| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (118)

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:05PM MasterYogurt said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
The direction of 4e itself in the past year has been a terrible use of Wizards of the Coast's timeless license... No surprise that the game is even dumber.

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:23PM Draugdraugr said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@MasterYogurt

It's true, 4th edition is total garbage, with its cookie cutter character design (one of the best aspects of P&P RPGs) so as you said, its not really surprising to see this carry over.
Back in the day we had second and third edition, which had their problems but were very praiseworthy, back in the day we also got great games from these P&P games, like all the classic SSI titles and games like baldur's gate.

this '4th edition' game certainly is a great representation of what's happened to Dungeons and Dragons franchise, both on paper and digitally.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 5:23PM twesterm said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Draugdraugr

4th edition is actually really good. Before it unless you were a caster the game got pretty boring in combat because there just wasn't much to do. Now, everyone has a cool selection of powers even at level 1 and everything is very nicely streamlined. In 3rd edition I wouldn't even run a game below 3rd level because it was so boring but now levels 1-3 are actually fun because every class gets to do something.

Now what isn't good about 4th edition and where WotC has really dropped the ball is their Online Character Builder and Online Monster Builder (or Monster Slider since that's all it is). Games like Final Fantasy XIV seem like masterpieces compared to those pieces of garbage. It's amazing how badly those work when they already had a working product that they stopped supporting.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 5:23PM MasterYogurt said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Draugdraugr

I like a lot of things about 4th edition. The combat is incredibly dynamic, strategic and satisfying. I find players enjoy having more options than full attacking, and I am very, very glad to see the convoluted mess that PrCs became die away. Sorcerers have finally been separated from Wizards in function (probably the most houseruled class in 3.x), and there are many other good tweaks. As a DM I really like the skill challenge ruleset, as it's a good guideline for what I did before anyway; I don't mind having that codified. 4e solved a lot of the fundamental issues in 3.x that no amount of revision or houseruling (Pathfinder included, as it is essentially a series of 3.x houserules) could have.

Now, however, we've gotten the Essentials line that's thrown out every good 4e advancement and taken up every terrible part of 3.x, and it's dominated every new book. We have flexible stats which I can't stand, as they destroy the differences between the races even more, and make Humans even less desirable. There are the terrible Fortune cards... 4e has been too directionless for so much of its existence, and now that it seems to have found one, they've forsaken all the good parts, and I don't see a good future (and I'm not sure I see a 5th.)
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 5:37PM Diemer said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@twesterm I agree, I'm loving 4th ed.

For what it's worth, the IDW Dungeons & Dragons comic series is a really good use of the IP.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 5:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Draugdraugr

Shit me and my friends still play 3rd edition... in fact we are playing today!!!
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 7:26PM Darklink2009 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Draugdraugr As a new player, I've found 4e to be really enjoyable. I guess I never played 3 and 3.5, so I don't know what I'm missing out on, but I've really had a blast with it. Which is why this review makes me sad.. :(
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 7:38PM MasterYogurt said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Darklink2009

You're missing out on a system that had excessively boring and limited base classes, with mages as the only characters viable past level 5, and the only ones with real options. To offset this Prestige Classes were introduced (think destinies in 4e), but this required the purchase of many additional books to create a viable character, and encouraged continuous multiclassing and min/maxing. There was a very serious power creep throughout 3e's life, and the continual introduction of new mechanics and content made starting out with the system very tough by the end of its life. Also, the system usually required a lot of houseruling, so no one really played straight 3e. A lot of people played a "3.25" mix that was different at every table.

3.x had some great moments, though. Some of the books were fantastic (Complete Adventurer being a great one) and the ease of houseruling culminated in an official book of houserules (Unearthed Arcana). I'd say the ruleset was far more flexible than 4e, which endeared the system to many. I'd say that most of the goodwill 3e gets isn't due to the base ruleset, but its (sometimes required) flexibility.

4e fixed combat by making martial engagement actually effective and important, even if this meant devaluing and weakening magic.

You're also missing a nearly impenetrable grapple ruleset (I made a flow chart to try and actually make sense of it, and it required consultation every turn.)
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 8:13PM commonperson said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@MasterYogurt A P&P game is only as bad as it's game master. The system is irelivant. I've played amazing 3.5 games and hidious 4th ed games. So if you had a bad experience I'd look at the person running the game.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 8:55PM Draugdraugr said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Darklink2009

3.5, in its entirety, is very robust and in depth. keep in mind I say in its entirety. like all P&Ps, it had it's issues, but with all the splatbooks (unearthed arcana, especially) that got released with it I think its fleshed out to be their best iteration, certainly the best IMO. The warlock was intro'd in 3.5 and its essentially what they have converted the magic system to in 4th, (though with the crappy 4th edition selection of abilities) I believe in the same book it also had feats that basically let Mages operate very similarly to Warlocks. so a lot of issues people had with casters in 3.5 (or all of DnD for that matter) were addressed, and they used that as a springboard for how casters operate in 4th edition.

As I said before, my biggest problem with 4th edition is how 'ready-made' and cookie-cutter everything is.
Every level 1 fighter in 4th edition is basically the same as every other 1st level fighter, you're very limited in how you can make the character unique. 3rd level? same problem. 5th? Same problem.

Granted, its been almost a year since I've checked things out, so I'm sure some splatbooks have come out that may indeed change things up, but its hard for me to say if it would be better, though thats certainly the route they would go.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 8:57PM Draugdraugr said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@commonperson

The GM/DM really is the crux. There may be a preference for a system, but the GM is what makes or breaks the experience.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 9:15PM MasterYogurt said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@commonperson

I've been DMing for 8 years, across various systems, and while DM quality is hugely important, the game rules itself make a big difference. How a game is set up and approached, time required to piece together a reasonable session and adventure, and what can be done is all dictated by the tools a DM is given. From a player's point of view, flexibility and the attitude òf the game's design matter too. Furthermore, if we're going to compare rulesets, we have to compare the rules, not our experiences.

I've had tons of awesome 3.x experiences. I'm trying to objectively look at the issues of both systems, though.


I don't recall any Warlock-esque feats for Wizards or Sorcs in Complete Arcane. There was a "Battle Sorc" variant in Unearthed Arcana that was pretty good. I also recall bloodline feats, probably in that book, which played into the Sorc a bit, but even with those variants arcane magic never approached the Warlock's spell method.

I fail to see how a 5th level fighter would ever be much different from his peers in 3.5 than in 4th.

I agree that, taken as a whole, 3.5 was probably more versatile and flexible. It's quite difficult to just take that system as a whole, though. Furthermore, no amount of PrC stuff can really solve the issue of rigid martial combat. 4e solved this by making positioning and movement a crucial strategic factor, which added a lot of depth. Tuning down spells in 3.5 could help, but nothing could make up for the fact that Wizards and Sorcs could make walls of ice, fog, and other neat things to control and shape the battlefield, while everyone else could hit stuff.

One thing to hate: they FINALLY added a virtual table, and I'm in need of a good solution for online gaming, but it costs money per month per PLAYER, even though players don't need that extra DDI content. Gah.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 9:48PM gordunk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@MasterYogurt And seeing what the actual Virtual Table looks like compared to what was promised AT LAUNCH, as well as knowing enough about all the other VT solutions out there, I frankly wouldn't bother.

Then again, I aggressively hate 4th edition at this point, but then again, I've had a problem with every other edition besides 1st edition AD&D. Grid based combat and cookie cutter powers, lack of a good framework for player creativity and ad-libbing, etc. Wizards of the Coast completely took all the freedom out of D&D when they bought it from TSR. Now in 4th edition every class within a role plays the same, and fights are like MMO's played out in turns, just tank and spank. All you need is a defender or two to mark targets and away you go. The power system has completely stripped roleplay from combat...players no longer attempt to do anything creative since the powers do the creative thinking for them.

And the list goes on...complete over simplification of AoE abilities(was it really that hard to grasp before?) The game is impossible to play without a full battle grid, unlike the early versions of D&D. Fights that are at the recommended exp level for a group are WAY too easy.

Makes me wish I could convince my group to play 1st edition AD&D. RPG's should be about CHOICE, WotC gives you very little.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 10:27PM Draugdraugr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@MasterYogurt

You're right, it's from Complete Mage, for what might appear to be obvious reasons, I'm really good at mixing the two up.
here is an example from the book:

http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/feat-2783-storm-bolt.html

They had different prereqs, so some of them were available sooner than lvl 5 or 6. It really gave mages the bump they needed when it came to combat ability.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 10:29PM Draugdraugr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Draugdraugr

Stupid lack of editing!
Just wanted to add that the different feats were also elemental based, so there were quite a few to choose from.
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 7:41AM Tihn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@MasterYogurt
Yawl a buncha nerds
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:05PM Peril said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
I have no respect for Joystiq reviews after they butchered Brink.

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:13PM Skrams said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Peril Quick! Someone check his achievements!
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:16PM Radeus said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Peril I too was wondering if this game had been brinked! Sounds like a fail, but I will give the demo a shot.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:19PM CheesecakeJones said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Peril

Not to beat a dead horse, but I (tried) to play Brink quite a few times over this last weekend... That game is not fun. I played with people online and it still wasn't any fun.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:21PM whylekat said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Peril

What's the problem? Brink is terribly generic and repetitive "MP" only (single player is a facade) shooter. Multiple sites state the same downfalls that Joystiq's review points out.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:32PM sammo21 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Peril Butchered Brink? Coming from me, someone who actually put 6-8 hours into Brink, that game was dog shit. I highly doubt you have even played the game as most defenders of this game were rallying before it even hit was able to wind up in gamers hands (not including reviewers, of course).
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:35PM Peril said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@sammo21 I have played over 15 hours, completed all challenges and thoroughly enjoy it.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:47PM VXXXJesterXXXV said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Peril

Well mate, you are one of the few. The Joystiq review is fairly accurate of this game as a whole. The game was great in concept, but for me it failed in execution. I am glad you enjoyed it, but the fact a game widely considered mediocre to just plain bad was given a bad review is no reason to discount reviews here.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:57PM Radeus said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@VXXXJesterXXXV I've been digging Brink. Fair game to point out the flaws therein, especially the lag which made many games unplayable especially around launch. 4/10 review though was definitely not at pace with the rest of the reviews...that's not a mediocre review, that's a doodoo brown one.

Brink is definitely a niche game, and there are some maps where spawntrapping can be extremely frustrating (security on container city), but I think that the unique game mechanics make up for it. Running and sliding around as a light operative is just awesome.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 5:20PM Vidikron said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Radeus

It's on the low end of the reviews, but not the lowest. It's the same as Giant Bomb and higher than 1UP. I played Brink for about 30 minutes and then simply couldn't take it any more. It's terrible. 4/10 is about right IMO.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 5:53PM kentuckyfried said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@CheesecakeJones Brink isn't bad so far, it's fun when the enemy AI isn't being super-cheap. It's noticeably a aggravating problem when playing from the Security Force side of things.

Haven't tried it online yet, but I while it may be fun with live teammates, certain chokepoints will still be present to make the game miserable.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 6:56PM RedgeHammer said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Peril
I actually feel the same way. The Brink review was diametrically opposed to how I view the game.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 8:05PM NickNameless said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Peril

I've completed over 35 hours of gameplay, completed both faction's campaigns, acquired max level 20 after de-leveling twice, completed all challenges, and obtained a majority of the achievements. And I can tell you, he's almost entirely spot-on with his analysis.

The game is largely crap. Excellent in concept. Terrible in execution.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 10:48PM Brian Griffin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Peril

If by "butchered," you mean "gave the game the score it deserved, " then I see.

Seriously, Brink was average at best. Jeez.
Reply

Posted: May 26th 2011 11:35AM SirUrza said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Peril

Brink got the review score it deserved.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:06PM SpacePenguinBot said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
I just can't believe they named it Daggerdale. Total lack of self awareness there.

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:33PM bittermang said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@SpacePenguinBot

Daggerdale is a location from Wizard's own Forgotten Realms mythos. See http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Daggerdale

"Daggerdale (originally named Merrydale) is a a remote region of the Dalelands located between the Desertsmouth Mountains and the Dagger Hills. It is a region of dark forests and rocky hills with a single large settlement named Dagger Falls. "
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:35PM sammo21 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SpacePenguinBot Before you complain or make comments about something related to DnD be sure to at least Google it before you make yourself look like a idiot (hint: you did).
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 5:02PM bittermang said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@sammo21

Well, he still at least has a point that Daggerdale is a rather... uninspired name for a fantasy locale. But they didn't name it that. That is just what they were working with.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 6:24PM SpacePenguinBot said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SpacePenguinBot Next up: KnifeTown!
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:07PM wenchwogg said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Damn, and I just bought this to play co-op with my friend online. Of course, XBLA wouldn't let me download it either. Good start to the day.

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:08PM FlashJS said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ouch. That is a pretty short campaign for $15. Guess my friends and I will wait for a sale.

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:33PM sammo21 said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@FlashJS Pretty short for $15? Gears of Wars campaign is 5 hours long and it was $60....same for most games to be honest.

I'll be honest, I think gamers just like to complain about anything.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:51PM VXXXJesterXXXV said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@sammo21

Gears is a 3rd person shooter that has co-op and competitive multiplayer. It is also a very good looking game.

This game is a hack and slash loot-a-thon, which should be a game that can be played for much more time. Torchlight is a longer game, looks better, has less issues, and is the same price.

Totally different genres and experiences here, so comparing length of campaign between the two makes no sense.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:09PM dudes113 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Wow, that's incredibly disappointing.

I literally had my thumb on the A button ready to download this game when I saw the review.

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:16PM Cranky Penguin said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@dudes113 Me too, I was ready to get this for PC, now I will wait for a patch if I get it at all. I hate when companies release unfinished games, I don't know what they are thinking.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:10PM 343 Guilty Fart said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Ugh, I really don't like reading 'Wizards of the Coast's timeless license' - TSR for life baby!

Posted: May 26th 2011 1:49AM Courtney said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@343 Guilty Fart

I wish I could vote you up to a shining golden color.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Its Pen & Paper RPG, not Tabletop. Just by the way... :D

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:31PM silasthemariner said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) Technically it's both.

Since last year they've been pushing players to use more than just pen and paper, and the starter set has all sort of tabletop accoutrement.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/244660000
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:34PM sammo21 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@silasthemariner That's because WotC wants more money...same reason they butchered 4.0 and feel the need to make you buy tons of books for 1 class or spell or reprint things to make you waste your money.
Reply

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:11PM godly967 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
sucks, i was planning on picking this up

Posted: May 25th 2011 4:12PM Jenks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well this is disappointing, I've had an itch for a good co-op RPG for awhile now.

Posted: May 25th 2011 6:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Jenks Dungeon Siege III, maybe?
Reply

Featured Stories

Image

Silver Lining: I Am Alive's unfeeling world

Posted on May 25th 2012 7:30PM

Image

Game Of Thrones and the paradoxes of adaptation

Posted on May 25th 2012 5:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW