Donate to the Lead Adventure Forum to keep it alive!
7. How complex is it? Could you play it with a ten-year-old? A six-year-old? Could you get a ten-year-old to read the rules and understand them? Would it work well with an adult who's never played a wargame before?
I tend to agree with Hobgoblin on some points with Leftblank with others, and I have also my own. Generally I think these are too prescriptive. Reviewing is more an art than a science. This is the reason why numerical ratings are rubbish
Other points... I do not think they are universally relevant. Comparisons and Comparing reviews are one thing, reviews are another. There is no requirement to always compare, it could be useful, it could be not. In my review, including the published ones, I usually review a single game for what it is, and its own merits. This includes also things like the so called market leads... Turning Leftblank words against him... Spearhead is a different beast (scale and scope) than Flames of War and it also predates it. I do not see the relevance of any comparison.
One thing that I do not see in any list is... how effective the game is in doing its job. If it is an historical game, how well it captures the essence of the topic is of paramount importance to me, much more than 'how easily ported to...'
Rules prensentation is important. Telling the people how the book/game is presented is important, especially in boardgames or hybrid games. Also telling people if the rules are illustrated (and if the illustration are eye candy or useful examples) or not is important.
This is something that is very difficult to assess honestly, and frankly put, how many of us are interested in what a six year old can or cannot play? Of course there will be a sizable group who is interested, but an equally sizable group who is not!
I have seen games that are good GAMES, but bad SIMULATIONS - can you tell the difference?
I think that streamlined, simple, coherent rules are generally better, and overly complex or disjointed rules generally make for a poorer game.
More and more interesting comments!
I like complex games, and often found simple ones uninteresting. Streamlining often is synonymous with dumbing down. But again this reflects personal taste, assumptions, preferences, and play styles.
Illustration is probably something me and Hobgoblin agree on, but are just running in circles. My point (estremely similar to hs own) is that there must be a qualifier. The rulebook is lavishly illustrated... okay what that means? Fluff and motivational pictures? Examples of play? The reviewer must qualify it. Diagrams, game pictures used to illustrate concepts (like TFL rules often do) are one thing. Fluff and vanity pictures another. I would argue that Men of Bronze has bland and often unnecessary illustration. On the other hand Rebels and Patriot as nice illustration and some are actually helpful in understanding concepts. In a recent review I did for Yaah Magazine, I was complaining a game has no illustration or diagram in the rules, and everything was in the playbook. So you read the rules and instead of having the example and the picture together, you had to go do a different booklet. I argued it was a poor decision.
Oh... one thing we overlooked... English grammar (or other grammars...). Can you read the rules. One can argue that older Barker rule sets were neither complex or complicated but his tendency to write in his own version of English was hampering the reader. Having spoken with the man once, I think it is not just his own writing... he has a talent to make simple concepts difficult. Recently I was reading the rules of a boardgame, Korea Ice and Fire, and well editing and proofing had been sent out of the window. There were block of text just repeated (copy paste remnants) sentence where the second half came before the first... and so on. Call it rushed, call it the Designer does not list to his helpers... but also this is important.
It was because your 'review' was ridiculous and banal.
Can someone brings out ULTRA? I think we need a bit of code breaking.
None needed, I read his review. It was unimaginative and focused on attacking the minutiae. If thats why they 'tore him to pieces' then yeah. Dont write bad reviews of reveiws then get upset when social media says that the review of the review is bad (try saying all this drunk).
May you provide a link to the review in question so we can reach our own conclusions?