Reply To: Is it time for some more critical analysis of rule sets

[blinky465 17028xp 2]

You’re right, the focus was before the name change. Maybe it’s just a one-off, but I feel like we’re reaching “shiny new stuff” fatigue and it even shows in the reviews. I understand that Gerry makes his pithy “not-my-thing-so-make-a-joke-of-it” comments and in the main, I enjoy them. But in that one particular review (Hunger Games MockingJay) neither presenter had any real enthusiasm for it.

Compare that to, say, the excitement in Sam’s voice when he’s banging on about Hobbits, or Lloyd’s recent big 40k project. Even the general chit-chat on the weekend shows, where everyone is talking with enthusiam about a topic – even if it’s one they don’t really know much about. I know that different presenters have different styles, but this one particular video struck me as two disinterested guys talking about something they weren’t really that bothered about.

From what I gathered from the video, it “plays a bit like Risk”. If it really is a Risk-clone with miniatures that look like characters from another franchise (X-men, although I’m pretty sure that one of the characters in Hunger Games was in a wheelchair after winning an earlier games?) then a review explaining this – how and why – would be useful.

I guess it’s just that I got no information about the game from the video and I wasn’t particularly entertained by the presentation style; it felt like “album filler” content. But then again, there are loads of games recently that are tied to massive franchises (from Lara Croft, Aliens, Batman, Marvel/Avengers? Wolfenstien, Pacific Rim, Judge Dredd, Harry Potter, Dragon BallZ, Jurrasic World, Star Wars, ) and – other than they have a bunch of amazing looking minis – I’m not sure if they’re all different games, the same game, based on similar rules, expansion packs to a core game system or what…..