Here you go. Straight from Amazon. Enjoy.
First off, there are several reviews of Descent 2nd Edition that are based entirely on the game itself. The purpose of this review is for players, like me, who love Descent 1 and were hoping for more of the same with Descent 2.
So that didn't copy well-here's the linik; http://www.amazon.com/Descent-Journeys-Second-Edition-Board/product-reviews/1616611898/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_3?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addThreeStar&showViewpoints=0
1. I see now you're resorting to ad hominem fallacies.
3. Also interesting that you link to a 3 star amazon review and based on those numbers 12 people gave it 5 stars, 2 people 4 stars, and only 2 people 3 stars and you chose the most negative review. If this game was as bad as you say it is then where are the 1 and 2 stars? Why do people overwhelmingly rate it 4 or 5? Would you bet money that more people think that 1st edition is better than 2nd edition? I don't think you can argue that much more people like 2nd edition better than 1st.
6. I hope you realize your main argument (that people haven't tried 1st edition enough to argue that it is worse tan 2nd) is one that can be used against you. Post after post you make it fairly evident that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to 2nd edition. It sounds like you and your friends played the intro quest and one scenario after that and quit the game. I'll throw it right back and say that according to your own argument that you have no authority in stating 1st is better than 2nd.
9. In 2nd edition you gain skills and get to choose which skills you want. Further you get to choose what kind of class you want to be under each archetype instead of being dealt random crap.
10. How does a game having 47 treasure cards as opposed to 20 make it more tactical if with the 47 treasure cards you are dealt them randomly and with the 20 you have to manage your gold and choose what gear upgrades you want to buy? The 20, given the decisions, sounds much more tactical to me.
12. Its really funny that you keep hammering on the one quest in descent 2nd edition that was designed to help new players learn the game which most players will skip and is really of no consequence to your favorite 4 level dungeon quest in descent 1st edition. If this was an argument about star wars this is the equivalent of you saying that the light side is better than the dark side because the light side has jedis and yoda whereas the dark side has a stormtrooper. This is what happens when you compare the best part of something to the worst part of something - yet another fallacy.
1. Me making an analogy to eating shit has nothing to do with an ad hominem attack. Obviously you are reading what I write to be an angry preteen because it upsets you because you are wrong in more ways than one. Using paragraphs with numbers on them does not make me king of the debate team yes and I never argued that - I merely was stating that your failure to make use of paragraphs makes your flawed arguments even that much harder to read. If you're trying not to sound like a preteen making use of paragraphs is your first step.
2. The difference being your constantly imposing your opinion as a proven fact from the very beginning. You even argued that your play group didn't like 2nd edition better than the 1st and offered that as factual proof of your opinion. You can't have your cake and eat it to buddy. Either opinions matter or they don't. You can't say opinions matter for your point and not mine. Further, the fact that no one in this 6 page long thread has agreed with you even once makes it more likely to be true (much more) that you are wrong. The fact that you did or did not ask for them to agree with you is irrelevant - in fact I'm sensing a pattern in your arguments where you make more and more irrelevant points.
3. It may clearly state the side of the argument you're on but you posted this link trying to prove to us that 2nd edition is better than 1st. Just because you posted the link to the argument does not (1) make the argument more sound (which I don't believe it to be in the first place), and (2) change the fact that the number of reviews that state 2nd edition as a vast improvement over 1st edition greatly outnumber the alternative.
4. Part of the decisionmaking process in human beings is weighing all of the available knowledge they are presented. Often times this is in written or verbal form expressed by others based on their experiences and their own knowledge. My decision is based on numerous accounts both in person and online - no one made the decision for me - there is a big difference. From all of my research done on 1st edition and its mechanics compared to 2nd edition and its mechanics I've come to the conclusion that 2nd edition is definitely much more tactical and a vastly superior game overall. By your definition, no one can have any opinion on anything unless they experienced it first hand - I will again point to my analogy of theoretically eating shit - there are many things in life you don't need to experience first hand to have an opinion on it - in fact it makes it no less valid.
5. Again now I am questioning your reading comprehension ability. I clearly pointed out that merely having more cards does not mean more choices because in 1st edition NONE OF THEM ARE CHOICES. Random cards from a stack of more cards = no choices. Less cards but being able to choose from those cards = choices.
6. This is another problem. Where you see game-breaking problems - no one else really sees it. This I'm guessing is 90% due to your quitting after 2 scenarios (1 of which is meant to teach the game). Honestly if this game put its act 1 shop items in the search deck and were re-rendered and renamed to be cool sounding/looking magic items this problem would seemingly disappear for you. Which is why your argument makes little sense in that you are blowing this way out of proportion for something basically merely aesthetic.
7. So basically you affirmed everything I stated. The treasure and skills are all basically acquired randomly. Further, you state here that the treasures don't decide the game but now I am confused because you stated on multiple occasions throughout this thread that it is basically impossible for heroes to win in 1st edition without getting treasure. That to me is treasure deciding the game. Outgear and undergear are not words I made up - it is not nonsense and deals exactly with a seemingly huge problem with your argument. If it is impossible for heroes to win without treasure and they need treasure to win - the tactics boils down to getting the treasure or simply the right treasure. If you don't get the right treasure you lose. If you get the right treasure you win. The tactics behind those two options are non existant.
10. In 1st edition you've stated that the majority of your gear will be acquired randomly through drawing cards through searching treasures. In 2nd edition most if not all of your gear will be awarded based on quests you choose and whether you win said quests or through saving gold and purchasing them with a equivalent random element of limiting your choices to number of heroes +1.
12. Regardless of whether or not the quest is your favorite - it speaks volumes that the 1st edition scenario you described is the simplest one in 1st edition. One of the most important aspects of a great game is that it is easy to learn but difficult to master. If the scenario you described is the intro equivalent of 1st edition it sounds like a terrible game to teach and a terrible game in general. Ad hominem attacks again - really these are only hurting your argument.
13. See #10.
14. I fail to see what debate club has to do with using proper english. If you don't think making use of paragraphs is good to use in communicating your thoughts then you're obviously not very bright. I never once said that you had to use numbered paragraphs. I used numbered paragraphs because I assume you have difficulty grasping basic concepts. Also I am not really that young I am probably older than you are seeing as how immature you are.
While I really can't be bothered reading through all these mammoth posts (though I have read some of them), and don't really want to get involved in a 'my opinion is superior to yours' argument, my and my groups feeling is this:
Road to Legend is VASTLY superior to Descent 2s campaign.
The overland map is largely pointless in D2, it's just a mechanic to decide how many cards to draw and what effects take place 'en route' (though it NEVER feels like travelling to me). This means less choices for the heroes to make.
The progression in class powers is kinda cool, but I desperately miss the universal skills. I think there needs to be a universal abilities deck that gets added to allow characters to diversify. Otherwise, as someone else said elsewhere, all characters start the same, and by large progress and end the same. That's dull. It's also slightly linked with the first point too - tere was a lot of planning in RtL with 'I want that skill, it's learnt there, let's travel there'. With no usable overland map, that's rendered moot. Sadly.
I also agree with the original poster about the treasure deck. I for one DO miss it. When the search counter preview came out, I remember someone stating 'what would a dungeon bash be without treasure chests'. Turns out, not one I find especially interesting.
I also REALLY feel the overlord gets the short straw in terms of campaign progression. He was inundated with choices as to how to progress in first ed, in second add it's add another card. I've said it before and I'll say it again, that is DULL.
It's a real shame. I REALLY want to love D2, and I think when it first came out, I was initially wowed. D1 had issues, sure, rules bloat and inconsistancies (and not ot mention some things that flat out did not work), but in my opinion, it made for a vastly more interesting dungeon bash game. Which I think is the point - D2 is no longer a dungeon bash game. They are as different to me as Halo was to Halo Wars. It's just a pity D2 rendered D1 defunct and no longer supported…
Just my opinion. As badly as this thread may have gone, I do find myself agreeing at least in part with some of the things brought up (as well as much of that Amazon review)
Is it just me, or did someone break the thread formatting?
Natty doesn't seem to be interested in a discussion or a debate. He's upset about the decisions FFG made for the Descent product line and he's here to vent. I don't know if he has already written to FFG or posted in the D1E forums … maybe there's more of an audience here.
Troll or Ogre, he has some valid points, just doesn't express them very congenially. I would agree that D1E sounds like a better dungeon crawl (and time sink) than D2E. I haven't played it, but I have played other games in the genre. FFG made a decision to take a different tack with the 2nd edition, probably based on customer feedback (or just the designer's whim). That decision is popular with some people -- either those who provided the feedback or are new to the game -- and unpopular with those who were happy with the original & would have just preferred continued support. No point debating with a zealot.
Once D2E has a few expansions, maybe opinions will change, and eventually when D3E comes out maybe we can all be unhappy together.
I'd hardly call two 3 star reviews on Amazon from disgruntled 1E fans "reviews from all over the internet" . Ty again.
Harry: "Voldemort has no nose."
Ron: "How does he smell?"
Nathrotep, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
At least Triu and Sausageman know how to express themselves and make valid arguments. I understand the comparison the road to legend which I have read about and heard from my friends before. I've also read about that online and in video reviews as well so I understand that comparison quite well. Sausageman makes actually a very good point. I am wasting my time here with Nathrotep because it's the equivalent to debating what salt tastes like to a slug.
Anyway I had fun making you look foolish long enough. I really despise people who resort to ad hominem attacks as their only means of arguing a point. However, it does tell me one thing. You have no argument so you are wrong. Nothing you argue is relevant to any of your points or logically consistent.
You say that I have a blind hatred for something I can never hope to understand merely because I've formed an opinion (which I've clearly and logically argued throughout this thread without a single sound counterargument from you) about something I've read, researched, talked about, etc. So in your world people cannot have opinions about something they do not experience first hand. I guess everyone in your world has eaten shit in order to have an opinion on that. I don't want to be a part of your shit-eating world.
Your analogy to color contains a rather large assumption that everyone who experiences something 2nd hand through descrpitions, etc have some sort of absolute sensory deprivation which makes comprehending the 2nd hand experience impossible. It's really laughable that you think that's a proper analogy to your point and actually confirms my belief of your inability to grasp basic concepts.
Again I don't know what problem you have with using paragraphs or why you think I can only understand things if they're laid out in numbered paragraphs… I understood your page long block of text just fine even though it would have been much easier to read had it been broken up properly. Again I pointed out that the numbers were to your benefit because you clearly have trouble organizing and expressing your own thoughts let alone understand such complex things as basic logic.
Silly nathrotep calling other people kids and saying they can't understand certain things when you yourself has the mindset of a 6-yearold who goes "My dad is greater than your dad!" and then stuffs his fingers in his own ears screaming "Nanananana, I can't hear you! lalalalala" from the top of his lungs just shows how stupid and immature you really are. And just proves my first post true that you are just trolling.
Funny thing you said aswell, being that you almos always played the OL. You must have really sucked ass as the OL if your friends ever won a single game of Descent. Since Descent is borderline broken in every aspect of the game. You must and really MUST use houserules to even make the game playable for the heroes to even stand a small chance of winning. I myself own every Descent game leading up to road to legends(most broken shit ever btw).
So what it boils down to in a regular game of descent is either 1. You steam roll the heroes so fucking hard that they will never ever play with you anymore seeing as you win 100% of the time, or 2. You hold back the entire quest and let them get the upper hand. And let me tell you, if those heroes ever get's ahold of those super broken powerful silver and gold items you might just aswell throw in the towel as the OL. Nothing can stop these heroes anymore, what you might hope for is to temporarly slow down your imminent doom by destroying some of their equipment.
So either you steamroll the player or you play like shit on purpose and lose as the OL. There is no middle ground here. And let's not even talk about those retarded quests you have to go through. Oh let me think of a good example, oh yes! The well of darkness expansion Quest 6: A hot time. Oh my god, makes me laugh every god damn time I see this completely broken untested quest. Just the size of it (41x38) makes you wanna vomit. Good luck getting through that quest before the OL reshuffles his deck for the 10th time. Let alone being able to play it anywhere else but on the floor unless you have some super size table to play on.
And my god does the game take forever to play! Just rolling the fucking dice and counting it up or choosing how you will spend your surges makes you wanna pull your hair out in frustration. So if you ever feel like playing Descent 1 Edition with a couple of buddies remember to bring that book you always wanted to read. Because you will be sitting doing absolutly nothing most of the game while your fellow players take their turns.
The formatting on this thread is completely borked. I had to resort to pasting each post into word so I could even read it…. Own up, who did it? :)
I'm pretty sure this thread is at an empasse to be honest. There are those that felt D1 was horrible, and D2 is amazing, and those that feel the exact opposite (and a few that fall somewhere in the middle it seems).
I do wonder how many of those are comparing campaign to campaign game, and how many are comparing stand-alone quest to stand alone quest. There is a pretty significant difference between the two. As the post above states, stand-alone D1 quests took HOURS (quite literally). Howevre, I truly believe RtL fixed this issue completely (sure, it might have added more). D2 on the other hand works fine for a stand-alone, but personally, I feel the campaign side of it has severely suffered as a consequence.
I can't wait to see D2 in 4 or 5 expansions time though, let me tell you.
Oh, and if there are any mods out there, can you try to sort the formatting please :)
Please open a new thread.
This one is wrecked, as the display
One must do a copy-paste
in a text editor to read the posts.
You prefer D1.
We knew it.
Your comparison is
you cannot say that
D1 is a better game
as if it were an objective
And comparing one
quest with one quest
is all but a serious
“It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him.”
J. R. R. Tolkien