echoMateria posted:

you wonder if they ever heard of a quote that starts with "With great power...".

Magnetic North posted:

Oh my god, please tell me I've been reading the Tumblr thread too long and I can no longer tell the difference between a troll post and a real one.

Some Numbers posted:

What the gently caress just happened in this thread?

ThisIsNoZaku posted:

The tardiest

Magnetic North posted:

Oh my god, please tell me I've been reading the Tumblr thread too long and I can no longer tell the difference between a troll post and a real one. But, on the off chance this isn't a troll and I'm talking to some sort of sentient lichen permeating the pages of a cheeto-stained comic book draped over an unplugged keyboard, let me try and work with this metaphor:

You see, the prominent people in board game reviewing aren't actually the smartest and most worthy of that position: that would be the equivalent of Batman, the hero we deserve. He watched his parents get cut down in The Game Of Life and now has a Monopoly on pain. Only thematically rich and mechanically sound board games dare show their faces in Gotham. Unfortunately, just like in 52, Batman is absent.

Instead, those heroes are more like your friendly neighborhood Spiderman. Peter Parker got his powers entirely by chance when bitten by a radioactive spider. Well, our board game reviewing heroes also got where they are in part by good fortune, or at least partly by means other than just their game design knowledge. In this case, they got it because of their ability to make the content that works within YouTube's system. For Rahdo, it's his gift of gab so he makes entertaining videos and gets subscribers. For Rodney Smith, it's his commitment to excellence and neutrality and that garners subscribers. For Tom Vasel, it's just a pure numbers game: enough content and eyeballs will accrue subscribers. For SUSD, it's probably a little of everything. (Yes, a Fantastic Four metaphor might be more apt here, but let's go with this one.)

So, these board game reviewers are our street level heroes: they might not be the best or most righteous, but they'll do what they can to keep your wallets safe. Still, Spidey has ways of doing things, which the public doesn't always agree with. J. Jonah Jameson is one of them, a newspaper editor of The Daily Bugle. In this metaphor, JJJ is represented by SA board game grognards: old, crotchety, self absorbed, constantly seeking to destroy the 'menace' of Spiderman.

So, who does Spiderman fight? Doctor Octopus, The Green Goblin, et cetera. These are guys that pose a threat to the public good, but just aren't big enough to threaten anything more than that. These villains represent games are the bad, cheap drek that publishers churn out that an unsuspecting citizen might find has robbed them of their money. Harm can be avoided so long as Spiderman's there to help.

But what happens when Carnage shows up? In this case, Carnage represents Munckin: a bad game that continues to spawn other even worse games. Well, Spidey just can't fight him on his own: Carnage is far too strong and awful. He has to call in help from more powerful people. He could call up Iron Man. Tony Stark has no super powers, but instead of training his mind and body to perfection as Batman did, he drinks a lot of alcohol and uses his engineering prowess to build power suits that lets him fight crime. In this metaphor, this is Wil Wheaton of TableTop: still lacking the raw qualifications to be the true hero, but made more powerful with resources. Unfortunately for Spiderman, that's not always an option: Tony Stark is likes to do his own thing, and his own thing usually involves keeping Stark Industries afloat more than it does protecting the public from small-time crime.

If Iron Man's not answering Peter's calls, there are others. Maybe Doctor Strange or even Doctor Doom. The thing is that heroes of this power who can change reality at will aren't really on the same scale as Batman or Spiderman. These reality shapers don't represent game reviewers but rather well respected game designers. (Let's say Richard Garfield is Doctor Strange (duh) and Vlaada Chvátil is Doctor Doom. That'd be especially appropriate for this thread since everyone loves him so much he apparently never fails, and if he does it was really a Doombot.) The hope would be to get them to talk trash about bad games like Munchkin to hopefully exterminate the problem. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

But what if something even worse happened? What if Spiderman had to fight Galactus? Spiderman simply cannot fight the power cosmic. Galactus is as old as time and can never die. Those forces that survived the chaotic beginnings cannot be defeated. In this metaphor, Galactus is Cosmic Encounter: It's simply too old and too powerful to be defeated at this point. It's evergreen, even if it's awful. Also, let's say it turns out that Spiderman thinks Galactus is a cool guy with a sweet purple hat and he becomes the Herald of Galactus. So, Spiderman shows up but instead of saying, "All that you know, is at an end" he says, "Forty dollars will be teleported away from your pockets. In exchange, Galactus offers you endless replayability of this shallow gameplay and the ability to generate mirth between your friends." Would that really be so irresponsible of Spiderman?

Anyway, for those of you who don't need elaborate superhero metaphors, I think this thread is waaay too hard on reviewers for their likes and dislikes. These people are not prominent because they have PhDs in Mathematics: they're prominent because they fit into the systems of popularity on Youtube and to a lesser extent BGG. Just listen to what they have to say and their reasons why, then consider if those reasons would hold water to you. If the rationale does not meet your satisfaction, then hold off on any purchases. If it does, then give them all your bitcoins.

Magnetic North posted:

Oh my god, please tell me I've been reading the Tumblr thread too long and I can no longer tell the difference between a troll post and a real one. But, on the off chance this isn't a troll and I'm talking to some sort of sentient lichen permeating the pages of a cheeto-stained comic book draped over an unplugged keyboard, let me try and work with this metaphor:

You see, the prominent people in board game reviewing aren't actually the smartest and most worthy of that position: that would be the equivalent of Batman, the hero we deserve. He watched his parents get cut down in The Game Of Life and now has a Monopoly on pain. Only thematically rich and mechanically sound board games dare show their faces in Gotham. Unfortunately, just like in 52, Batman is absent.

Instead, those heroes are more like your friendly neighborhood Spiderman. Peter Parker got his powers entirely by chance when bitten by a radioactive spider. Well, our board game reviewing heroes also got where they are in part by good fortune, or at least partly by means other than just their game design knowledge. In this case, they got it because of their ability to make the content that works within YouTube's system. For Rahdo, it's his gift of gab so he makes entertaining videos and gets subscribers. For Rodney Smith, it's his commitment to excellence and neutrality and that garners subscribers. For Tom Vasel, it's just a pure numbers game: enough content and eyeballs will accrue subscribers. For SUSD, it's probably a little of everything. (Yes, a Fantastic Four metaphor might be more apt here, but let's go with this one.)

So, these board game reviewers are our street level heroes: they might not be the best or most righteous, but they'll do what they can to keep your wallets safe. Still, Spidey has ways of doing things, which the public doesn't always agree with. J. Jonah Jameson is one of them, a newspaper editor of The Daily Bugle. In this metaphor, JJJ is represented by SA board game grognards: old, crotchety, self absorbed, constantly seeking to destroy the 'menace' of Spiderman.

So, who does Spiderman fight? Doctor Octopus, The Green Goblin, et cetera. These are guys that pose a threat to the public good, but just aren't big enough to threaten anything more than that. These villains represent games are the bad, cheap drek that publishers churn out that an unsuspecting citizen might find has robbed them of their money. Harm can be avoided so long as Spiderman's there to help.

But what happens when Carnage shows up? In this case, Carnage represents Munckin: a bad game that continues to spawn other even worse games. Well, Spidey just can't fight him on his own: Carnage is far too strong and awful. He has to call in help from more powerful people. He could call up Iron Man. Tony Stark has no super powers, but instead of training his mind and body to perfection as Batman did, he drinks a lot of alcohol and uses his engineering prowess to build power suits that lets him fight crime. In this metaphor, this is Wil Wheaton of TableTop: still lacking the raw qualifications to be the true hero, but made more powerful with resources. Unfortunately for Spiderman, that's not always an option: Tony Stark is likes to do his own thing, and his own thing usually involves keeping Stark Industries afloat more than it does protecting the public from small-time crime.

If Iron Man's not answering Peter's calls, there are others. Maybe Doctor Strange or even Doctor Doom. The thing is that heroes of this power who can change reality at will aren't really on the same scale as Batman or Spiderman. These reality shapers don't represent game reviewers but rather well respected game designers. (Let's say Richard Garfield is Doctor Strange (duh) and Vlaada Chvátil is Doctor Doom. That'd be especially appropriate for this thread since everyone loves him so much he apparently never fails, and if he does it was really a Doombot.) The hope would be to get them to talk trash about bad games like Munchkin to hopefully exterminate the problem. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

But what if something even worse happened? What if Spiderman had to fight Galactus? Spiderman simply cannot fight the power cosmic. Galactus is as old as time and can never die. Those forces that survived the chaotic beginnings cannot be defeated. In this metaphor, Galactus is Cosmic Encounter: It's simply too old and too powerful to be defeated at this point. It's evergreen, even if it's awful. Also, let's say it turns out that Spiderman thinks Galactus is a cool guy with a sweet purple hat and he becomes the Herald of Galactus. So, Spiderman shows up but instead of saying, "All that you know, is at an end" he says, "Forty dollars will be teleported away from your pockets. In exchange, Galactus offers you endless replayability of this shallow gameplay and the ability to generate mirth between your friends." Would that really be so irresponsible of Spiderman?

Anyway, for those of you who don't need elaborate superhero metaphors, I think this thread is waaay too hard on reviewers for their likes and dislikes. These people are not prominent because they have PhDs in Mathematics: they're prominent because they fit into the systems of popularity on Youtube and to a lesser extent BGG. Just listen to what they have to say and their reasons why, then consider if those reasons would hold water to you. If the rationale does not meet your satisfaction, then hold off on any purchases. If it does, then give them all your bitcoins.

Magnetic North posted:

Oh my god, please tell me I've been reading the Tumblr thread too long and I can no longer tell the difference between a troll post and a real one. But, on the off chance this isn't a troll and I'm talking to some sort of sentient lichen permeating the pages of a cheeto-stained comic book draped over an unplugged keyboard, let me try and work with this metaphor:

You see, the prominent people in board game reviewing aren't actually the smartest and most worthy of that position: that would be the equivalent of Batman, the hero we deserve. He watched his parents get cut down in The Game Of Life and now has a Monopoly on pain. Only thematically rich and mechanically sound board games dare show their faces in Gotham. Unfortunately, just like in 52, Batman is absent.

Instead, those heroes are more like your friendly neighborhood Spiderman. Peter Parker got his powers entirely by chance when bitten by a radioactive spider. Well, our board game reviewing heroes also got where they are in part by good fortune, or at least partly by means other than just their game design knowledge. In this case, they got it because of their ability to make the content that works within YouTube's system. For Rahdo, it's his gift of gab so he makes entertaining videos and gets subscribers. For Rodney Smith, it's his commitment to excellence and neutrality and that garners subscribers. For Tom Vasel, it's just a pure numbers game: enough content and eyeballs will accrue subscribers. For SUSD, it's probably a little of everything. (Yes, a Fantastic Four metaphor might be more apt here, but let's go with this one.)

So, these board game reviewers are our street level heroes: they might not be the best or most righteous, but they'll do what they can to keep your wallets safe. Still, Spidey has ways of doing things, which the public doesn't always agree with. J. Jonah Jameson is one of them, a newspaper editor of The Daily Bugle. In this metaphor, JJJ is represented by SA board game grognards: old, crotchety, self absorbed, constantly seeking to destroy the 'menace' of Spiderman.

So, who does Spiderman fight? Doctor Octopus, The Green Goblin, et cetera. These are guys that pose a threat to the public good, but just aren't big enough to threaten anything more than that. These villains represent games are the bad, cheap drek that publishers churn out that an unsuspecting citizen might find has robbed them of their money. Harm can be avoided so long as Spiderman's there to help.

But what happens when Carnage shows up? In this case, Carnage represents Munckin: a bad game that continues to spawn other even worse games. Well, Spidey just can't fight him on his own: Carnage is far too strong and awful. He has to call in help from more powerful people. He could call up Iron Man. Tony Stark has no super powers, but instead of training his mind and body to perfection as Batman did, he drinks a lot of alcohol and uses his engineering prowess to build power suits that lets him fight crime. In this metaphor, this is Wil Wheaton of TableTop: still lacking the raw qualifications to be the true hero, but made more powerful with resources. Unfortunately for Spiderman, that's not always an option: Tony Stark is likes to do his own thing, and his own thing usually involves keeping Stark Industries afloat more than it does protecting the public from small-time crime.

If Iron Man's not answering Peter's calls, there are others. Maybe Doctor Strange or even Doctor Doom. The thing is that heroes of this power who can change reality at will aren't really on the same scale as Batman or Spiderman. These reality shapers don't represent game reviewers but rather well respected game designers. (Let's say Richard Garfield is Doctor Strange (duh) and Vlaada Chvátil is Doctor Doom. That'd be especially appropriate for this thread since everyone loves him so much he apparently never fails, and if he does it was really a Doombot.) The hope would be to get them to talk trash about bad games like Munchkin to hopefully exterminate the problem. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

But what if something even worse happened? What if Spiderman had to fight Galactus? Spiderman simply cannot fight the power cosmic. Galactus is as old as time and can never die. Those forces that survived the chaotic beginnings cannot be defeated. In this metaphor, Galactus is Cosmic Encounter: It's simply too old and too powerful to be defeated at this point. It's evergreen, even if it's awful. Also, let's say it turns out that Spiderman thinks Galactus is a cool guy with a sweet purple hat and he becomes the Herald of Galactus. So, Spiderman shows up but instead of saying, "All that you know, is at an end" he says, "Forty dollars will be teleported away from your pockets. In exchange, Galactus offers you endless replayability of this shallow gameplay and the ability to generate mirth between your friends." Would that really be so irresponsible of Spiderman?

Anyway, for those of you who don't need elaborate superhero metaphors, I think this thread is waaay too hard on reviewers for their likes and dislikes. These people are not prominent because they have PhDs in Mathematics: they're prominent because they fit into the systems of popularity on Youtube and to a lesser extent BGG. Just listen to what they have to say and their reasons why, then consider if those reasons would hold water to you. If the rationale does not meet your satisfaction, then hold off on any purchases. If it does, then give them all your bitcoins.

Some Numbers posted:

What the gently caress just happened in this thread?

S.J. posted:

Cosmic Muffet? Is that you? You need to see a loving doctor, man.

Magnetic North posted:

Oh my god, please tell me I've been reading the Tumblr thread too long and I can no longer tell the difference between a troll post and a real one. But, on the off chance this isn't a troll and I'm talking to some sort of sentient lichen permeating the pages of a cheeto-stained comic book draped over an unplugged keyboard, let me try and work with this metaphor:

You see, the prominent people in board game reviewing aren't actually the smartest and most worthy of that position: that would be the equivalent of Batman, the hero we deserve. He watched his parents get cut down in The Game Of Life and now has a Monopoly on pain. Only thematically rich and mechanically sound board games dare show their faces in Gotham. Unfortunately, just like in 52, Batman is absent.

Instead, those heroes are more like your friendly neighborhood Spiderman. Peter Parker got his powers entirely by chance when bitten by a radioactive spider. Well, our board game reviewing heroes also got where they are in part by good fortune, or at least partly by means other than just their game design knowledge. In this case, they got it because of their ability to make the content that works within YouTube's system. For Rahdo, it's his gift of gab so he makes entertaining videos and gets subscribers. For Rodney Smith, it's his commitment to excellence and neutrality and that garners subscribers. For Tom Vasel, it's just a pure numbers game: enough content and eyeballs will accrue subscribers. For SUSD, it's probably a little of everything. (Yes, a Fantastic Four metaphor might be more apt here, but let's go with this one.)

So, these board game reviewers are our street level heroes: they might not be the best or most righteous, but they'll do what they can to keep your wallets safe. Still, Spidey has ways of doing things, which the public doesn't always agree with. J. Jonah Jameson is one of them, a newspaper editor of The Daily Bugle. In this metaphor, JJJ is represented by SA board game grognards: old, crotchety, self absorbed, constantly seeking to destroy the 'menace' of Spiderman.

So, who does Spiderman fight? Doctor Octopus, The Green Goblin, et cetera. These are guys that pose a threat to the public good, but just aren't big enough to threaten anything more than that. These villains represent games are the bad, cheap drek that publishers churn out that an unsuspecting citizen might find has robbed them of their money. Harm can be avoided so long as Spiderman's there to help.

But what happens when Carnage shows up? In this case, Carnage represents Munckin: a bad game that continues to spawn other even worse games. Well, Spidey just can't fight him on his own: Carnage is far too strong and awful. He has to call in help from more powerful people. He could call up Iron Man. Tony Stark has no super powers, but instead of training his mind and body to perfection as Batman did, he drinks a lot of alcohol and uses his engineering prowess to build power suits that lets him fight crime. In this metaphor, this is Wil Wheaton of TableTop: still lacking the raw qualifications to be the true hero, but made more powerful with resources. Unfortunately for Spiderman, that's not always an option: Tony Stark is likes to do his own thing, and his own thing usually involves keeping Stark Industries afloat more than it does protecting the public from small-time crime.

If Iron Man's not answering Peter's calls, there are others. Maybe Doctor Strange or even Doctor Doom. The thing is that heroes of this power who can change reality at will aren't really on the same scale as Batman or Spiderman. These reality shapers don't represent game reviewers but rather well respected game designers. (Let's say Richard Garfield is Doctor Strange (duh) and Vlaada Chvátil is Doctor Doom. That'd be especially appropriate for this thread since everyone loves him so much he apparently never fails, and if he does it was really a Doombot.) The hope would be to get them to talk trash about bad games like Munchkin to hopefully exterminate the problem. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

But what if something even worse happened? What if Spiderman had to fight Galactus? Spiderman simply cannot fight the power cosmic. Galactus is as old as time and can never die. Those forces that survived the chaotic beginnings cannot be defeated. In this metaphor, Galactus is Cosmic Encounter: It's simply too old and too powerful to be defeated at this point. It's evergreen, even if it's awful. Also, let's say it turns out that Spiderman thinks Galactus is a cool guy with a sweet purple hat and he becomes the Herald of Galactus. So, Spiderman shows up but instead of saying, "All that you know, is at an end" he says, "Forty dollars will be teleported away from your pockets. In exchange, Galactus offers you endless replayability of this shallow gameplay and the ability to generate mirth between your friends." Would that really be so irresponsible of Spiderman?

Anyway, for those of you who don't need elaborate superhero metaphors, I think this thread is waaay too hard on reviewers for their likes and dislikes. These people are not prominent because they have PhDs in Mathematics: they're prominent because they fit into the systems of popularity on Youtube and to a lesser extent BGG. Just listen to what they have to say and their reasons why, then consider if those reasons would hold water to you. If the rationale does not meet your satisfaction, then hold off on any purchases. If it does, then give them all your bitcoins.

Toshimo posted:

Magnetic North posted:

Oh my god, please tell me I've been reading the Tumblr thread too long and I can no longer tell the difference between a troll post and a real one. But, on the off chance this isn't a troll and I'm talking to some sort of sentient lichen permeating the pages of a cheeto-stained comic book draped over an unplugged keyboard, let me try and work with this metaphor:

You see, the prominent people in board game reviewing aren't actually the smartest and most worthy of that position: that would be the equivalent of Batman, the hero we deserve. He watched his parents get cut down in The Game Of Life and now has a Monopoly on pain. Only thematically rich and mechanically sound board games dare show their faces in Gotham. Unfortunately, just like in 52, Batman is absent.

Instead, those heroes are more like your friendly neighborhood Spiderman. Peter Parker got his powers entirely by chance when bitten by a radioactive spider. Well, our board game reviewing heroes also got where they are in part by good fortune, or at least partly by means other than just their game design knowledge. In this case, they got it because of their ability to make the content that works within YouTube's system. For Rahdo, it's his gift of gab so he makes entertaining videos and gets subscribers. For Rodney Smith, it's his commitment to excellence and neutrality and that garners subscribers. For Tom Vasel, it's just a pure numbers game: enough content and eyeballs will accrue subscribers. For SUSD, it's probably a little of everything. (Yes, a Fantastic Four metaphor might be more apt here, but let's go with this one.)

So, these board game reviewers are our street level heroes: they might not be the best or most righteous, but they'll do what they can to keep your wallets safe. Still, Spidey has ways of doing things, which the public doesn't always agree with. J. Jonah Jameson is one of them, a newspaper editor of The Daily Bugle. In this metaphor, JJJ is represented by SA board game grognards: old, crotchety, self absorbed, constantly seeking to destroy the 'menace' of Spiderman.

So, who does Spiderman fight? Doctor Octopus, The Green Goblin, et cetera. These are guys that pose a threat to the public good, but just aren't big enough to threaten anything more than that. These villains represent games are the bad, cheap drek that publishers churn out that an unsuspecting citizen might find has robbed them of their money. Harm can be avoided so long as Spiderman's there to help.

But what happens when Carnage shows up? In this case, Carnage represents Munckin: a bad game that continues to spawn other even worse games. Well, Spidey just can't fight him on his own: Carnage is far too strong and awful. He has to call in help from more powerful people. He could call up Iron Man. Tony Stark has no super powers, but instead of training his mind and body to perfection as Batman did, he drinks a lot of alcohol and uses his engineering prowess to build power suits that lets him fight crime. In this metaphor, this is Wil Wheaton of TableTop: still lacking the raw qualifications to be the true hero, but made more powerful with resources. Unfortunately for Spiderman, that's not always an option: Tony Stark is likes to do his own thing, and his own thing usually involves keeping Stark Industries afloat more than it does protecting the public from small-time crime.

If Iron Man's not answering Peter's calls, there are others. Maybe Doctor Strange or even Doctor Doom. The thing is that heroes of this power who can change reality at will aren't really on the same scale as Batman or Spiderman. These reality shapers don't represent game reviewers but rather well respected game designers. (Let's say Richard Garfield is Doctor Strange (duh) and Vlaada Chvátil is Doctor Doom. That'd be especially appropriate for this thread since everyone loves him so much he apparently never fails, and if he does it was really a Doombot.) The hope would be to get them to talk trash about bad games like Munchkin to hopefully exterminate the problem. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

But what if something even worse happened? What if Spiderman had to fight Galactus? Spiderman simply cannot fight the power cosmic. Galactus is as old as time and can never die. Those forces that survived the chaotic beginnings cannot be defeated. In this metaphor, Galactus is Cosmic Encounter: It's simply too old and too powerful to be defeated at this point. It's evergreen, even if it's awful. Also, let's say it turns out that Spiderman thinks Galactus is a cool guy with a sweet purple hat and he becomes the Herald of Galactus. So, Spiderman shows up but instead of saying, "All that you know, is at an end" he says, "Forty dollars will be teleported away from your pockets. In exchange, Galactus offers you endless replayability of this shallow gameplay and the ability to generate mirth between your friends." Would that really be so irresponsible of Spiderman?

Anyway, for those of you who don't need elaborate superhero metaphors, I think this thread is waaay too hard on reviewers for their likes and dislikes. These people are not prominent because they have PhDs in Mathematics: they're prominent because they fit into the systems of popularity on Youtube and to a lesser extent BGG. Just listen to what they have to say and their reasons why, then consider if those reasons would hold water to you. If the rationale does not meet your satisfaction, then hold off on any purchases. If it does, then give them all your bitcoins.

MildManeredManikin posted:

I mean, I don't think all the metaphors in there are the best mechanically, but it brought some new ideas and I had fun reading it and isn't that what really matters?

Chomp8645 posted:

Great job following up that awful post with a joke that's already been driven into the ground.

Bubble-T posted:

Board Game Thread: Forty dollars will be teleported away from your pocket

MildManeredManikin posted:

I suppose my post wasn't the best thought out, but I had fun posting it and isn't that what really matters?

The End posted:

IF you read it with some good friends and drunk, it's great fun!

Magnetic North posted:

woah

Bubble-T posted:

Board Game Thread: Forty dollars will be teleported away from your pocket

Magnetic North posted:

Magnetic North posted:

Oh my god, please tell me I've been reading the Tumblr thread too long and I can no longer tell the difference between a troll post and a real one. But, on the off chance this isn't a troll and I'm talking to some sort of sentient lichen permeating the pages of a cheeto-stained comic book draped over an unplugged keyboard, let me try and work with this metaphor:

You see, the prominent people in board game reviewing aren't actually the smartest and most worthy of that position: that would be the equivalent of Batman, the hero we deserve. He watched his parents get cut down in The Game Of Life and now has a Monopoly on pain. Only thematically rich and mechanically sound board games dare show their faces in Gotham. Unfortunately, just like in 52, Batman is absent.

Instead, those heroes are more like your friendly neighborhood Spiderman. Peter Parker got his powers entirely by chance when bitten by a radioactive spider. Well, our board game reviewing heroes also got where they are in part by good fortune, or at least partly by means other than just their game design knowledge. In this case, they got it because of their ability to make the content that works within YouTube's system. For Rahdo, it's his gift of gab so he makes entertaining videos and gets subscribers. For Rodney Smith, it's his commitment to excellence and neutrality and that garners subscribers. For Tom Vasel, it's just a pure numbers game: enough content and eyeballs will accrue subscribers. For SUSD, it's probably a little of everything. (Yes, a Fantastic Four metaphor might be more apt here, but let's go with this one.)

Bubble-T posted:

Board Game Thread: Forty dollars will be teleported away from your pocket

Quidnose posted:

Wait when did SU&SD get bad? Everyone loved them two years ago.

Quidnose posted:

Wait when did SU&SD get bad? Everyone loved them two years ago.

Valiant Pudding posted:

So I've just tried Tales of the Arabian Nights with my girlfriend. We both like thematic and cooperative games. We also regularly enjoy pen and paper roleplay games (WHFB). This said, we were a bit underwhelmed by it. My SO had high hopes for the game, but everything seemed a bit disconnected. I had the feeling I wasn't really building an exciting story for my character, but just hopping from one encounter to the next. Except for some statuses, there's almost nothing that connects one encounter to the other. I'd like to try it again however, and see if it was just a one time thing, or the nature of the game. Maybe we're just a bit spoiled by our pnp roleplay stories.

The End posted:

For me, it's when they consistently started ragging on complex/heavy euro games whilst simultaneously hanging off the nuts of every short length social filler (probably due to a much more intensive schedule and bigger operation). Fair enough, they're big on theme and social games, but they're presenting themselves as a critical voice, yet they lack perspective due to their selectiveness. Less frequent output would give them time to sink their teeth into some substantial games and show more of the critical voice they had in the early videos. They started off celebrating and evangelising games they were really into, now they're just pumping out reviews.

Plus, as said before, they're not very funny when they're recording solo videos and Quinns showed himself to be an enormous sook with the whole Few Acres of Snow thing.

Rutibex posted:

Their reviews where much better before I had been in the hobby a while and started having my own opinions on games. They stopped being funny experts and started being amusing yet wrong, like a mime. Its less entertaining when you can tell they have played a game once and read the first page of reviews on BGG before writing their script.

Tekopo posted:

I think they jumped the shark around the time of that extremely lovely 'Knizia invades from space' episode that was just one painful joke after the other.

Valiant Pudding posted:

By the way, I've been out of this thread for a loooong time. I've been gifted Sheriff of Nottingham for christmas. What's the general consensus on this game? Is it an ok filler/opener if our group enjoys games like Masquerade, Coup, Avalon?