Ok, this deserves a blog post all its own...
So, I and many others read this review of Maze of the Blue Medusa right over here. There's been a lot of feedback, as well as, quite a bit of push-back from the OSR.
Now, if the reviewer was railing against commonly accepted OSR staples, I would wholeheartedly agree with their rebuttal. However, I got the sense that the reviewer is himself an OSR gamer and was judging MotBM on its own self-proclaimed old school merits... and found it lacking.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see the reviewer advocating for adventure paths. He simply wants a megadungeon to have some logical cohesion along with something going on that relates to the PCs. You know, an adventure! That's not some newfangled modern 4th edition story-game nonsense. On the contrary, it's the foundational bread and butter of RPG scenarios: there's something going on that draws the PCs in and makes some kind of sense as they involve themselves.
I don't know if this is quite right, not having read MotBM (though this is probably the 13th review I've read over the last year), but from the reviewer's perspective, it seems like a deconstructed megadungeon. All the parts are there, but it tricks you into thinking it's fully assembled.
Just because an adventure (any adventure) says, "You can do what you want with it - make it your own!" that doesn't mean it's useful, what the customer wants, or is worth paying for. Now, I think MotBM is worth buying and I intend on purchasing the 2nd edition yonder. But my acquisition is not why the ordinary gamer wants it.
I'm looking for inspiration, what worked, what didn't work, why it captured the 2017 imagination as hard as it did. Why? So I can surpass it, of course. Hoping to publish my own megadungeon in 2019!
Anyways, when it comes down to it a gaming product should be gameable - especially when it's expensive, talked up to the nth degree, and was a work-in-progress by two accomplished gaming authors for 4 friggin' years (trying to verify that, but not finding a source - will keep trying)!
If the reviewer, and he's not alone - I've seen lots of feedback over the last 12 months - thinks it stops short of providing satisfactory gameable content, that's a flaw. Thankfully, I don't believe MotBM's flaw is shared by the OSR. If anything, MotBM strayed too far away from old school principles - and that's what bit it in the ass.
But I'd love to read your thoughts, will gladly engage in discussion and hope to have my beliefs either verified or reduced to ash after I've read the damn thing (probably end of August).
p.s. Ever since I realized my interview with Patrick Stuart pictured not Patrick Stuart, I've felt a little bit bad about it (but not so bad that I actually did anything). So, here he is pictured! Also, here's a link to that post-MotBM interview. For completion's sake, here's my post-MotBM interview with Zak S.