Jump to content

Review of 5e up on RPG.net


Almafeta

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Re: Re: Review of 5e up on RPG.net

 

Originally posted by Almafeta

Qamar:

 

One, I do this with all my reviews; I did it with Anime d20 and After The Bomb, for example. And, please don't misrepresent me; I never said anything about Mr. Long.

 

You make up stuff about every game you review? Oh, sorry, you mean you post them on boards relevant to the particular game. But still, my question stands. I still want to know where you got the idea that low Comeliness penalises movement. It's not in my copy of the rulebook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wah! Come on people... do any of you think that this Almafeta person is going to be converted by your rebuttles of his review? There is always going to be someone that is going to come out of the woodwork and post a piss-poor review like the one in question. Instead of posting about this here on the Hero Games board, I suggest someone champion the book (pun intended) and post a new proper review to provide a more balanced view of the game for the people on RPG.net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for the most part I think the review is accurate as far as it goes.

 

It really is not a review, it is a list of problems with Hero. There is almost no mention of what Hero is like. It seems like this is an addendum to a previous review about 4th Edition talking only about the changes.

 

That said, a lot of the complaints are accurate. 5th Edition was an attempt to organize Hero but leave it backwards compatable. So things like Com are left in, Str costing 1pt, stun lottery, and lots of other things are left in as legacy rules that don't really fit.

 

Of course some comments like rka and hka are the same except rka has range are clearly just factually wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by dugfromthearth

That said, a lot of the complaints are accurate. 5th Edition was an attempt to organize Hero but leave it backwards compatable. So things like Com are left in, Str costing 1pt, stun lottery, and lots of other things are left in as legacy rules that don't really fit.

I certainly don't want to have those arguments again. Let's just leave it at the fact that the majority of players still prefer having COM, and 1 pt STR, etc. For most of us those things do still fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree some of the criticisms may be valid (and are not necessarily flaws either, such as 1 point for STR), it was more the tone of the so-called review that raised hackles. And his review contained as many egregious errors and outright falsehoods as truth. This guy clearly has an axe to grind regarding Hero Games. There was not the slightest pretense that this was an objective review; it was a hatchet job pure and simple. No nods were given to Hero's many strengths, and that's like reviewing a big budget motion picture by only discussing the performances and costuming of the extras.

 

Hero isn't by any means perfect, but no game is. But it can stand proudly alongside any RPG on the basis of what it does right, and the responsiveness of the current ownership puts any other system I know of to shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by dugfromthearth

That said, a lot of the complaints are accurate.

As many people who posted in the review forums at RPG.net have already pointed out, the lions share of the "problems" metioned in the review are factually inaccurate. What few valid critcisms were presented (some which were more taste issues, IMO) fail to balance the rest of the review.

 

It was a hack job. Thankfully(?), reviews seem to have little impact on sales, so I guess none of this really matters... though it certainly does add a level of patheticness to the author.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join me

 

I read the review in question and was shocked. I understand that many people do not like HERO because it is not their type of game. That I understand, but the complete falsehoods and inaccuricies in this review require action.

 

I emailed RPG.Net asking for this "review" to be taken off their website. I agree that people should have their own opinions and have the right to them, however you don't have a right to create lies and falsehoods.

 

I hope others on this will follow suite and email rpg.net asking them to remove the review in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Join me

 

Originally posted by Herolover

I read the review in question and was shocked. I understand that many people do not like HERO because it is not their type of game. That I understand, but the complete falsehoods and inaccuricies in this review require action.

 

Falsehoods? :confused:

 

I didn't know Hero had other than 12 segments per turn. Or that there were other than eight attributes. Or that AVLD of +3/4 cost less than NND of +1/2. Or that Elemental Control was not, in fact, retained. Or that Regeneration was not merged with Healing. Or that Aid's cost did not double between 4e and 5e. Or that 5e did not alter Requires A Skill Roll. Or that the presentation and editing of 5e are actually worse than 4e and 3e. Or that the art is not biased towards superheroes with the sum of their measurements greater than their point values. Or that R. Talsorian did not, in fact, sell the books that just arrived in my FLGS.

 

I'm still trying to figure out where these falsehoods are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Join me

 

Originally posted by Herolover

I hope others on this will follow suite and email rpg.net asking them to remove the review in question.

I strongly disagree. Almafeta has a right to express his opinion, just as others have a right to an opinion about Almafeta. His work speaks for itself, and it speaks volumes.

 

Let's not get too bent out of shape here. HERO and Herodom are big enough to handle a little criticism, invalid or not. Let's not aggravate the problem by making Almafeta some kind of rpg.net martyr or making personal attacks against him. We're better than that.

 

Let's all just let it go. The guy's probably just a troll, and all the attention he's gotten over this shoddy review is probably the biggest charge he's had in years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Re: Join me

 

Originally posted by Almafeta

I'm still trying to figure out where these falsehoods are.

 

In your review you obviously got several correct and several incorrect facts. Pointing out the former is pointless, as Herolover is complaining about the latter.

 

Several gamers posted serious critiques of your review. The most comprehensive and balanced, IMHO, is Lord Liaden's. If you're still trying to figure out what facts you got wrong, I suggest you read it.

 

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, it might just be time to let it go.

 

I wrote up a couple of long postings, taking perhaps a little more time than I ought, had my fun, and let it go.

 

Almafeta, for her (his? forgive me, I'm still not sure which you prefer) part is actually taking some time to ask questions about the system and learn more about it, which I gather she hasn't done before. And, she is getting straight answers about it.

 

Are we so thin skinned that we have to flip out when we read something negative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concur with your sentiments, archer. Shanya Almafeta made her views and perceptions known, and has been very thoroughly rebutted. There doesn't seem to be much to add at this point that wouldn't be beating a pretty dead horse.

 

It was suprising to me that Almafeta has stated she was sufficiently impressed with 5E to want to try out the ruleset, considering how vocal a critic she's been of HERO in the past. Since she's been on these boards Almafeta has been asking legitimate questions and generally behaving respectfully, and as long as that continues I'll happily reply in kind. Frankly, I'd considering winning her over to support for HERO to be quite a coup. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Almafeta

Falsehoods? :confused:

 

I'm still trying to figure out where these falsehoods are.

 

Read archer's post on the second page of this thread. He pointed out many (but not all) of them. Myself and various other people pointed out others. I'm sure it wasn't deliberate but you do appear to have gotten quite a lot of things wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

Since she's been on these boards Almafeta has been asking legitimate questions and generally behaving respectfully, and as long as that continues I'll happily reply in kind. Frankly, I'd considering winning her over to support for HERO to be quite a coup. :cool:

Well said, LL. And that's why it's better to take the high road. Rather than treat the guy like a RPGer cross between Jack the Ripper and Darth Sidious, instead let's do the most insidious and evil thing we can possibly think of: Convert Almafeta to a Herophile. If he's asking honest questions about Hero, he's already halfway there.

 

There is no escape. Bwa-ha-ha-ha... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I stated in my previous post, or tried to state, I do not mind another persons opinion. I would agree, that if this review were just based on opinion it should continue to be posted.

 

I myself, have several friends that will not play HERO under any circumstances because they do not like it. I understand this. HERO isn't for everyone. However, they don't go around telling falsehoods about the system.

 

As I stated in my email to rpg.net it is a disservice to their website to continue to have this "review" on their website. Many players may go to their website, read this "review" and get erroneous information. Imagine a movie review website that stated such inaccuracies about movies.

 

I agree that the reviewer has a right to their opinion, but they need to get their facts correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if RPG.net starts removing reviews because some people don't like them, it's a slippery slope that can only lead to no one bothering to review anything for them. Also, remember that there is the comment section which allows for dissenting opinions. Without the comment section, I would agree that RPG.net should look at possibly removing the review. And if, for some reason, RPG.net decided to get rid of the comment section, they had better have a fully articulated policy on what was and was not acceptible in a review or that action too would result in making their reviews next to useless.

 

Rod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a shame that Almafeta didn't see fit to ask some of these questions or even try playing the game before he posted his review, a whole lot of bent feelings might have been prevented. It's no shock he misunderstood some of the rules in FRED; after all one need only look at the sheer size of the FAQs to see that there are lots of things that aren't immediately clear even to HERO veterans (I've probably had at least 3 or 4 of my rules questions to Steve Long added to the FAQs, and I've been playing Hero since Champions 1st Edition). Personally I can't understand how anyone can possibly review a game without at least playing it a couple of times. Would we accept movie reviews from a film critic who told us "I never actually saw the film, but I did skim the screenplay and I once had harsh words with the director. Two thumbs down."

 

Now let's see if Almafeta will revise or withdraw his review in light of some of the misconceptions he's since had explained, or if he'll dig in and insist he was 100% correct. The ball's in his court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Re: Join me

 

Originally posted by Almafeta

Falsehoods? :confused:

 

I'm still trying to figure out where these falsehoods are.

Y'know, Almafeta, if you'd just do something a decent, rational person would do...like ADMIT that you were WRONG about some things, instead of STUBBORNLY either ignoring the people who have pointed out your inaccuracies or continuing to protest you're right when the [/b]PRINTED PAGE[/b] contradicts you, you MIGHT get a better reception.

 

What's that? You have admitted to some mistakes in your comments on RPG.net? Hmmm...

 

[checks your additional comments]

 

Well, well...in a couple of cases you have...but guess what?

 

You've got an entire section labeled 'Faux Pas', but I don't see you placing any acknowledgement of your mistakes and inaccuracies there. Funny, I was under the impression that 'faux pas' (literally, 'false step') meant 'mistake'. Perhaps you have a different definition of what contitutes a 'mistake', and obvious fallacies don't count?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Personally I can't understand how anyone can possibly review a game without at least playing it a couple of times. Would we accept movie reviews from a film critic who told us "I never actually saw the film, but I did skim the screenplay and I once had harsh words with the director. Two thumbs down."

 

That's why it's called a capsule review. As I said in the forum below the review, I could not find anyone willing to playtest it.

 

I also have answered those questions you 'challanged' me to answer. Please read http://www.rpg.net/forums/phorum/rf08/read.php?f=2203&i=46&t=46 and my comments below.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...