, and (b) made a game that I knew some people wouldn't like. So I figure, he's thought through what the game's good for and what it's bad for, and expressed that. You can't ask for more than that.
If you're putting out your own game, I strongly recommend sending him a copy to review. He's solid and professional.
Hey, thanks :)
I wasn't all that nervous about what you'd think - but I am still uncertain whether I've grokked Capes. To me, at least, it's a difficult beast: It looks just like the games I usually play and, but then suddenly it doesn't do what I expect it to do at all, and I disconnect with the SiS. Like someone put a gyroscope in my steering wheel.
I'm following the many Capes threads with interest.
Oh - and right now, the review isn't accessible from the link on the RPG.net front page - so this is practically a Forge exclusive preview :)
It is always nice to see a review on that site where the reviewer has actually tried to play the game.
I don't always play them. A lot of games are simple derivatives of other games, differing only in setting details and choice of character templates etc. Capes, DitV, Uni - these you have to try to understand them. (I know I promised a Uni actual play review - however, I have very little time these days, and have to prioritize reviews where I get a comp copy over those where I bought the game).