Star. Wars. Rebellion. F. F. G. O. M. G.

Except IIRC Freedom in the Galaxy is a morass of tracking and paperwork. Haven't opened it for a while, it's on my shelf somewhere.

The full game of FitG took about 20 hours to play. The one time I played the full game we had it set up at a friend's place and would play a couple of turns after school.

Holy shit. Freedom In the Galaxy. I played that WaaaaaaaaaaY back. Took 3 days of after school to complete. By BFF's older brother did all the heavy lifting and basically presented decisions for the first entire day, then we played on our own.

It was absolutely Star Wars: "The Bootleg"

www.shutupandsitdown.com/blog/post/review-star-wars-rebellion/

I am totally neutral attitude-wise on this game. Could be awesome, but I'm still totally on the sideline watching... I do like that it is not straight DOAM but instead hide and seek DOAM. I think there are too many good games in the pure DOAM space and the theme doesn't fit it very well anyway.

The schtick in that review was painful, I could only skim it without being driven insane. But his reservations have me worried....
1. The combat is boring. Maybe a plus, because the flip side to that is the game gets too bogged down each combat.
2. Replayability. Does the same thing every game

My personal reservation is it looks fiddly as fuck. It may be just the thing if you love Star Wars and have a dedicated buddy to play this with

Is this comparable to War of the Ring? I will hold judgement until I can gain some more perspective on it.

I love SUASD. Only video reviews still being made that I can stand to watch. Much better than the "hands in front of the camera," straight rules explanation, DUMB HAT WEARING bullshit that we usually see.

As for the two criticisms...The combat being boring might be true. There's plenty of games in which this is true. TI3 and Eclipse especially. They can't all be Forbidden Stars (combat I LOVE).

As for the "story," yeah, WotR is the same way.

Different topic, but I love Shut Up and Sit Down. But only for their video presentations and let's plays, not their scripted jokes. I find the interspersed skits to be frequently unfunny. But the review portions of their videos are outstanding, in my opinion. Particularly because you can see that they have no commitment to this horseshit meme of an "objective review" whatever the fuck that is supposed to be.

I like that SUSD, between the jokes, are able to whittle a game down to what matters to them; what does and doesn't work. They seem honest in exactly the way that Drakkenstrike (sp?) never could. It doesn't hurt that they're running about 70% on the mark with my tastes.

On a different forum I go to, there was discussion about this review. One guy, who's very much cult of the new "OMG THIS NEW GAME THAT JUST CAME OUT IS THE BEST GAME EVER MADE" was saying that he no longer liked SUSD because they didn't 100% love Blood Rage. This guy is utterly convinced that Blood Rage is the best game evar, and since they didn't agree, they're no good. This is in spite of them saying, in the Rebellion review we were talking about, that they thought it was silly that internet people couldn't see nuance in their reviews.

I like SUSD because they always get into what particular things worked or didn't work for them about a game, rather than just saying this is the best game ever. Even if I don't agree with them, I know why they felt the way they did.

Chaz wrote: On a different forum I go to, there was discussion about this review. One guy, who's very much cult of the new "OMG THIS NEW GAME THAT JUST CAME OUT IS THE BEST GAME EVER MADE" was saying that he no longer liked SUSD because they didn't 100% love Blood Rage. This guy is utterly convinced that Blood Rage is the best game evar, and since they didn't agree, they're no good. This is in spite of them saying, in the Rebellion review we were talking about, that they thought it was silly that internet people couldn't see nuance in their reviews.

I like SUSD because they always get into what particular things worked or didn't work for them about a game, rather than just saying this is the best game ever. Even if I don't agree with them, I know why they felt the way they did.

Well he probably is right in that if they didn't like games he things are great then he has to be careful with their reviews, reviewers are just another bunch of humans like you or me with their own tastes - and his reaction is no different to any fan boy (whether board games, video games, music, film, sport) ;-p

Southernman wrote:

Chaz wrote: On a different forum I go to, there was discussion about this review. One guy, who's very much cult of the new "OMG THIS NEW GAME THAT JUST CAME OUT IS THE BEST GAME EVER MADE" was saying that he no longer liked SUSD because they didn't 100% love Blood Rage. This guy is utterly convinced that Blood Rage is the best game evar, and since they didn't agree, they're no good. This is in spite of them saying, in the Rebellion review we were talking about, that they thought it was silly that internet people couldn't see nuance in their reviews.

I like SUSD because they always get into what particular things worked or didn't work for them about a game, rather than just saying this is the best game ever. Even if I don't agree with them, I know why they felt the way they did.

Well he probably is right in that if they didn't like games he things are great then he has to be careful with their reviews, reviewers are just another bunch of humans like you or me with their own tastes - and his reaction is no different to any fan boy (whether board games, video games, music, film, sport) ;-p

Taking their reviews with a grain of salt is fine if he realized their tastes don't agree with his. Instead, he said "That review by SU&SD has really, really damaged my opinion of them. When I discovered them, I thought they were endlessly entertaining and informative. Now I've come to view them as self-important gaming hipsters. They're still entertaining, but I'm not sure I'll ever enjoy them like I used to."

Declaring someone a "hipster" has somehow internet shorthand for "this person does not share my opinion and that opinion is inauthentic because they are just trying to look cool by disagreeing".

Which is, ironically, a pretty hipster thing to do.

I didn't watch the review because I think they only slightly less intolerable than the rest, but as for Rebellion I'm definitely getting a review copy from MM. It should be interesting...I have "Star Wars Tilt", but I'm also not crazy about FFG's big box designs lately. The combat could be boring...because they have a thing in house there about overcomplicaring resolution mechanics.

But it looks awesome...

Chaz wrote:

Southernman wrote:

Chaz wrote: On a different forum I go to, there was discussion about this review. One guy, who's very much cult of the new "OMG THIS NEW GAME THAT JUST CAME OUT IS THE BEST GAME EVER MADE" was saying that he no longer liked SUSD because they didn't 100% love Blood Rage. This guy is utterly convinced that Blood Rage is the best game evar, and since they didn't agree, they're no good. This is in spite of them saying, in the Rebellion review we were talking about, that they thought it was silly that internet people couldn't see nuance in their reviews.

I like SUSD because they always get into what particular things worked or didn't work for them about a game, rather than just saying this is the best game ever. Even if I don't agree with them, I know why they felt the way they did.

Well he probably is right in that if they didn't like games he things are great then he has to be careful with their reviews, reviewers are just another bunch of humans like you or me with their own tastes - and his reaction is no different to any fan boy (whether board games, video games, music, film, sport) ;-p

Taking their reviews with a grain of salt is fine if he realized their tastes don't agree with his. Instead, he said "That review by SU&SD has really, really damaged my opinion of them. When I discovered them, I thought they were endlessly entertaining and informative. Now I've come to view them as self-important gaming hipsters. They're still entertaining, but I'm not sure I'll ever enjoy them like I used to."

.... hence my fan boy comment. But just because you and fellow like-minded gamers think that they are pretty good doesn't mean he is actually wrong. But subjective is the word I think we all need to heed.
As an example I will read and take note of Mr Barnes' review as I have similar tastes, plus he does spot pertinent rules/issues now and then ... but I'm sure there are many gamers who will ignore it.

The value in reviewers is to get to know them by their reviews, so they can be a barometer of what you might appreciate or not, based on their take. As Chaz said, even if you don't agree, you know why they felt the way they did. And if you expect *anyone* to always agree with something you think is great, that's absurd.

SUASD are the most insightful and witty video reviewers, hands down. And he even quantifies the criticisms in this video to say, look, if this was a game you were already excited about, go get it... you'll love it, regardless. His praise for what he considered the great aspects of this game (i.e., the deduction and intrigue) was really strong. But it would also be irresponsible not to include the things he didn't enjoy (the combat).

I'm willing to bet the game in question was T.I.M.E. Stories. My respect for them only went up on that one. The numerous flaws with that game, as fun as it may be, are totally valid and their criticism of it was spot on. It was refreshing to see someone not going along with the severe case of groupthink that surrounds that surrounds that game.