4 out of 5 rating for Hoard of the Dragon Queen

[Windjammer]

Reads like it was paid for.

That's a bit harsh and overstated, but I think I see where you're coming from.

You got to realize that there are two kinds of reviews on this site - staff reviews and fan reviews. Read the former for informative break downs for item content, and the latter for sober evaluations. Enworld has a long history of wanting to be on good relations with whoever's running the D&D brand at the time. It started out life as a site supporting 3rd edition (and d20 more broadly), so the general mood board management tries to promote is upbeat I'd say.

And that generally positive outlook has helped Enworld. Morrus was flown in to Washington State for an exclusive early press release on 5th edition when the rest of the internet had no clue about its existence. Exclusive coverage, with travel expenses covered by WotC, I think you could say it's working both ways. Enworld gets exclusive coverage, and WotC can rely on Enworld playing nice.

And as long as they put up staff reviews and generally positive news coverage alongside the more critical ones - like the one you linked - I think everyone wins, critical readership included. Of course no one can take Morrus at face value when he says this turd of a module is "is well written and presented". I mean go to any book review site like Amazon and you see reviewers point out, chapter and verse, how the editing just fell through nearly entirely on this one, from maps to stat blocks and flow text. It's a rush job from two non-staffers, neither of whom had a working knowledge of 5th edition, an edition still in the print as they had to slog this out.

Still, no need to say Morrus is just a payjob when the very site he runs features content of a much broader variety, and promotes open discussion across the board (pun intended). That's why I say, I think I understand where you're coming from, but you're not being completely fair either.

 

[Morrus]

And that generally positive outlook has helped Enworld. Morrus was flown in to Washington State for an exclusive early press release on 5th edition when the rest of the internet had no clue about its existence. Exclusive coverage, with travel expenses covered by WotC, I think you could say it's working both ways.

I was? I don't remember this. I can't imagine any situation where I could be persuaded to go to the hassle of crossing the Atlantic for somebody's press release. And I've never been to Washington State.

Enworld gets exclusive coverage, and WotC can rely on Enworld playing nice.

I assure you that EN World gets nothing exclusive.

Of course no one can take Morrus at face value when he says this turd of a module is "is well written and presented". I mean go to any book review site like Amazon and you see reviewers point out, chapter and verse, how the editing just fell through nearly entirely on this one, from maps to stat blocks and flow text.

I'm sorry to hear that you don't trust me, and that you have such a negative opinion of my integrity. I'm glad you decided that a public forum was the place to air such opinions. That seems very reasonable.

I've made no comment on the adventure anywhere. I have a copy which I bought at Gen Con, and have so far read once. I certainly didn't make the comment you claim I made. Maybe I made it when I was in Washington State?

If you have a different opinion of the adventure to this review, write your your review. Attacking the integrity of a reviewer just because you disagree with him is pretty weak. You have equal voice - write your own review!

Actually, the new reviews system is designed to aggregate review scores, so it will reflect general community opinion, not just one review. I encourage you to give it a try, especially if you disagree strongly with the existing reviews. It's a bit buggy, but it basically works.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/productforums.php

Give it a try and offer your contrary opinion!

 

[Windjammer]

I was? I don't remember this. I can't imagine any situation where I could be persuaded to go to the hassle of crossing the Atlantic for somebody's press release. And I've never been to Washington State.

I apologize. I misremembered the 2012 incident where Enworld got invited for this. At the time I already thought it'd be you, as the site owner (correct?), but having now re-read the thread it turns out it was someone else flown to Renton, WA. Rereading the thread, one poster comments "I'm very glad ENWorld has their own WotC media liason." Is that an accurate description of what happened? And I think that was fairly exclusive coverage, in that WotC selected a small handful of people to whom to give this information prior to anyone else. So I think you're a bit modest when you write:

I assure you that EN World gets nothing exclusive.

As for this...

I've made no comment on the adventure anywhere.

I was quoting the review above, and from quick reading your comment in red had thought you'd penned it yourself. I now see it's by Neuroglyph, however, who is a staff reviewer, so I hope the major distinction I point out between staff and fan reviews is mostly salient.

In sum - I confused you on two counts with two other people, out of haste and sloppy memory. Apologies for that. A tad ironic too, since I thought the accusation of the review as a paid job was a bit too harsh, and that I'd actually come to the site's defense by pointing out its broader orientation. As for my characterization of the site, its relation to WotC, and the '4 out of 5' review, I stand by what I wrote. But I will equally gladly stand corrected if you or others wish to comment. Thanks.

 

[delericho]

You got to realize that there are two kinds of reviews on this site - staff reviews and fan reviews. Read the former for informative break downs for item content, and the latter for sober evaluations.

Well, maybe the good ones. Fan reviews also have the potential to be reflexive fanboi-ism or equally reflexive Edition Warring.

As with all reviews, my recommendation is to find someone (or a few people) you generally agree with, read what they have to say, and ignore the rest.

I also don't think you're being terribly fair to NG here - he doesn't seem to have any particular bias for companies, in that I've seen reviews for several that have been equally positive. He does only ever seem to give good reviews, but that can be explained by his simply not reviewing things he doesn't like. And I don't see a problem with that - with thousands of products out there, it's far better to have active recommendations for good ones than to be warned away from a few bad ones. (Since 90% of everything is bad, he can't possibly warn us against everything!)

 

[Morrus]

I apologize. I misremembered the 2012 incident where Enworld got invited for this. At the time I already thought it'd be you, as the site owner (correct?), but having now re-read the thread it turns out it was someone else flown to Renton, WA. Rereading the thread, one poster comments "I'm very glad ENWorld has their own WotC media liason." Is that an accurate description of what happened? And I think that was fairly exclusive coverage, in that WotC selected a small handful of people to whom to give this information prior to anyone else.

Chris runs a blog called Gaming Tonic. Sometimes he offers me awesome content because he's secured an interview or somesuch and feels it would get a decent audience here, and that's incredibly kind of him, but I'm not part of that process. As I understand it, he and a load of bloggers plus press folks were at that event, which was a large press release style event. I think everybody there had to sign an NDA and agree not to leak the news in advance, and some places - like the New York Times - got to do so earlier.

As for my characterization of the site, its relation to WotC, and the '4 out of 5' review, I stand by what I wrote. But I will equally gladly stand corrected if you or others wish to comment. Thanks.

Pretty much wrong; WotC doesn't require positive reviews, has never even hinted at such, and I wouldn't deal with a company that did on account of that being unethical. Other companies have done in the past, and I don't deal with them any more. It's not like a D&D book is hard to acquire or that the allure of a review copy of a book is that enticing! Review copies, I think - I don't get them myself - go out via their PR agency 360-Degree Media, not from WotC itself.

Neuroglyph tends to review stuff he likes, as do many reviewers, because it's tough reading a load of stuff you don't like -- and while I pay him to write reviews, I don't pay him enough that the job should become unenjoyable. Occasionally he'll write a negative review, but generally he's highlighting cool stuff he enjoyed.

As I said, you are free to disagree with the review. You are free to write your own.

 

[Baz King]

Well, I find it a bit difficult to reconcile this review with the recent one by bryce0lynch.
Being the sceptic that I am, I'm more inclined to believe the latter. Especially since I found a more balanced review here

Thanks for highlighting my review. Glad you think it's balanced. I've done the first seven parts of the mod now. Just the last one to go. Summary? It gets better, but the editor was still asleep on the job.

 

[trancejeremy]

Neuroglyph tends to review stuff he likes, as do many reviewers, because it's tough reading a load of stuff you don't like -- and while I pay him to write reviews, I don't pay him enough that the job should become unenjoyable. Occasionally he'll write a negative review, but generally he's highlighting cool stuff he enjoyed.

For a couple years, I had a job writing reviews for video games, one every week. Not AAA, not even AA, but pretty much mobile quality games. It's easy to write reviews for games that you like or games that you hate (especially if you've forced yourself to play that game for 10+ hours). It's exceedingly difficult to write a review for something you are "meh" about.

So I agree from experience, if you have a choice, you're probably only going to review stuff you like.