Descent definitely totally not 3.0

sornars wrote: Edit2: I did notice the clearly in focus games behind Tom during the review and found that extremely bizarre. I actually thought he planned to point to them for some point of comparison or relevance to the current review but no, they just sat there as some sort of product placement.

Yeah, that is frikkin’ weird.

It’s gross and it just further points out what a fucking huckster and a shill he is. What’s sadder though is that he somehow still had enough clout to get publishers to pay him to sit a game on the shelf. Those are unlabeled ads.

I’ll just never forget when he posted on BGG when he was doing mission work in Korea, asking for money because the devil made the transmission go out in his minivan or something like that. Like he literally cited Satan as the cause for car trouble while panhandling.

Michael Barnes wrote: It’s gross and it just further points out what a fucking huckster and a shill he is. What’s sadder though is that he somehow still had enough clout to get publishers to pay him to sit a game on the shelf. Those are unlabeled ads.

I’ll just never forget when he posted on BGG when he was doing mission work in Korea, asking for money because the devil made the transmission go out in his minivan or something like that. Like he literally cited Satan as the cause for car trouble while panhandling.

Michael Barnes wrote: I’m not about to watch that review because Vasel goes far beyond my tolerance for smarm, mugging, and shilling. He also has a history of giving bad reviews to games that are unique, different, or progressive unless he is paid enough to fawn over them. Maybe FFG didn’t go foe the “Platinum” package this time? I would trust a board game review printed in Highlights for Kids over anything that the Dice Tower produces. How much do they make from publishers that pay them to put their games in the background while reviewing other games?

And now I want to see board game reviews by Goofus and Gallant.

Gary Sax wrote: I think I posted in the discord on this, I might skip the extensive dice tower merch in the bgg store lol: boardgamegeekstore.com/collections/dicetower

The poster is my favorite, jesus christ. What would Erik Twice think.

"Proceeds" from sales "support" The Dice Tower. JFC.

I haven't looked as closely as I used to, but I know BGG used to beg for donations like another $10 will enable them to give birth to world peace. I think both BGG and The Dice Tower are for-profit, which is fine; we all gotta eat. But don't blow smoke up my ass and try to convince me that the dollars I spend on them are going to a 'good cause'.

Not trying to extend credit in any direction, but I wonder if that approach ("supports"), while obviously being a more indirect way of saying "Fuck you. Pay me." (/Goodfellas) might be necessary with the board game audience? There are so many people in this little sphere who think that the work that people like Vasel and SUSD and dozens of others do should be free. The crowdfunding/Patreon era has mollified that somewhat, but there are still a lot of people who get outraged at the idea that someone reviewing board games should be paid for their work. And it is work, from playing the games (especially if they're not good games) to video production, it takes time and effort to do these things that most people will just pop on to YouTube to watch for free. After all, they're PLAYING GAMES. Reminds me of people who think athletes get paid too much or who think they shouldn't get paid at all (see: NCAA) because they're PLAYING GAMES. Right. But they're also entertaining you and the work that goes into that should be worth something.

Jackwraith wrote: But they're also entertaining you and the work that goes into that should be worth something.

Except that it's not. It's just . . . not. The only value this kind of content brings is that its facile and about a subject its consumers find entertaining. Truth be told we'd all do better to play an actual game or at least give one a look instead of sitting here watching vapid content. "Look at those minis!" The entire "Internet Board Game Industry" could evaporate for a month and we all might end up happier for it.

Hey -- I used to write reviews and articles. I got a lot of compliments for them. But I bet if I set up on Patreon to get paid by the piece I'd earn about three dollars a month. That's what my content is worth. It's not that it's bad content, it's just that it's good-enough content in an environment overflowing with good-enough content.

Vasel's content is slick, plentiful, and inside. That's the value he adds. He's not a reviewer anymore; he's a content provider. You can knock him for it, but he's giving the audience something they respond to, and something that can be measured. That measurement allows him to advertise those games that were on his wall -- "500,000 hobby gamers viewed my last in-depth walk-through of a big game". It's his business model. If you don't like it . . . pull out a game and play instead. But you won't, and I won't either. We're discussing his video for a reason.

Can’t agree with Sag more. I’ve never watched a video review and I definitely won’t start with his.

Just because someone puts in work doing something doesn’t mean they should be paid for it. Who even asked for it? Not me.

I would pay for three reviewer’s content: Barnes, Charlie, and Thrower.

I would pay for a newsletter from Sag and Englestein.

Other than that — I can probably figure enough shit out from just reading a box

I was surprised by the lack of analysis in this video. Most of it is just "I like this, I don't like this" with no explanation as to why. Or maybe he could just give us a little more about his experience. His point about not doing app stuff as a group was good and I would have liked some more of that.

Apart from that I'm starting to like what I see. I'm not a big fan of having an app when playing a board game, but on the other hand I can see how the lack of having to understand the mechanisms could be a plus when playig with my kids. I think they would also appreciate the rather cool terrain stuff more than Vasel did.

Space Ghost wrote: Just because someone puts in work doing something doesn’t mean they should be paid for it. Who even asked for it? Not me.

Yeah, except that's not what I said. That's not even close to what I said. It's just piling on because Sag and others have decided that Vasel's content isn't worth their money but certainly seems to be worth their time to insult it, which may reveal to you that is is, in fact, worth something. And I love the part about drawing a line between "content provider" and "reviewer", as if the latter is some enshrined status that's above all that petty entertainment bombast. Got news for you: Every review that's ever been written is entertainment. They're written so that people can be entertained by the insights brought by the person calling themself the reviewer. The only real difference between something that Vasel does and what Charlie does is style. I mean, I put more weight on Charlie's insights because I think they're more thoughtful and just better. But Charlie is still a "content provider." He's just a content provider that more people on this site happen to like more than Vasel.

What I was actually saying wasn't "People should get paid just because they worked" or something similarly idiotic. What I was saying was that the board game community tends to reject the concept of people getting paid for their work because the community is used to getting shit for free. Charlie would probably have a lot easier time getting gigs and getting paid more for them if there wasn't that predication that people should be doing this for nothing. That predication is easily displayed by the number of people on BGG constantly asking for pdfs of rulebooks and jpegs of cards and every other method they can think of to actually avoid paying a creator for their game. That attitude doesn't change when it comes to getting insights as to whether they'd actually like to own (or ripoff) that game.

Why is Vasel so bombastic and loud and why does he churn through stuff so fast and advertise games that have nothing to do with what he's reviewing? Because he's trying to make a living in a tiny industry where much of the audience expects things for free (except, of course, when it comes to throwing money at Kickstarter.) You can think your output is only worth $3/month, but he obviously thinks more of what he's doing and is apparently succeeding with it, so who's to say what it's actually worth? The disdainful critics in their dark corner, so proud that their opinions are too elevated to be sold, or the guy who's having a grand, old time playing games and making videos to pay the rent? I don't normally watch his stuff, but I don't begrudge him for one second over trying to make it doing what he's doing, whether he calls it "support" or "revenue." Would it be better if people like Charlie got more exposure (and more money) and could outshine or at least shine as brightly as Vasel? Of course. But that would entail more people being willing to pay people for their efforts.

People are indeed willing to pay Vasel for his content. They do. The publishers. What’s the problem?

Are you saying that we, as consumers, in this particular case should pay to read or view? There’s over a century of advertised broadcasting history where consumption is free. Most of the Internet is no-charge consumption. Advertising and promotion is a valid business model.

I don’t have a problem with product placement if it doesn’t look like a sore thumb sticking out, and I have no problem with manufacturers hiring a spokesman for general content and promotion. It’s entertainment, and that’s fine. Vasel is entertaining. He just ain’t exactly neck-deep in the cerebral exercise category.

That said, yes a Review is entertainment too, but there’s a set of rules you need to follow or you have zero credibility or even less than zero credibility. I don’t think Vasel violated them here, but he plays both sides enough that it’s muddy. (I don’t generally agree with his assessments due to a difference in tastes, but that’s another subject.)

For this game in particular his walkthrough was useful for me even with my skipping sections. I don’t have any interest in the cardboard and the app part looks like the part of videogames I dislike. Kind of a six-strikes-you’re-out situation. Throw in his comments on the price and he retired the side for me. Yeah, I watched. But if I had to pay a dollar to see it? Nope. I would have taken y’all’s word for it on what he said. I’m a cheap bastard. Sorry.

Jackwraith wrote:

Space Ghost wrote: Just because someone puts in work doing something doesn’t mean they should be paid for it. Who even asked for it? Not me.

Yeah, except that's not what I said. That's not even close to what I said. It's just piling on because Sag and others have decided that Vasel's content isn't worth their money but certainly seems to be worth their time to insult it, which may reveal to you that is is, in fact, worth something. And I love the part about drawing a line between "content provider" and "reviewer", as if the latter is some enshrined status that's above all that petty entertainment bombast. Got news for you: Every review that's ever been written is entertainment. They're written so that people can be entertained by the insights brought by the person calling themself the reviewer. The only real difference between something that Vasel does and what Charlie does is style. I mean, I put more weight on Charlie's insights because I think they're more thoughtful and just better. But Charlie is still a "content provider." He's just a content provider that more people on this site happen to like more than Vasel.

What I was actually saying wasn't "People should get paid just because they worked" or something similarly idiotic. What I was saying was that the board game community tends to reject the concept of people getting paid for their work because the community is used to getting shit for free. Charlie would probably have a lot easier time getting gigs and getting paid more for them if there wasn't that predication that people should be doing this for nothing. That predication is easily displayed by the number of people on BGG constantly asking for pdfs of rulebooks and jpegs of cards and every other method they can think of to actually avoid paying a creator for their game. That attitude doesn't change when it comes to getting insights as to whether they'd actually like to own (or ripoff) that game.

Why is Vasel so bombastic and loud and why does he churn through stuff so fast and advertise games that have nothing to do with what he's reviewing? Because he's trying to make a living in a tiny industry where much of the audience expects things for free (except, of course, when it comes to throwing money at Kickstarter.) You can think your output is only worth $3/month, but he obviously thinks more of what he's doing and is apparently succeeding with it, so who's to say what it's actually worth? The disdainful critics in their dark corner, so proud that their opinions are too elevated to be sold, or the guy who's having a grand, old time playing games and making videos to pay the rent? I don't normally watch his stuff, but I don't begrudge him for one second over trying to make it doing what he's doing, whether he calls it "support" or "revenue." Would it be better if people like Charlie got more exposure (and more money) and could outshine or at least shine as brightly as Vasel? Of course. But that would entail more people being willing to pay people for their efforts.

No offense meant; no need to be defensive.

I’m pretty firmly in the camp that people will pay for either things they value or things they can’t get otherwise. If people are tired of not being paid for reviews, then they should charge for them. If that doesn’t work, then their product doesn’t provide enough value of what they can get for free. It could be that they’re used to getting things for free (I doubt it), or it could be the product doesn’t warrant being paid for.

That’s because, for the most part, boardgame reviews aren’t really necessary. I don’t usually read reviews for other products that cost less than $100 unless their is a safety component or I need it to last for some amount of time. I just try them.

The fact that Vassel can get paid — good for him. I’m glad. As I’ve said, it won’t be watching his reviews but that’s because I don’t watch video reviews. He might be awesome. The reviewers I like give all I need already. I love the hobby, but my preference is to preserve some of the mystique and discovery for games. After 35 years of playing games it’s pretty easy for me to get an idea of what I’ll like.

Well. Personally I don't want to spend time futzing with 3D terrain constantly. Even worse they made it so you futz with the terrain mid session (when a character checks the sightline add these pieces). Ugh! It's one thing if I can set my kids to building the puzzle ahead of the play session and we all sit down and play. Hell I bought a chessex battlemat and some wet erase markers for D&D so I can have them draw it (and tell the app I have expansions I do not because they are out of print). But to constantly shift things, and even worse re-arrange someone's play area because the map decides it's really long is off putting. The terrain (a huge part of the cost) is a huge negative for me.

The combat looks fun. The worst thing about Descent 2.0 is the damn blue X on the die. Nothing sucks the fun out of a mission like missing three attacks in a row effectively skipping your whole turn. Flipping weapons does not look fun. That will be off putting for my wife.

The town menu seems TERRIBLE. I mean really, truly horrible. It's one thing to walk into the "shop/quartermaster" and see four weapons and four attachments for sale. Here is the price, take it or leave it. Money is only used for buying those items. To create arguments about who gets random upgrades is very off-putting. If we do get this I think I'm just going to give the tablet to a single kid, tell them to make good decisions and force the other kid to go to their room to avoid unnecessary conflict.

The saving grace is I think there is a lot of value repurposing the terrain and mini's for D&D. Hard decision on this one.

mads b. wrote: I was surprised by the lack of analysis in this video. Most of it is just "I like this, I don't like this" with no explanation as to why. Or maybe he could just give us a little more about his experience. His point about not doing app stuff as a group was good and I would have liked some more of that.

Apart from that I'm starting to like what I see. I'm not a big fan of having an app when playing a board game, but on the other hand I can see how the lack of having to understand the mechanisms could be a plus when playig with my kids. I think they would also appreciate the rather cool terrain stuff more than Vasel did.

He ain’t got no time for analysis, he’s gotta keep churning out fresh content.

Tom gets donations from gamers, he gets money from companies, he was running cons, he does consulting, he was selling (not sure if he still does) DT labels to put on games.

I am not the type of person that can succeed in that kind of hustle, so good for him for figuring it out.

That doesn’t change my opinion on how trustworthy reviews are from people who are paid by the manufacturers.