Review of Heroes of Neverwinter (Facebook App) by Atari

[Hussar]

This review is like someone saying "So here's my review for this car: it said Porsche on the tail but it was actually a Ford, so 1.5/5.0," completely ignoring the question of how good of a car is this car?

Y'know what? If someone put a Porche tag on a Ford and tried to call it a Porche, giving it a 1.5/5 is, in my mind anyway, PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.

But, y'know what woud be even more useful than sitting around bitching about this review? Writing your own and submitting it to Morrus to put on the main news page. It's not exactly that hard.

 

[Dannager]

Y'know what? If someone put a Porche tag on a Ford and tried to call it a Porche, giving it a 1.5/5 is, in my mind anyway, PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.

And that's fine, because you're just some internet guy. You can submit your user review, and it'll get lumped in with all the other equally arbitrary user reviews, and it will end up having a relatively tiny impact on a relatively useless metric.

But Neuromancer is offering the official EN World review of this game, and I (and many others who have also voiced their opinions here) believe that demands a higher standard - something that at least resembles professionalism.

This game clearly deserves better than the equivalent of 3/10. We all know it. I'm sure even you know it.

This review is more like giving it a 3/10 for faithfulness to 4e rules. Now, that's still low, since this is a much more faithful recreation of D&D rules than we've seen in a lot of D&D games. But a review should be based on more than that. Like, y'know, how enjoyable the game is.

But, y'know what woud be even more useful than sitting around bitching about this review? Writing your own and submitting it to Morrus to put on the main news page. It's not exactly that hard.

I don't have the inclination to do this, so I won't.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly Dannager? I have no idea how good or bad this game is. I really don't. Never so much as looked at it so I don't have a horse in this race. It could be the greatest thing since Baldur's Gate for all I know. Don't know, don't care either.

I just find it funny that you'd spend that much time criticizing someone's review of a product and refuse to spend the same amount of time just writing a review that you feel is more "professonal " and submitting it.

IMO, Neurglyph has been perfectly up front and clear about why he doesn't like this game. If you have different criteria, fine, there's a million other reviews out there to read that will fit your criteria. But, on a board devoted to D&D players, tabletop RPG players and people that most certainly do not qualify as casual gamers, basing your review on the mechanics that serve as the inspiration of the new game isn't too far out of line. Again, IMO, YMMV and all that.

 

[Dannager]

Honestly Dannager? I have no idea how good or bad this game is. I really don't. Never so much as looked at it so I don't have a horse in this race. It could be the greatest thing since Baldur's Gate for all I know. Don't know, don't care either.

I just find it funny that you'd spend that much time criticizing someone's review of a product and refuse to spend the same amount of time just writing a review that you feel is more "professonal " and submitting it.

I was sort of hoping that I wouldn't have to explain myself to you (because that's actually kind of silly). I spent half the thread wondering when someone would come along with the brilliant idea of saying, "Oh yeah? If you think it's so bad why don't you do it yourself?"

My many reasons come mainly from two directions.

The first, grounded in logistics. I've played Heroes of Neverwinter. I've probably spent five hours on it. But that's not enough to write a solid review. In order to do the game justice and actually experience its full range of features, I'd have to get a character to level 10, start screwing around with the dungeon builder, and have some of my friends run through my dungeons (which requires that they level their own characters, which they'd have to do anyway because leveling by yourself takes a ton of gold). Because of the energy-replenishment backbone of the game, this would take quite a long time. Even if I'd started leveling my character when Neuroglyph first published his review, I still wouldn't be done right now. There's a reason Neuroglyph didn't mention the dungeon builder - he didn't play long enough to gain access to it. And then, once all of this was done, I'd have to actually write the review. Which brings me to the second set of reasons.

Neuroglyph is the official D&D product reviewer for EN World. I could write a review, but I'm not a professional reviewer. I don't have a lot of review experience. I didn't get my degree in journalism, English, or communications. I'm sure I could write a review, but that would do nothing more than lump me in with the hordes of amateur-hour user reviewers that I see as a sort of pimple on the internet. It would be nice if EN World had some truly good review staff. Most forms of entertainment have people that are looked to when they need to know whether or not something is worth investing in. It's a shame that tabletop RPGs really haven't. Some of us were hoping that this criticism might be an eye-opener for Neuroglyph and compel him to return to his original review and revise it (or, if not, at least change his review style going forward). This doesn't mean that I want to write reviews myself, or that I should have to in order to have a voice here. I have offered suggestions for how parts of the review could be worded in order to highlight the differences between 4e and HoN. But I'm not here to write reviews.

IMO, Neurglyph has been perfectly up front and clear about why he doesn't like this game.

He has.

If I write a review of Dungeons & Dragons, and I say at the start of the review, "Just so you know, I hate tabletop RPGs and everything they stand for because they suck," and proceed to give D&D a 0/10, presumably you'd have no problem with the usefulness of that review. You know. As long as he was up-front about it.

In reality, of course, such a review would be laughable. It's completely useless unless you happen to also hate tabletop RPGs with a passion, in which case you probably don't care about a review of D&D in the first place because you'd have no interest in playing it. But if you're like most people who either enjoy tabletop gaming or have no strong opinions on it one way or another, such a review does nothing for you. And that's what we're saying here. Most of us really don't care that a Facebook game designed for casual play takes some (actually quite minor) liberties with the 4e rules in order to fit the format. We want to know if it's a good game.

If you have different criteria, fine, there's a million other reviews out there to read that will fit your criteria.

Ahh, now you do have that right. But it would be nice if I didn't have to start using another website to find news and reviews of D&D-related stuff. I thought EN World was supposed to be a sort of one-stop-shop for D&D fans.

But, on a board devoted to D&D players, tabletop RPG players and people that most certainly do not qualify as casual gamers, basing your review on the mechanics that serve as the inspiration of the new game isn't too far out of line.

Again, presumably you would give Dungeons & Dragons: Shadow over Mystara an equally abysmal review score. And since I know that's a fantastic game (as do most video game critics who've experienced it), it's tough for me to take what you say on the subject of game reviewing very seriously.

(Also, this says nothing of those who are defending Neuroglyph's review in this thread who would undoubtedly internet-lynch you for writing a negative review of Shadows over Mystara - I'm sure there are a few. People don't have consistent philosophies on stuff like this. I doubt many are supporting Neuroglyph on principles; most of them probably just don't like Facebook games, or HoN in particular.)

 

[jeffh]

This game clearly deserves better than the equivalent of 3/10. We all know it. I'm sure even you know it.

I "know" nothing of the sort; it rates maybe a 4 on a good day as far as I'm concerned. I don't disagree with Neuroglyph's overall impression; I just think he did a terrible job of justifying it (and that you've mostly correctly identified the reasons why).

 

[Hussar]

He has.

If I write a review of Dungeons & Dragons, and I say at the start of the review, "Just so you know, I hate tabletop RPGs and everything they stand for because they suck," and proceed to give D&D a 0/10, presumably you'd have no problem with the usefulness of that review. You know. As long as he was up-front about it.

Yes, I would have absolutely no problem with it. I'd probably not bother with the next review that person writes, but, I'm not going to bitch about what he's written.

The question is, in my mind, is he wrong? Is he factually mistaken? I honestly don't know, having never played the game. If he's not wrong, and he's been absolutely clear on his criteria, it's up to you as the reader to decide whether or not this review is useful or not.

If I'm looking for a game that has the D&D brand label on it and I expect that game to follow D&D closely, then this review is pretty much spot on. OTOH, if the mechanics are not that important to me and all I'm looking for is a game that uses the trappings of D&D - monsters, classes, whatnot, then this review is less useful.

But saying that the review is useless just because he doesn't use your criteria for what is good or bad reflects much more on you the reader than him the reviewer. The next time he writes a review, just don't bother with it because you know his tastes and yours don't match.

 

[Dannager]

Yes, I would have absolutely no problem with it. I'd probably not bother with the next review that person writes, but, I'm not going to bitch about what he's written.

Which is my point: if the way a reviewer writes causes half his readership to not continue reading his reviews, the reviewer is doing something wrong.

The question is, in my mind, is he wrong? Is he factually mistaken?

It doesn't matter. He could call the grass green and an apple red, but if I want to know the color of a ripe banana, none of that helps me.

I honestly don't know, having never played the game. If he's not wrong, and he's been absolutely clear on his criteria, it's up to you as the reader to decide whether or not this review is useful or not.

And we're saying, pretty resoundingly: it's not.

If I'm looking for a game that has the D&D brand label on it and I expect that game to follow D&D closely, then this review is pretty much spot on.

But that doesn't tell you whether the game is good or not. All it tells you is what you already knew: a D&D Facebook game probably isn't your thing.

OTOH, if the mechanics are not that important to me and all I'm looking for is a game that uses the trappings of D&D - monsters, classes, whatnot, then this review is less useful.

Or if you're looking for an enjoyable gameplay experience, period.

But saying that the review is useless just because he doesn't use your criteria for what is good or bad reflects much more on you the reader than him the reviewer.

Look, Hussar, there's sort of an established set of criteria for determining the quality of a video game. Review websites have this down to a science. And they sure as hell take more into account than how the video game compared to some other not-a-video-game from the same multimedia franchise.

That's what we expect. An actual review. Not a side-by-side of a Facebook video game versus a tabletop roleplaying game. That's just a joke.

The next time he writes a review, just don't bother with it because you know his tastes and yours don't match.

I'd much prefer it if the official EN World reviews were something that I could read and say, "Hey, I'm glad I read that!"

 

[Hussar]

But that doesn't tell you whether the game is good or not. All it tells you is what you already knew: a D&D Facebook game probably isn't your thing.

Well, actually it does tell me whether the game is good or not, if being true to the 4e game mechanics is important to me.

It's not important to you. Fine. No problems. You judge a game based on different criteria. The source material is not important to you. And that's groovy. It is important to the reviewer and, presumably, to at least some of the readers.

See, you're presuming that your tastes are universal. That what you find "fun" or "not fun" is the same for everyone else. Again, this doesn't make the review bad. It just means that the review is not for you. Not a big deal really.

You want the reviewer to base things more on the in game mechanics. Ok, fine. Stop reading the review just before the end of the Game Play section. There, that's got all the stuff that's important to you. Now for other people, maybe the latter sections are more important. I don't know, could be. People have really, really weird, indiosyncratic tastes when it comes to games, so, for some, like Neuroglyph, the nuts and bolts of game play are less important than how well it mirrors 4e mechanics.

That's not your criteria. Again, fine. No problem. But, not sharing your criteria does not make him wrong.

 

[jeffh]

Well, actually it does tell me whether the game is good or not, if being true to the 4e game mechanics is important to me.

Even if it is, surely it's not the only thing that's important to you.

See, you're presuming that your tastes are universal. That what you find "fun" or "not fun" is the same for everyone else.

No, I don't think he is, and I certainly am not. This is precisely the egregious misunderstanding I referred to about two pages ago. All we are saying - and we're not assuming it, good reasons have been given in support of it - is that there are more and less useful and informative ways to write reviews. Good reviews are such that as large as possible a portion of the potential audience will find them useful, even taking into account that tastes differ.

I wouldn't have thought this was a particularly controversial claim. Just because something has subjective aspects, doesn't mean there aren't better and worse ways to approach it. (Nobody actually believes that all opinions are equally valid, though some people hide behind that claim when defending particularly unpopular or ill-informed ones...) There are fairly well-established best practices for doing reviews, which any reviewer with any pretense of professionalism should either use, or be able to articulate good reasons for not using. Neuroglyph doesn't even appear to be aware of their existence.

 

[Hussar]

See, your arguments are based on the idea that he's completely misreading his audience.

I look at En World, a site that has spent vast amounts of bandwidth decrying 4e based solely on how it changes what came before, and I think he's reading his audience pretty darn well. If we can spend THREE YEARS condemning a game for basically not following what came before, I'm thinking that panning a Facebook game for exactly the same reason isn't much of a stretch.