Addressing the Critics

You probably already know about how Sentinels of the Multiverse was panned by "Shut Up & Sit Down". It's easy to respond to criticism of games you love by shifting into "apologist" mode, defending the experience, the art, the intention, whatever.

But how can we approach criticsm with a clear head?

>G hasn't made any direct statements in defense of SotM (as far as I know) and, more importantly, no tabletop game is perfect. The SU&SD lads raise two major criticisms of the game, as I understand it:

1. The lack of a simple, central, game mechanic
2. The lack of synergy between powers, characters, and ultimately the players.

Perhaps there is some validity to these objections.

• Do you experience these problems in your game?
• If so, how do you address them? 
• Does SotM have a simple, central mechanic that SU&SD failed to identify?
• Do you have experiences of fantastic teamwork between players?
• Do you use any house rules to address these or other concerns?

I'm really interested to know! I hope this generates some discussion.

I guess I'm not sure what would be a "simple, central, game mechanic" if "play a card, use a power, draw card" isn't one, nor is "damage reduces HP until the card is defeated." I mean, what are they looking for here exactly?

I'm also not entirely sure what they mean by "lack of synergy." There's lot of synergy in SotM, though a lot of it is fairly straightforward: Legacy makes everyone hit harder; Team Leader Tachyon lets everyone draw more cards and thus do more things; Ardent Adept lets Unity become even more of a terror by letting her get out more golems; Visionary plays Twist the Ether on Absolute Zero and wackiness ensues. Again, what's an example of co-operative game that has a lot of synergy between powers, characters, and players?

Agreed. I'm assuming that those complaints are a result of lack of understanding of the game. The simple mechanic and finding ways for the heroes to play off each other are two of the highlights of the game for me.

In all honesty I'm impressed that you managed to pull those criticisms out of the video.  I personally thought they didn't address the aspects of the game that a lot of people actually criticize (swingy games dependant on character/villain/environment selection, some characters being "weaker" than others, certain villains consistently being difficult to the point of being unenjoyable or easy to the point of tedium) and a lot of their criticisms seemed to be:

"Sentinels is a terrible game!  There isn't even a board to play on or dice to roll!  They don't even have little character markers!  How can you possibly have a game that doesn't have character markers!?  Or a board with dice!?  There's no central game mechanic, like defeating the villain by reducing its HP to zero or play/power/draw for the players!  What madness!  I know!  Let's play dress-up and laugh about how silly the characters are!  That will be the most accurate, legitimate, and insightful review ever!"

There are valid objections to Sentinels.  They just didn't really address many that I have seen others voice or that I've experienced firsthand.

To answer your questions, though.
 

• Not personally, no
• I would address their concerns with further questioning.  What is their defintion of a "simple, central, game mechanic"?  In what ways do they feel the characters' interactions with one another are lacking?  I need more information to address their concerns, which I find somewhat disappointing that their comments were poorly conveyed and primarily composed of ad hominem arguments ("There isn't really a game here." What does that mean?  "Ra just throws Fire damage?  Fire?  What's up with that?" I don't know...what does fire damage do in this game? "Lady-arangs." Ah.  That was a joke, I guess. "You have to read all of the cards!  It's so difficult!" What is the difficulty?  Why is this a problem to your gaming aesthetic and what would you prefer be done?)
• Cooperate with your teammates through playing cards and using powers to defeat the villain by reducing its HP to zero or otherwise defeating it.
• In my experience?  Yes.  However, it's quite easy for players to not communicate, or not consult other players about their battle plan, hide information from the team for a bit of flair or an odd flare of competitiveness in a cooperative game.  This game isn't objectively the best game ever in mechanics or theme (though it is my favorite), but to say it lacks teamwork without giving me any examples or demonstrations for how it breaks down?  That isn't a review.  That's a few guys playing dress up and making fun of something.  Which is fine.  Just don't call it a review and don't pass yourself off as a show worth Penny Arcade's time.
• My group actually attempts to play the game as intended, so we often explore the rules forum to make sure we're doing just that.  There have been some instances of rules clarifications that have bummed us out a bit (damage being required to keep certain cards in play such as Solar Flare, Pushing the Limits, Chastice, etc.) but as soon as we understand we have not been playing a rule as intended we make sure we play it as the creators intended.

Forgive me if I seem heated.  I have a literature degree and really get frustrated when I see bad criticism.  I'm not saying their criticism of the game was bad because I love the game and they're stupid.  I'm saying that their review was full of empty jokes and dress up, poor conveyance of what their criticisms were, and a lack of exploration of the game's mechanics/theme/story.  I've seen these guys do better work.  I know they have it in them.  This review was laughable.

Frankly, I think the popularity of the game speaks for itself. No need to overly defend it at this point in its life cycle.

For all of the issues it has, what it does well it does exceedingly well. The strength of Sentinels isn't in its gameplay (though its certainly no weakness). The strength lays in its immersive narative. The way they have translated comic book style story telling into a vastly different medium and still manage to convey that narrative to those who play is unlike any tabletop game I have encountered. Storytelling is a core and essential part of what makes us human. When done well it has the ability to strike some powerful chords with folks. It's been doing a lot of that lately.

I was honestly more embarassed by SU & SD.  I thought a lot of their reviews in the past really got across why certain games were interesting or worth one's time, and they clearly discussed what they didn't like and why.  I wasn't worried that Sentinels was going to be compromised as much as I was frustrated that they missed the mark so terribly on properly analyzing this game.  Sentinels should have a bad review or two.  It isn't for everyone.  But don't have the bad review be a bad review, y'know?

Yeah, it was a pithy review aimed at the cheap laugh when it came out, which was months ago.  Not sure why it's coming up again now.  I was most disappointed not because SUSD panned a game I happen to love, but because they actually are capable of realy good reviews and insightful commentary.  That video was none of that

This review sucked. 

The central idea is clear - play stuff that makes you more powerful; play it well so you can be doubly powerful; balance damage, survival, and villain hindrance in ways that suit the variety of situations; work with friends for te harder villains especially... these things are true for every game of sentinels and this constitute a 'central idea'. Walk up to Matriarch with the attitude of just dealing damage as these dudes describe. see how that works out. 

Reckless had better criticisms. This game isn't perfect, but it isn't what these guys said it was.

I didn't recognise the game I know and love from their review - it was like they were playing a completely different game. No synergy? No central game mechanic? You just hit things until they die and there's nothing else? Hmm. That doesn't sound familiar to me, and I can gaurantee that I've played hundreds more games of SotM than those guys.

I could understand if they'd made valid criticisms like Reckless said. What they said is basically untrue, which is somewhat unfair, and I wouldn't want someone who may potentially love it to be put off by seeing that. 

But honestly? I don't care if people don't like SotM. I like it, people I care about like it, there are enough people perfectly willing to play the game with me ~25 times a week on G+ if I want. I don't feel any real need to defend it to people who make real criticisms - one of my friends doesn't care for SotM because it just isn't her kind of thing, and that's fine. Another friend hates Dominion because it's "too random" despite liking Quarriors which is basically Dominion with extra randomness, so I don't accept that as a fair criticism. Whatever. 

Quite frankly, I don't address criticism anymore. I don't care if someone I don't know likes or dislikes one of my favourite games. All that matters is that my friends continue to play with me.

Yup. And we have a forum full of similarly-minded people to geek out with, so it's all good. :)

Yay geeking out!!!

This community is so awesome.

and I totally need to start playing with other people online so I can get even more games in…

Hikari come to G+ some time. We have a blast and like Silverleaf said we play tons of games

Yeah Community! The most perfect game in my opinion is Go. The main problem with it is you can so blast a space dreadnaught out of the sky with your music.

For that, you need Sentinels.

There are valid criticisms of the game, but none of them are so bad that I don't want to play it at least weekly.

Meh.

I try not to enagage someone about their opinion of the game, my perception is not your perception and I've not had your experience with the game, but I do try to correct any factual errors or rules corrections. If significant enough problems were made during their game I encourage them to try it again, I know of one group who played a villain/environment card before/after every hero turn and couldn't see why anyone would played this horribly balanced game, thanks to others pointing out their error they tried again and did enjoy it, even if it's not their favourite game of all time.

P.S. If you're around HS there's a G+ game in about 30 minutes!

I have friends that say similar things to what the review said.

The real problems they have with the game is they don't ever get to screw anyone over, or claim dominance of the game.

Because of that they never pay enough attention to really get the game, understand the nuances, and always try to give "objective criticism" of the game that ends up sounding dumb.

SU&SD do great with competetive games, I haven't seen them do any other co-op only games so I wonder if that was how they started off wrong.

Also they didn't have the best synergy in their team.  Ra, Redeemer Fanatic, Expat and Nightmist.

They do make one very good point, and that is the point of playing Sentinels.

What do you get if you win?  What do you get if you lose?  Really the result of the game isn't a big deal.

The point of the game however, is not that there are tons of heroes, the point is the theme.  You don't play Sentinels to beat a villain, you play it because being a hero and doing cool stuff with your friends is fun.  The point of the game is just having a damn good time being a hero on a team.  The beauty of Sentinels is there is nothing in the game that ruins that feeling.  Yes the rules are on the cards, but they are your cards, your hero's cards.  Every hero has their own rules, and those rules often let you have some great "But wait, I have this card that let's me ____" moments.

When I demo'd the game at Pax people really got into the setting, fighting to get to Baron Blade's volcanic island base, giving little care to our own survival as we desperately tried to save the Earth.

Saving the Earth was awesome, but the flip, the second half almost didn't matter.  You can die on Baron's flip side and the story still rocks.  15 cards in the trash is the worst loss in the game, because it is the worst ending to any of the stories in Sentinels.  In fact I think the group that had the best time was the one that had 12 cards in the trash and ended up with 3 incaps when they pulled it out.  They really loved the game, largely because the story was awesome, Baron felt ridiculously powerful, and we barely pulled it off.  Those fights are the most memorable, because the loss becomes more real, you start to feel the cost of failure.  Those are the moments when you fall in love with Sentinels.  That is why you play the game.

At least that is my experience. 

I was really surprised by the review as well.  I'll mostly just agree with what has been said about "Play, Power, Draw" being as simple a base mechanic as it gets.  As far as synergy goes, what heros did they try because this forum is discussing interesting synergy on a regular basis.  

One thing that really threw in the review was how they complained about having to read so much card text.  I was like "have they never played a ccg or lcg?  Have they never played Dominion or any of the deck building games?  Have they never played any modern card based game (not based on the standard poker deck)?"  I mean reading and resolving a card as its played should be easy and common practice by now surely.  If they had said the cards were poorly worded ok, maybe they have an argument, but from what I remember it was more like "reading so much is hard."

Phantaskippy makes a great point.  Perhaps they don't like co-op games.  Personally I much prefer co-op games because I hate being a dousche to people.  I find games where half the game is screwing over other players very unfun.  Everyone has their own tastes, that is purely an opinion, so maybe they just don't like co-op.

I’ll just leave those there for easy reference, since the following questions rely on them.

I really do not understand what the “simple, central game mechanic” bit is about. Are they complaining that decks are built around different themes? That the game is too varied because of the different combinations of heroes, environments, and villains? I do not see those things as problems.

The stuff about lack of synergy is easier to grasp, but seems to almost deliberately miss the point. It has to be a very odd group of heroes for there to be a lack of synergy between them, and as for a lack of synergy between players…well, sorry, but I am not willing to put blame on a card game for how people playing the game behave.

Nope.

Because I still don’t know what that means, I can’t be sure. Do they think Magic: the Gathering has a simple, central mechanic? If so, then yes, they failed to identify it.

Yup.

Gloomweaver and Ambuscade are total wusses, so I’d at least consider house rules to make them villains I’d have to actually think to defeat.

I teach the game to new people quite often so for me the easy villains are great for that, and provide some relief from the monotony of the default newbie villain Baron Blade.

I wonder if they would like Tactics better since it has a board, dice, and a PVP mechanic?

Yeah, but one of these days I’m going to run Ambuscade against the Argent Adept, Setback, and Tachyon to see if he can even beat them.

Setback would just do his thing and win because he's awesome.

That said, I have lost to Blade more than I would like to admit

Advanced Blade in either Atlantis or Rook City can be brutal. Okay, so yeah, pretty much any villain is brutal in Rook City. Atlantis can accelerate his card plays and trash with both the Throne and the Pillars.

I would argue that Voss' 'ten minions in play' loss is worse, because that presumably ends with Gene-Bound Humans rather than mere smashy death.

As for SU&SD, I think the Sentinels review may have been the first (and last) review of theirs I watched, and I came away with the impression that they were talentless hacks who really didn't understand games. Then I showed it to a friend of mine who doesn't like SotM, just in case I was reflexively defending something I loved, and he agreed that it was a terrible review that completely missed all possible criticisms of the game and why are these guys on Penny Arcade again?

"What do you get if you win?  What do you get if you lose?  Really the result of the game isn't a big deal."

You could say that about Minesweeper, or Solitaire, or Spider Solitaire, or all the variations. But those games continue to be popular.

Yeah. What do you get if you win Carcassonne, or Twilight Struggle, or My Little Pony: Hide and Seek?

You get to have won. That's what games are like, generally. 

You said all that needs to be said. Just wanted to quote it for the truth that it is.

Non co-op games winning is special.  Lose or win in full Co-op it doesn't really matter, because either everyone wins or everyone loses.  In competetive games you are going against someone else whi is trying to win and you are trying to win but only one of you can.

It registers differently when you lose but someone else wins, or when you win at the expense of your friends.

In SotM the only thing that changes is the story.  Without that story you might as well build a puzzle.

I think winning or losing totally does matter in Co-op games. I feel a sense of accomplishment when I beat one of the many villains in Sentinels of the Multiverse, some more so than others because of difficulty and what not.

I can agree that they do register differently, but not in the same way you do. I see one being as a team the end goal was achieved thanks to some excellent teamwork and a dash of luck, yay us! The other being bragging rights because of out-skilling, out-lucking, and possibly some trickery against the other players.

But the main end result to me that's truly important, is that I atleast enjoyed the last 30-60 minutes I spent playing SotM, whether it was a win or loss.

Yeah I learned in the second grade recess that I didn't like beating my friends at things.  It registered differently for sure, it registered as "man, I just made my friend feel bad."  That negative feeling was actually stronger than the positive from winning.  I don't think thats too common but thats how it was for me.

I OFTEN feel similarly with games but it does depend on the game and who I'm playing with.  For instance I know that most of the people in my gaming group are mature enough to not take it poorly when they loose so then I don't feel bad if I win.  Though like wise by now I don't really feel good if I win either, its really more about the enjoyment of playing the game.  You know, all about the journey rather than the destination and all that.

I agree with you when criticism is defined as " the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes."  There isn't much good in that.  However, I'm quite in favor of " the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work" (both definitions obtained from Google).  It's because of criticism such as this that I was exposed to Sentinels of the Multiverse.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/features/9238-2011-Holiday-Buyers-Guide.4

It's only a paragraph, but it told me all I needed to hear to put it on my Christmas wish list.  Cooperative super hero card game with tons of replay value and varied tactics across ten heroes, four villains, and four environments.  Those things sounded fun to me.  If it was just "This is a game!  I like it!  Ask for it for Christmas," then I probably wouldn't be on these forums today talking about my favorite game.   I like positive criticism as much as the next guy, but there is value in negative criticism, as we're not all wired the same.  A co-op super hero experience may sound like a complete nightmare for a lot of players, but we all already know this game is a dream come true for a lot of gamers all around.

I'm all for criticism that provides impressive conveyance, clear description, and informed interpretation.  If I saw SU & SD's review first I'd hope that I would do a bit more research on Sentinels before forgetting about it due to their vague analysis.  But if I saw it on a bad day?  Man…I don't wanna know what that part of the multiverse looks like…

EDIT: @Sefirit:  I totally understand being disappointed with a win against your friends.  I hated winning when it bummed out my friends, and I was bummed out when I lost.  It was a huge drag.  Sentinels was the perfect game to scratch that itch I didn't even knew I had.

This is my point.  You enjoy playing the game.  A lot of people play games for the competition, the risk of losing and winning and the emotions that evokes.

If you have fun when you lose, and have fun when you win you greatly reduce the difference in outcomes.

For players that go for that rush Sentinels is going to be unfulfilling.

I think the problem with the SU&SD review is that they don't realize that they have that bias.  The realy cool parts of the game fail to be really cool to them, because they cannot give them the fix that a "good game" can give.  Therefore every aspect of the game is seen through the lense that the game failed on the most basic level, it failed to live up to the entire reason they play games.

Those of us who would rather enjoy the story, the theme, and spending time with cool people trying to pull off cool stuff where no one is required to lose find Sentinels to be awesome.  That is exactly what it offers, and it delivers in a big way.

This kind of conveyance is fantastic.  It expresses the strengths of this game for gamers that appreciate the co-op experience while acknowledging players that thrive on competition and a physical "winner" and "loser" without lionizing or demonizing either party.

Drop the mic, phantaskippy…you just criticized SotM like a boss.

THIS

One of the odder things in a current game concerning that topic is Marvel Legendary DB. If the hero or villain deck win out, it's consider a draw.

A draw against… who? It's (mostly) a co-op against the game. Who are you drawing with?

Legendary is not a draw, it's a loss for the players and a win for the evil mastermind you were facing (i.e. the game)

EDIT: No, you're right, it is a draw if the decks run out, it's only a win for evil if they complete their scheme, another rule I have been playing wrong!