Quote Originally Posted by EvilElitest View Post
I call foul here, double standard
Not so much, I think. I'm not the one creating an aggressive assertion here. I was merely pointing out how the format of your argument could have been improved, not making a claim for or against the system which you are describing; the sole exception to this being when I tackled the PCs-at-center-stage issue, when I did discuss examples and analyze.

You accuse me of hubris (i deny nothing) but you
1. Don't give examples
Covered above, but I'll tackle it later as well.
2. Don't bother stating examples
Was this intentional, or do you draw some distinction between them that I don't?
3. Don't respond to points
I wasn't intending to respond to specific points, save of course for the specific point I responded to. I was responding to your analysis as a whole. Ergo, I don't see why this is even an issue.
Just to point something out though, regardless of the fact that i am an insane egomaniac, that doesn't change the points of the essay
But it does, I'm afraid. It colors so much of your argument as being centered solely on yourself and how you perceive that the game should be whilst you make broad proclamations that would effect everyone based solely on your desires. Therefore, ego not only changes your points, but defines them.

If you'd like examples, then there will be examples:

also, digital is not a good idea, because not enough people can afford access to the computer and their own gaming table
Unfounded assertion, what are you basing this on? Note the phrasing here, indicative of the main problem in your analysis: you state things as unequivocal without providing any kind of substantiation. Hedging though it may be, this statement would have been considerably more acceptable with only the qualifier "I don't think that there are enough people who can afford..." because you've provided up with no reason to take it as more than your opinion.
They are still making this. I really hope this essay reaches some of the writing staff because i really hope they change some of these ideas before it gets realized, because most likely i will no be buying 4E
Joke or not, these kind of statements are pretty much an instant turn-off to anyone looking through your analysis, throwing questionable weight to your intentions.
B- Sexism, i know that is not intentional, but when all the female look like fashion models and dress showing off as much of their bodies as possible? I just can't judge them as human beings
Shameless joke alert: how many of them are supposed to be human? We've got a whole gambit of beings to be, maybe they were working at being some other, non-human being.
"and deserve all the power optons and customization features that the system can bear"
no, just no. I don't want to play with a bunch of guys who just destroy everything that comes in their path, i want a bunch of guys who use wit, strength, skill and intelligence to rise about the normal people, not to a bunch of superheros.
Again, I question the reading of the intent of the material here, if your quote is indeed apt: "power options" does not imply any kind of superheroesque overpowerdness to me. Customization features doesn't mean overpowered. It means choices. "Power options" is especially vague when you consider that all classes have maneuver-style options called powers: the sneaky skills of a rogue, the strong fighting styles of a warrior...I fail to see how your assertion is grounded in the material as presented.
"Monsters and most NPCs are lucky to appear in appear more than once, particularly if they are encountered in combat situations."
So 4E is a video game. Thats it? Dear gods, did Baldur's Gate teach you people nothing?
If the NPCs are flat and emotionless and the monsters just die like fodder, the players are automatically super, this seems more like Resident Evil than anything else
Again, here it is, you seem to be a fan of the black-or-white fallacy. Either roleplaying, or rollplaying; power or story. The material offers only the suggestion that battle will be, by default, brutal. You assert, in return, that this makes it a video game. As a question, how many times do you fight any given orc that waylays you on the side of the road? How often do you fight any one specific character, for that matter? Generally, once: they're either dead, diplomacized, or otherwise dispatched. It's rather illogical to keep fighting something after you've finished battle: you're obviously in combat for a specific reason, most likely because all other avenues of discourse have failed you. I again fail to see how you can assert, from the evidence provided, that this intent is anything new...because it isn't.


I could continue on in this manner, but I don't particularly care to. Please, don't feel that this critique is directed against you in anyway; my intent is only to point out areas of your analysis that could be strengthened. I wouldn't be investing this much time if I didn't feel that you had some valid points and concerns in there that could be better served by a more supported system of argument. Keep up the effort, it's quite impressive.