Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by John Wick, December 12, 2001, 01:03:00 PM
QuoteOn 2001-12-12 14:46, John Wick wrote:My point is this: how can you review a game by just reading the rules?You don't see the rules _in action_. This was a prime gripe of mine for 7th Sea. So much of that game was _seeing_ how the rules worked.
QuoteOn 2001-12-12 15:09, Epoch wrote: More than just missing details, overlapping areas of the game might actually subvert your opinion. Let's take Seventh Sea as an example, since it's a game that I've neither read nor played, and, as such, it's clear I'm speaking hypothetically. Suppose that, upon reading it, I find that the mechanics are, in my opinion, flawed. Then I play the game, and, like Clinton, I'm overwhelmed by the fun visceral feeling of the mechanics. Does this make them less flawed? Probably not, but it may very well make me not report them as flawed.Just a quick side note: if you play it and are overwhelmed, then that would indicate that the rules you thought were flawed were in fact *not* flawed, right? All the more reason to play a game before reviewing it.However, I'm of the opinion that you can do something *like* a review without playing the game. Maybe it should be called something else. That way if you stumbled across some cool little game hidden in a corner of the net that you didn't have time to actually play, you could still write about it so others could try it out (something that's been already pointed out in this thread).LaterJames V. Westhttp://www.geocities.com/randomordercreations/index.html