Re: PBM Review site?

From: "Rob Harper" <rob@stateofmindgames.co.uk>

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:56:43 +0000

Carol Mulholland wrote...
> That's not an argument - it's an assertion. To make it an argument you
need
> to give clear reasons: try the magic word 'because'. I'm an arts person,
> not a scientist, but a scientist should be able to understand this?

I *think* I see Greg's general point, although I think he is getting
prematurely defensive and unwilling to argue rather than simply restate
his position.  I'll call it as I see it (and look forward to Greg's
corrections).

Basically, there are so many PB(e)M games out there, and they take so
much effort to gain a decent level of experience in them, that there
cannot be much in the way of common reference for players, so meaningful
criticism is difficult.

If we look at another area, say, SF films, we can assume a set of
films that are so popular that anyone interested in the genre will be
familiar with at least a decent proportion of them: Star Wars, The
Terminator, The Matrix, and so on.  Any criticism of new SF films can
use these as reference points, which makes it easier for reviewers to
get their point across.

In the case of PBM games, how many of us have played more than a
comparative handful of games?

*However* I would argue that there are a core of games, at least in
the traditional, snail-mail corner of the hobby (my experience of
email/web games is minimal) that are extremely well known.  For
example, Quest, Dungeonworld, Monster Island, Middle Earth, Legends,
Keys of Medokh (heh heh!) and so on.  (Yes, I am ignoring sports
games here, about which I know little.)  I would guess that a fair
portion of people keen on snailmail games will have played, or know
a fair bit about, at least one or two of these games (and a few others
that I have missed).  These are the sort of games (and gamers) that
Flagship tends to focus on, and has successfully built a community
feel around.

Furthermore, where there is a community focus like Flagship that uses
regular contributors, I can become accustomed to the likes and dislikes
of each writer.  So if Joe Random expresses a like Warriors of Zorg,
particularly because of its elegant mechanics, and I happen to agree
with him, then I might pay more attention to his views on mechanics
in other games that I am not familiar with.

We are still some way off having an effective critical language for
games, but this is not a problem unique to PBM -- a similar debate
rears its ugly head in roleplaying newsgroups from time to time --
and we do at least have the groundwork done.

Still, reviews aren't for everyone, and aren't necessary for every
mag or website, just as game diaries aren't...  :o)

Rob

References

PBM Review site?
"Sid" <seyed@monkeyx.com>
Tue, 09 Apr 2002 20:37:25 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
Carol Mulholland <carol@flagship-pbm.co.uk>
Thu, 11 Apr 2002 08:21:30 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:05:58 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
Carol Mulholland <carol@flagship-pbm.co.uk>
Thu, 11 Apr 2002 19:01:28 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Fri, 12 Apr 2002 04:49:53 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
Carol Mulholland <carol@flagship-pbm.co.uk>
Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:44:50 +0000

Referenced By

PBM Review site?
"Sid" <seyed@monkeyx.com>
Tue, 09 Apr 2002 20:37:25 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
Carol Mulholland <carol@flagship-pbm.co.uk>
Thu, 11 Apr 2002 08:21:30 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:05:58 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
Carol Mulholland <carol@flagship-pbm.co.uk>
Thu, 11 Apr 2002 19:01:28 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Fri, 12 Apr 2002 04:49:53 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
Carol Mulholland <carol@flagship-pbm.co.uk>
Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:44:50 +0000