Rate my Heroquest review...

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Not the one this week as its just a little thing of a book, but the big one that came out last week.
What did you think?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Well, for the most part it's ok. There's not really anything missing. Except that you gave it 5 clocks, but pointed out things that could be major distractions from the fun. 5 clocks is supposed to be "Top notch. Fun and innovative, with extremely high production values. You might have one complaint about the work, but it’s minor." The detractions don't always seem minor. It sounds more like a 4, or at best a for 4.5 (they don't seem to detract from YOUR enjoyment, but since it's a review, it should be realistic, like your actual text was, and reflect what the audience would think, which sounds more like 4). Other than that, it was very good.

In case you're wondering, the scale definition I'm referring to is on this page, which is also linked to from the submission page as "Submission Guidelines." Something everyone who is submitting reviews should read and refer to.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Well thats the thing, it didn't fit into the structure..
It was "Top notch. Fun and innovative, with extremely high production values" the detractors were that it may be too innovative. All the flaws I pointed out were entirely on the "this hasent really been done before so Im not 100% familiar with it." For me I guess the detractions seemed minor.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

there should also be a way to rate a game based on cost... which I think was the only real detractor to the game.

Personally I love the innovative style and ultra simple system, and I like the idea of a more narrative game. Im definately going to use the system with LOTR.

[Slant]

On one hand, I really liked the review, as well as your obvious enthusiasm for it.

On the other hand, I automatically get suspicious whenever a game is praised too highly and no flaws are mentioned, even though I tend to do this myself with some games.

[Spriggan]

I have to agree with Slant.  Enthusim is allwayse a plus, but if you either cannot or wont find things wrong with a game then it gets fanboy-ish and makes me not trust a reviwer.  It's real hard to balaence the two in my opinion.  But I think longer reviews allow you to expand on those things better and come out less fanatic (either for the game or against it), which short reviews tend to inadvertenly do.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Well I did mention a few flaws... but I know what you mean I hate "this game was perfect in every sense of the word"  And I tried to not convey that fact. Im pretty sure that people who don't like narrative agming will hate this game. Having said that I don't think many people have really tried narrative gaming before, and therefore they should at least try a game or two just to see if they hate that style. Its difficult for GM's used to random story rolling to get used to the idea of telling a story, and groups who get together for the express purpose of killing things and taking their money wont have a lot of satisfaction with the one die roll and no special weapons dice. Not that  I think theres anything wrong with playing games like that either. I hope that some people read the review and said, I don't like that... I wont buy it and that others will say $40 bucks is a lot but that sounds like the game we've wanted to play all of these years. But as I said in the review I found this game hard to review because it was difficult to put into standard D&D terms, after all there are no hitpoints, no spells that do a set amount of damage, no stats for weapons, no gold pieces (the game uses a wealth statistic similar to D20 modern that can keep track of how many cows- slaves, weapons, favors  or things of value you have).

[Spriggan]

Oh, I know you listed some things, those statments were just in general.  However,  I do think your first few reviews were very fanboyish (but most peoples are).  But you've bucked that trend and have gotten a lot better.  I do think the review is a little on the short side, and to be honest I got more out on how that game works from your above post then in the review.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I think you read the wrong one then, the Heroquest one is actually quite long for a review on this site.
Still I ended up cutting a lot of it, because we dont utilise any graphics and I didn't want people to be reading an encyclopedia...

[Spriggan]

maybe, I thought you were talking about the one that was posted today.  Which on are you talking about?

[Fellfrosch]

He said above that he was referring to the first one, which we posted last week.

I thought the review was pretty good, but to be honest I disregarded it because of the inherent elitism--which I know you were trying to avoid, but it's almost impossible with a game like this. "This game might be too innovative for gamers accustomed to hack and slash" is a very valid point, but one that's very hard to say politely. I'm not sure how I would have said it differently, so I just posted it as it was. There's nothing in your review that made me want to play the game, but that's probably because I'm not in it's target audience--and you mentioned that not everybody would be, so hooray.

[JP Dogberry]

Based on that review, I now want to buy the game. Sounds exactly my style.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Its funny I could have told you that Jam, I also think Slant would love it too.
Fell and Spriggan would play it if someone else was running it and that was the only game going. Saint would either try it and have difficulty trying to figure out what it is or love that it really connects with epic stories of the past.