4e is awesome

[HeirToPendragon]

So I was reading through some of the posts and I really don't know what is with all the hate going on here for 4e.

Besides the fact that you guys could not possibly have played it that much to create a full assessment, you're missing things entirely.

Feats are boring and uneventful. Well guess what, what Feats were in 3.5 are now Powers in 4e. If you can't see that, you're blind to the concept. In 3.5 your feats gave you the ability to do special things but made you plan out those things at the very beginning. In 4e your feats just enhance your already insane powers.

Character creation has taken a complete turn. Yes the puzzle piece system has been taken away, but that doesn't mean there isn't customization. My first character is currently on the path of being a front line Warlock/Paladin wearing scale mail and using a rapier. I have an Archer Ranger that puts my 3.5 archer to shame. You were hindered in 3.5 for multiclassing too much and you're still hindered here but in a different way (that way being that instead of losing powers and abilities for multiclassing, all you're really losing are feats, and well read above).

Oh boo hoo, your 4e Fighter is gonna be sucky at TWF. Well then go RANGER. He's going to be doing TWF and he's going to do it BETTER than your 3.5 Fighter did after you took 8 some feats to get rid of the penalties. Your build that you like is there, you just have to look for it. That warlock I have may as well be a swashbuckler/wizard because I can't find any spectacular feats for him so when I'm done he'll be as sneaky and underhanded as a rogue who stabs people with a CHA enhanced rapier or blasts them with spells.

The rules in 4e are clean, fixed, and have been changed to the point that the game isn't penalizing people anymore. The entire read through I did of the PHB I kept feeling like WotC took every complaint we had and fixed them. My Wizard doesn't run out of spells, my Fighter isn't worthless outside combat, Movement has become what it always should have been, Grappling is no longer wordy and confusing at all, AoO now has only a minor bit of vagueness as opposed to the 25 pages of explanation it took up in Rules Compendium, etc.

You guys have to understand that you are coming from a system that made it really difficult to do pretty much anything so you had to spend hours designing every little aspect of a character so that it would turn out awesome. Sure your dexterous rogue could do some insane things, but you were so bogged down by rules that were you ever to try the stuff you had to spend probably 20 some minutes matching the rules and making rolls. 4e doesn't care and actually wants you to be able to do amazing things.

I don't really see what all the complaining is about. I spent 3 hours last night designing that Archer and while sure if I were ever to make an archer again he'd probably do the same things, the fact is, I won't ever be starting in the same town doing the same quests over and over again. Sure he'll have the same powers (mostly, I might make him a Rogue thrower instead), but combat is only so small of a thing in D&D. It's not like I'm building the same character again and then grinding the same quests that I already did. If you feel like this is what you'll be doing than you have a piss poor DM.

In 3.5 you could have hundreds of different ways to build an archer, but you had to pray that you did it right because if you didn't, well sucks to your character, here's hoping you die and can make a new one. 4e doesn't do that, it says "Oh, you want to build an archer? Well I've got about 3 or 4 ways you can do it and as long as you put forth just a tiny thought, it's always going to be a great character".

Skills work so much better in 4e too. There is no more picking and choosing of where to put every single point. You get better at all things as you gain levels and things that should have been merged years ago finally are. I make ONE skill check to hear or see something, I make ONE check for Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft, and I make ONE skill check for all those fun little rogue tricks.

Sure there are things about 3.5 I'm going to miss doing. I LIKED spending 8 hours planning out a character to level 20, even if he never got there. But what I didn't like was being bogged down by every god forsaken rule out there. Why don't you people actually play a couple more games before bitching about it. It's been out for 3 days and already you blast it because, oh god, it's a change.


I think the only thing I dislike about 4e right now is that, once again, WotC did not put this book together all that great. When are they gonna learn that the rules of the game should be front and center while the customization should come after you've read all the rules?

[Xyk]

You have some good points.

Besides the fact that you guys could not possibly have played it that much to create a full assessment, you're missing things entirely.

This bugged me. You're doing the same thing.

I actually agree with most of what you said, and look forward to playing a much simpler D&D.

[Cormac]

I agree with your assessments. I havent played yet, but reading through the handbook, everything looks exciting. I do think that min/maxers will have a little less fun, but let's face it, all of that fun was mostly outside of the game, once you got in the game you would just do the same things over and over. I know from experience. Plus, i think that the simplicity of character creation puts more emphasis on actual game play and role playing. And I do really think that even if i am not able to create a cleric archer who destroy everything in sight (as per 3.0), I will actually have more fun...

My biggest piss-off is that druid's arent present. I love druids.

[Tough_Tonka]

You have some good points.



This bugged me. You're doing the same thing.

I actually agree with most of what you said, and look forward to playing a much simpler D&D.

He could have been a play tester. So far I've really enjoyed the game as a player and as a DM. As for TWF some people might not want to play the warrior of the wilderness arch-type, but them again a lot of the classes ties to the wilderness in this addition are just fluff.

[HeirToPendragon]

My biggest piss-off is that druid's arent present. I love druids.

They're coming soon. See the side note on page 54 of PHB

[ghost_warlock]

Maybe one of the things people don't like about 4e is that there's already 15-odd theads about it that basically read the same. There really isn't any need to start an new thread when everything you have to say, you could easily have said in this thread already devoted to 4e thoughts and opinions.

[Matthew]

Maybe one of the things people don't like about 4e is that there's already 15-odd theads about it that basically read the same. There really isn't any need to start an new thread when everything you have to say, you could easily have said in this thread already devoted to 4e thoughts and opinions.

I have to agree with this. Nice post and all, but another 4e thread...

[TempusCCK]

So, let me get this straight, you like the fact that the rules are simpler... and you like the fact that you can make a powerful character without any thought.

You like the fact that all the characters are powerful no matter what they do. You seem to like alot of power in your games. Some people, mind you, like to play D&D for the social and roleplaying experience... not just to have the most powerful character(s). And those people have some issues with 4e and it's predominence of simplified rules and balance over internal consistency.

You missed most of what 4e's detractors are saying. You just spent a wall of text plugging the obvious 4e selling points right from WotC's mouth while avoiding many peoples issues altogether. Are they paying you to do this? I don't understand why you post all this repetitive stuff and miss the detractors issues altogether.

[Lycan 01]

Can I just say something? To everyone? *shrug*


The best thing about DnD is...

You can tweak it.


If you don't like something about the game, just tweak it. That's always been an important part of DnD, from what I've gathered. Minor rule changes, system modifications, or entire re-dos of certain aspects of the game. The same applies to 4e, in theory. If you don't like something, just fix it... If you find the feats/powers/whatever to be overpowered, just modify or restrict them. Heck, if you want, just remove them entirely...


I know my opinion doesn't matter for much, and I don't have much room to talk as I'm a DnD novice. But still... why complain about something that is easy to fix?


(Don't kill me... )

[Saph]

So I was reading through some of the posts and I really don't know what is with all the hate going on here for 4e.

Besides the fact that you guys could not possibly have played it that much to create a full assessment, you're missing things entirely.

Why don't you people actually play a couple more games before bitching about it. It's been out for 3 days and already you blast it because, oh god, it's a change.

Or perhaps because 4e isn't perfect and we're pointing out it's limitations?

Seriously, what is it about 4e that makes people defend it so fanatically? I can understand why people can irrationally dislike 4e - it's a change and a disruption. But I don't understand why a vocal minority on this board treat criticism of 4e as though you've just insulted their family, their religion, and their political party all at once.

- Saph

[HeirToPendragon]

Some people, mind you, like to play D&D for the social and roleplaying experience...

Why do people keep arguing that they took this out?

It's there, in full. Sure WotC took out a lot of fluff, and my DM for this past week has considered that one of the best selling points. He doesn't have to worry about all sorts of rules and flavor problems that prevent his story from doing what he wants. He considers minions to be the best thing to happen to what used to be his chore of writing encounters so now he focuses mainly on the story. The exact conversation from last night was:

man people's complaints against 4e are mind boggling
'theres no flavor text given'
so you're...encouraged to make your own?
oh god the entire book sets are competlely focused on combat and combat related stuff
its almost like they want me to make up a story and people and stuff

I haven't read the MM or DMs guide yet because Amazon has yet to deliver ANY of my books and I'd rather wait for the book than read through those on .pdf, but from what I skimmed it makes it look like a lot of the encounter work is gone, so if the social aspect and roleplaying is no longer part of your session, well then you need to get a new DM.

[HeirToPendragon]

Seriously, what is it about 4e that makes people defend it so fanatically? I can understand why people can irrationally dislike 4e - it's a change and a disruption. But I don't understand why a vocal minority on this board treat criticism of 4e as though you've just insulted their family, their religion, and their political party all at once.

I wouldn't mind so much, nor would I have registered for that rant above, had some of the critisims I've been reading not been so whiny and unfulfilling. I mean sure there are problems, there will always be problems in table top RPGs, especially when you openly tell people to go lacks on the rules. But the only problems we've had this entire week is when something was not defined, which was quickly solved when we all realized that the DM was the one in control and he just made a decision.

[FoE]

Seriously, what is it about 4e that makes people defend it so fanatically? I can understand why people can irrationally dislike 4e - it's a change and a disruption. But I don't understand why a vocal minority on this board treat criticism of 4e as though you've just insulted their family, their religion, and their political party all at once.

I think it's because the most vocal critics of 4E dismiss the whole thing altogether as being worthless because they don't like one aspect of it. And since many of its supporters have tried it and like the changes made, it feels like a personal slight.

[Spiryt]

I just realised how... castrated abilities and skills are.

Me not like. Intelligence never was especially usegul for fighters in 3.5, but now...

[Illiterate Scribe]

So I was reading through some of the posts and I really don't know what is with all the hate going on here for 4e.

Well I do. And if you'd looked through the ~25 threads on the subject in the last 3 weeks, you would too.

Besides the fact that you guys could not possibly have played it that much to create a full assessment, you're missing things entirely.

Well, we've played it, and, if things that jump out at us as bad appear even now, then what should we make of it? Also, by saying '4e is awesome' after such a little time, you're making a fairly snappish judgment yourself.

Feats are boring and uneventful. Well guess what, what Feats were in 3.5 are now Powers in 4e. If you can't see that, you're blind to the concept. In 3.5 your feats gave you the ability to do special things but made you plan out those things at the very beginning. In 4e your feats just enhance your already insane powers.

Insane powers?

Are you reading the same PHB as me?

Also, in 3.5, feats tended to be able to modify what you could do, in interesting ways: metamagic, 'metafighting' (power attack, expertise, whirlwind attack). That doesn't really exist any more.

Character creation has taken a complete turn. Yes the puzzle piece system has been taken away, but that doesn't mean there isn't customization. My first character is currently on the path of being a front line Warlock/Paladin wearing scale mail and using a rapier. I have an Archer Ranger that puts my 3.5 archer to shame. You were hindered in 3.5 for multiclassing too much and you're still hindered here but in a different way (that way being that instead of losing powers and abilities for multiclassing, all you're really losing are feats, and well read above).

There may be customisation, but it all ends up doing the same thing: X dice worth of damage + an ability modifier + (maybe) a minor effect.

Oh boo hoo, your 4e Fighter is gonna be sucky at TWF. Well then go RANGER. He's going to be doing TWF and he's going to do it BETTER than your 3.5 Fighter did after you took 8 some feats to get rid of the penalties. Your build that you like is there, you just have to look for it. That warlock I have may as well be a swashbuckler/wizard because I can't find any spectacular feats for him so when I'm done he'll be as sneaky and underhanded as a rogue who stabs people with a CHA enhanced rapier or blasts them with spells.

Those are our objections? I wasn't aware.

The rules in 4e are clean, fixed, and have been changed to the point that the game isn't penalizing people anymore.

Yes. They have made a nice boardgame, haven't they.

The entire read through I did of the PHB I kept feeling like WotC took every complaint we had and fixed them.

The fact that they brought in some more doesn't matter to you?

You guys have to understand that you are coming from a system that made it really difficult to do pretty much anything so you had to spend hours designing every little aspect of a character so that it would turn out awesome. Sure your dexterous rogue could do some insane things, but you were so bogged down by rules that were you ever to try the stuff you had to spend probably 20 some minutes matching the rules and making rolls. 4e doesn't care and actually wants you to be able to do amazing things.

Like, uh, some damage! Or an exciting skill challenge!

I don't really see what all the complaining is about. I spent 3 hours last night designing that Archer and while sure if I were ever to make an archer again he'd probably do the same things, the fact is, I won't ever be starting in the same town doing the same quests over and over again. Sure he'll have the same powers (mostly, I might make him a Rogue thrower instead), but combat is only so small of a thing in D&D.

Which explains why they cut out a whole lot of the non-combat rules, and based the default on a 'squares' system.

In 3.5 you could have hundreds of different ways to build an archer, but you had to pray that you did it right because if you didn't, well sucks to your character, here's hoping you die and can make a new one. 4e doesn't do that, it says "Oh, you want to build an archer? Well I've got about 3 or 4 ways you can do it and as long as you put forth just a tiny thought, it's always going to be a great character".

Not really. The rogue list, for example, has a whole lot of trap powers that, if you're not a brawny rogue, you really shouldn't take.

Skills work so much better in 4e too. There is no more picking and choosing of where to put every single point.

So noone specialises any more? What's the point in having, say, sages then, if everyone of a high level knows a fair amount about everything. Specialisation's a bedrock of society.

Sure there are things about 3.5 I'm going to miss doing. I LIKED spending 8 hours planning out a character to level 20, even if he never got there. But what I didn't like was being bogged down by every god forsaken rule out there. Why don't you people actually play a couple more games before bitching about it. It's been out for 3 days and already you blast it because, oh god, it's a change.

Why don't you play a few more games before you like it? Oh right, because we can see things that we like or dislike from early on. Also, nice the way you're reading our minds and knowing why we object to things better than we do.

I think the only thing I dislike about 4e right now is that, once again, WotC did not put this book together all that great. When are they gonna learn that the rules of the game should be front and center while the customization should come after you've read all the rules?

A little more of that customisation you talk about would be nice. I'd rather play a game a bit more interesting than 'Chess + Snakes and Ladders Deluxe'.

man people's complaints against 4e are mind boggling
'theres no flavor text given'
so you're...encouraged to make your own?
oh god the entire book sets are competlely focused on combat and combat related stuff
its almost like they want me to make up a story and people and stuff

lol @ straw man presentation of people's objections.

[Magnvo]

Or perhaps because 4e isn't perfect and we're pointing out it's limitations?

Seriously, what is it about 4e that makes people defend it so fanatically? I can understand why people can irrationally dislike 4e - it's a change and a disruption. But I don't understand why a vocal minority on this board treat criticism of 4e as though you've just insulted their family, their religion, and their political party all at once.

- Saph

You wonder why people can defend it so fanatically yet it is perfectly logical to you why people fanatically attack it. I wonder if I am the only one who sees a flaw in this logic.

[NorseItalian]

I concur with the OP, but people have the right to dislike it. Some people still play 2e because they didn't like 3e. And that's alright as well.The fact is, they're very different versions of the same game, and no one is obligated to like or dislike any of them. I enjoy 4e, but I respect other people's rights to not like it.

[TempusCCK]

Why do people keep arguing that they took this out?

It's there, in full. Sure WotC took out a lot of fluff, and my DM for this past week has considered that one of the best selling points. He doesn't have to worry about all sorts of rules and flavor problems that prevent his story from doing what he wants. He considers minions to be the best thing to happen to what used to be his chore of writing encounters so now he focuses mainly on the story. The exact conversation from last night was:

man people's complaints against 4e are mind boggling
'theres no flavor text given'
so you're...encouraged to make your own?
oh god the entire book sets are competlely focused on combat and combat related stuff
its almost like they want me to make up a story and people and stuff

I haven't read the MM or DMs guide yet because Amazon has yet to deliver ANY of my books and I'd rather wait for the book than read through those on .pdf, but from what I skimmed it makes it look like a lot of the encounter work is gone, so if the social aspect and roleplaying is no longer part of your session, well then you need to get a new DM.

Umm, did I argue that that was an issue for me? Don't recall. I merely stated that as to point out that not everyone is concerned with power, but rather they are more concerned with a story that makes sense within the context provided, and there are many 4e rules that conflict with that. Again, top marks for avoiding the real issue, congrats.

[Illiterate Scribe]

I concur with the OP, but people have the right to dislike it. Some people still play 2e because they didn't like 3e. And that's alright as well.The fact is, they're very different versions of the same game, and no one is obligated to like or dislike any of them. I enjoy 4e, but I respect other people's rights to not like it.

If our right to dislike it was ever under question, then I would be very worried indeed. What next, White Wolf/WotC pitched battles between rival gangs? Palladium thought police?

[HeirToPendragon]

Illiterate I'm so glad you were able to pick and choose from my argument the sentences that you could berate with a witty jab but never actually made any counter arguments against the rant in whole.

Good Job.

[Saph]

You wonder why people can defend it so fanatically yet it is perfectly logical to you why people fanatically attack it. I wonder if I am the only one who sees a flaw in this logic.

*sigh*

I started to type out a clarification in response to this, then considered who'd be reading it and realised there wasn't much point.

Apologies for the thread derailment. You may now resume your regularly scheduled flaming.

- Saph

[Illiterate Scribe]

Illiterate I'm so glad you were able to pick and choose from my argument the sentences that you could berate with a witty jab but never actually made any counter arguments against the rant in whole.

Good Job.

Well I'm really glad that you're busy tossing aside the whole thing, without any answer to any of the objections raised.

Actually, take that back. Taking people in bad faith is nasty, mean, and shouldn't be done ...

Oh wait.

[chiasaur11]

If our right to dislike it was ever under question, then I would be very worried indeed. What next, White Wolf/WotC pitched battles between rival gangs? Palladium thought police?

I'm thinking Friend Computer and Communism. In that order.

[ghost_warlock]

I'm thinking Friend Computer and Communism. In that order.

Only a commie would talk like that about Our Friend, the Computer.

*aims and fires*

[Skyserpent]

If our right to dislike it was ever under question, then I would be very worried indeed. What next, White Wolf/WotC pitched battles between rival gangs? Palladium thought police?

I'd watch that movie...

Anyway, yeah you're allowed to dislike it, but I think it may get a little easier to swallow if people criticizing 4e would at least give it credit for what it does well... I mean, people do, but often it comes off in a condescending way...

I dunno, I mean, you're allowed to dislike the system as a whole too, but I'd rather you didn't actively mock it... Of course this is wishful thinking on my part...

[Myatar_Panwar]

Why is it that we defend 4E with such devotion and anger? I'm not entirely sure, I mean, it is only a game. It shouldn't be drawing such emotional reactions should it? Either way, I can't help but get upset when I hear such bashings.

It is a different game, and I suppose that people who sincerely hate the game (quite a few, I'm pretty surprised at that) will just play 3.5, or some earlier version.

Ok, now I should first state that I have not yet played a game of 4E, I just got the books yesterday. Here is what I like about both systems (my opinion):

3E
Pros -Great customization. Characters are totally affected by the feat and skill choices. Can make or break your character.
-Huge spell list for casters. Casters have even greater customization, and can do near limitless things with their spells, makes you feel powerful.
-Tons of splatbooks released to make your character better.

Cons -Unbalanced. Casters are far more powerful than the melee, unless your going ToB (well, still weaker, but not as bad) but then you may as well go 4E.
-Sure, you have tons of possibilities. But if your someone who is wholeheartedly devoted to customization, then you will probably only use a couple of specific feat trees. Lots of customization, but if you want to keep up, then only a couple of builds for your choice.
-Spotlight. Related to being unbalanced, casters in 3E usually hog the spotlight, even if they don't mean to. ("Oh, need to cross the bridge? Fly. Need to kill those monsters? Disintegrate. Need to sneak past those guards? Silence + Invisibility. Why do other classes even exist when they could be doing all this stuff with no check required (and with better results)?)

4E (from what I can gather)
Pros -Very balanced. No class specifically outshines another in an overall sense like the casters in 3E.
-Roles defined. All classes fall under a category: Striker, Defender, Leader, and Controller. And each class specified does its job very well, and plays (at least it looks that way to me, haven't played yet) differently. The strikers do tons of damage (the warlock with ranged spells, the rogue and ranger with shifting movements and speed), the defenders protect their allies and distract their enemies (both the fighter and paladin have ways to mark their enemies to try and prevent them from attacking allies. As far as I can tell, fighters also excel at pushing enemies around (sliding), while the paladin dips into buffs and debuffs), the Leaders are great at buffing and helping allies in general (the cleric heals and buffs allies with his strikes and spells, while the warlord shifts allies around while buffing their melee prowis), and the controller (hopefully there will be more in the future) uses abilities that effect multiple enemies at once. Either with damage or with constraining abilities to control the battlefield (the wizard achieves this with arcane spells).
-Easier encounter system. Pre-determined XP and encounter rules help speed up the creation process.
-Monster abilities. Many creatures in the MM have interesting abilities which they can deploy that effect combat tremendously. No longer limited to "just swinging/ biting/ clawing". All of which no longer require time away from the game to look up all of their spells or something.
-Exciting power system.

Cons -Feats are no longer as important as in 4E (I don't really see this as a flaw in a different game, but it seems like many people feel otherwise)
-Feels like a MMO (also, I can see this too, but I see nothing wrong with it. Remember folks, this is just a game, we don't play it for theoretical choices. We play it cause its fun. Theres a reason WoW recently reached 10 Million subscribers).
-Less customization. Sure, I can agree with this.
-New edition makes those old (and expensive!) books from 3E obsolete.

I'm sure I missed some key points in both the pro and anti 4E crusades, but I hope I got the bulk of it. As I stated earlier, I do also feel the whole WoW thing with 4E. But please, PLEASE, tell me why that is such a bad thing? An MMO is a game, and D&D is a game. But now, theres a D&D system with MMO like classes and customization, but in an endless world of imagination? Why is this such a bad thing? Do people feel that they are being insulted having the two genres mix up a little bit? Guy 1: "Ok, so now you have a tabletop game with insanely balanced classes, endless adventures and worlds to explore, and great roleplaying to boot. How does that sound?" Guy 2:"Awesome, sign me up please." Guy 1: "Oh yeah, there are also some cool powers and stuff for each class which tactically enhances combat, and also small feat type things to customize your character as you go. Kind of like Talents in World of Warcraft." Guy 2: "World of Warcraft? What the hell are you trying to do here? WoW is a computer game for stoner's and low-lifes, get out of here. I don't need your fun gameplay and interactive story if it at all relates to a game like that, no matter how much entertainment it can provide me." I just don't get how this is a bad thing... or why people seem to constantly refer to MMO's as such a horrible thing that shoulden't touch social table-top games like D&D.

As I see it, 4E gives D&D better tactical gameplay. It doesn't enhance roleplaying as far as I have found, but it also doesn't hinder it. I've also heard someone in real life, in a game store, say that they won't be playing 4E because its "too mainstream". This probably relates to the whole MMO thing (its popular so I don't want anything to do with it). Just because more people will be playing it you don't want to participate? This only contributes to the negative stereotype that D&D players are basement dwelling loners who has been living with his parents for 40 years and can't get a girlfriend.

Theres my opinion, proceed to rip it to shreds.

Edit: Oh yeah, forgot to ask. In a few days I'm going to get both of my D&D groups together and we are going to give 4E a taste. Unfortunately, I think I am currently the only one in possession of the books, and don't want to spend the whole session passing the book around making characters, so I've been fleshing them out myself. But I would really rather not have to copy all of the powers onto the sheets. Is there somewhere on the internets with those "power cards" I heard about awhile ago? Or something similar?

Thanks in advance.

[FoE]

you're allowed to dislike it, but I think it may get a little easier to swallow if people criticizing 4e would at least give it credit for what it does well...

That's my feeling as well. The harshest critics of 4E suggest that, because they don't like one aspect of the system, the whole thing sucks and is completely worthless. I think the people doing this the loudest are the ones who are angry their wizards aren't as incredibly powerful as they were.

[Morty]

That's my feeling as well. The harshest critics of 4E suggest that, because they don't like one aspect of the system, the whole thing sucks and is completely worthless. I think the people doing this the loudest are the ones who are angry their wizards aren't as incredibly powerful as they were.

I just love how 4ed fans berate 4ed anti-fans for lack of objectivism, blind hatred, and all that jazz, and then proceed to post something like "y'all just don't want your wizards to be balanced" or "y'all hate the whole system because of one single thing". And then they martyrize themselves by saying how awful they feel surrounded by "4ed hate" Double standards are a beautiful thing.
Whew, that was harsh. But most of my dislike for 4ed comes actually from its "fans" who can't stand their beloved system being disliked or criticized and feel they need to dismiss everyone who does so as blind, drooling hateboy.

[Lycan 01]

I know what I say doesn't count for much, but I for one found your post to be informative and fair, Myatar... It placed both games side by side and judged them with no bias. I now feel more comfortable about deciding which game to get for me and my friends to play...

[Myatar_Panwar]

I know what I say doesn't count for much, but I for one found your post to be informative and fair, Myatar... It placed both games side by side and judged them with no bias. I now feel more comfortable about deciding which game to get for me and my friends to play...

Well thanks, but I wouldn't say that it was bias free. Its probably quite obvious which side I was rooting for in it, although I did try my best to be fair in my judgment.