Tom Vasel calls out "Joyless, analytical" gamers

JonJacob wrote:

As evidenced by his proud display of the "fun murderer" award he is probably reading this as a guest and enjoying every moment. Happy as a pig in shit to be discussed at length in here. I'd give up on giving him satisfaction, he should be ignored.

I do like Vassel though. His reviews are occasionally handy and his taste is predictable because you can read so many of his reviews that you can get a good idea of what he likes. That is great for a reviewer.

Yep. One thing I liked about this review in particular compared to a LOT of game reviews I see is that this one didn't have a lengthy "here's how you play" section. That's what the rulebook is for. I want a review to talk about how fun a game is, how long a game takes, and a metric against similar games in the marketplace. That's why ths review was so handy: here's three games that are similar, I played them all, here's why I prefer this one to that. Too many "reviews" are overviews of how to play.

I very much enjoy the "How to play" sections of videos. And it's pretty much the only reason, imo, to watch a review rather then read one.

A video is the most helpful way to get a sense of how the game plays, which is very important in my purchasing decision.

Rulebooks can be not available, or badly written or simply not any good at showing how the game plays (which is really the same as badly written).

I don't know how many people do this but when Tom or Scott or someone with a BGG account does a review I check out their profile/rating history to see what that game along with others are rated. I might see a review that seems positive and then find out the guy rated it a 6, not that good in my books. I kind of want everthing in a review... some rules, some opinion, some feel... I like long reviews where I can skip sections if I want. Ultimately I think that research is the best and the internet is awesome for that. Back in the eighties when I wanted to buy a game it was really hard to find out anything... now I read reviews 6 months before the fucking thing is even available. I am in the debt of all the suckers who do loads of reviews because I could never do the leg work myself... I just reap the benefits.

Clearclaw is a fucking crackpot, but I don't have a problem with that. He has a unique worldview which I find interesting, even if I disagree. Variety is the spice of life.
So more power to him.
A bigger problem is the clearclaw hangeroners, the tools that try and act like him but don't have the brains to pull it off, and their attempts at 'oddities' just come across as fucking dumb.

I like Vasel. He seems to have a great love for games in general and is articulate in his reviews. As someone else said, he'll be a lot more polite than say Barnes or Drake if he doesn't like something, but you can read between the lines to know what he means (it sucks). I also like Scott Nicholson's reviews a lot, and he also has a good variety in game interest, though he seems to lean more Euro than Vasel.

I've never played any type of train-related board game. They seem really dry to me observing from a distance, but I'll have to give one a try at some point.

I like a video review to have at least some "how to play" element to it. It doesn't have to be a detailed tutorial, but it's definitely easier to grasp what a game is like and learn how to play it from someone explaining it to you while you're looking at the actual board and pieces and all that...

dave wrote:

shryke wrote:

It swaps ease of use, quickness of use and lack of "WTF are you doing?" for an unneeded amount of mathematical precision.

Now you're just being ignorant. My group has been using this method forever. Nothing is easier or quicker (well, except for blurting out "I go first!"). It takes five seconds. Now, when I go to cons, I don't expect anyone to use it, and I sit there patiently waiting for that fuckin' finger to stop spinning, or watching the rerolling of diceoff ties, and I wouldn't bother explaning it if Grandma comes over. But it is very practical to use.

Even faster is to draw a card. I keep a partial deck of cards with my games, just the spades suit. Ace is high, and whoever draws the highest ranked card goes first. For games where seating order can matter, it also easily determines that seating order at the same time. Also, some games have a rule for who goes first: game owner, oldest, youngest... Betrayal at House on the Hill had a particularly good one: which character birthday is coming up next. Yes, they put the birthday of each character on the character pentagram/wheel/thing.

Not Sure wrote:

shryke wrote:

kookoobah wrote:

shryke wrote:

Reading Clearclaw's user page is the most fun you'll have this week. I swear.

It's like the antithesis of fun, distilled into a few paragraphs.

Clearclaw is where fun goes to die.

I did this. It was awesome. I especially liked how he chose start player. It was mind boggling.

That's the kicker.

I can have no respect for a man that anal.

There's nothing wrong with his start player method. Like everything about that guy, it's totally consistent, and would work well if you're accustomed to it. What puts Clearclaw above the top into total game-psycho is that he insists everyone else use it. Because it's clearly optimal, you see. Even if you don't understand WTF is going on.

Eh, what?

*clicks link*
*read read...read*

OH GOOD FUCKING GOD!!! What did I just read? Did I just summon Hastur?!

Mr Skeletor wrote:

A bigger problem is the clearclaw hangeroners, the tools that try and act like him but don't have the brains to pull it off, and their attempts at 'oddities' just come across as fucking dumb.

I find it funny that he is on 300+ GeekBuddy Lists, but he himself has 0 GeekBuddies.

I'm with Shellhead -- just draw a fucking card -- that handles up to 52 players. It'll be a cold day in hell before I choose player order with modulo -- I might even just leave the game if that was suggested.

jeb wrote:

shryke wrote:

Oh, there's definitely something wrong with his Start Player Method. In fact, it's the same thing that's wrong with EVERYTHING about that guy and people like him.

It swaps ease of use, quickness of use and lack of "WTF are you doing?" for an unneeded amount of mathematical precision.

Or, more simply, it's overly anal-retentive.

This is pretty deep actually. In physics, the Newtonian ("classical") understanding of momentum is flawed (p = mv). The General Theory of Relativity is more accurate, as is the quantum mechanical understanding of momentum defined in the appropriate Hamiltonian.

...That doesn't mean you use them when trying to figure out how much momentum a Hummer has at 45 mph.

Jeb, that just makes me want to give you a cock-punch.

This was a great review. I enjoy many of Tom's reviews because I know he likes AT games, doesn't appreciate pasted on themes, and I've seen enough of his reviews to understand when he's being 'polite' and when he really likes or dislikes a game.

Dr_Mabuse wrote:

Jeb, that just makes me want to give you a cock-punch.

What's the velocity on that punch?

I like Tom's taste in games, and I love watching his reviews, especially the yearly top 100 countdown. Duel of the Ages at the top just amazes me though, I haven't played the game but it looks awful.

dysjunct wrote:

Dr_Mabuse wrote:

Jeb, that just makes me want to give you a cock-punch.

What's the velocity on that punch?

Well that depends on if we are using Newtonian or Einsteinen physics :pushes glasses up:

anyone want to engage in an intimate muscular struggle with me?