4E Poorly Rated on Amazon...

[Lackhand]

I don't have a horse in this race. I just think if folks are going to try and bludgeon each other using something like this, realize that it's a knife that cuts both ways.

Yeah, mixed metaphor. Deal with it.

But it doesn't, really. The sales rankings are hard data: Did people buy this or not?
The customer review rankings are a lot more susceptible to emotional hoo-ah; acceptance on the number relies on accepting that the field of contributors towards that number are acting rationally.

As a fully fledged f4nboy, let me be the first to admit I'm not acting fully rationally at all.

Really, it's my opinion that only the best of the sales rankings and the customer review counts. High sales rankings, short-term downward spike in review? Nerd range. Low sales rankings, high spike in reviews? Undiscovered treasure. It's win-win, I tells you!

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Club wiv razers innit. Rargh!

Doh! A Morning Star. My metaphor is totally allowed by RAW.

*pumps his fist in the air*

But it doesn't, really. The sales rankings are hard data: Did people buy this or not?
The customer review rankings are a lot more susceptible to emotional hoo-ah; acceptance on the number relies on accepting that the field of contributors towards that number are acting rationally.

Hmmm.

It's been my observation though that the "bestseller" argument is being used to "prove" that 4E is a "success". Yeah, "success" is a whole other can of worms.

Pointing to the "poor" rating of the product is a counter to the claim of "success" because part of "success" is going to be "wide-enough scale adoption".

One _could argue that if the book is consistently panned, then it will actually be a "failure", despite initial high-sales. That is, if you also accept that the sales rating on Amazon (and the reviews it gets) are going to be influencing (or predicting?) future sales.

I don't actually intend to debate this whole line though. I'm merely pointing out that it _does_ go both ways and that both claims are just as "valid".

Which was my whole point in the previous post.

 

[Korgoth]

Club wiv razers innit. Rargh!

Orc Chav, Level 1 Minion.

 

[SteveC]

A couple of points:

First let me reiterate: look at the reviews for 3.0 and 3.5. You have the same haters, but they have largely been outvoted by positive posters. Give it some time, and if you care about the ratings, write a review and vote.

Second, take a look at the two star reviews. It seems like just about all of them are from people who have purchased the product, played it and don't like it. That's very interesting reading.

I have been enjoying 4E for the most part, but I think that a lot of the criticisms that are being leveled by people who've actually played it are perfectly upfront and honest for them and their group. It's not just "haters" posting.

But if you don't like the ratings, for God's sake, write your own!

--Steve

 

[qstor]

I would love to hear why ANYONE who has ever seriously read the DMGs in the previous editions could possibly rate the 4th Ed. version higher than one star. AND yes, it would be 'legitimate' for me to review the 4th Ed. DMG without playing it first because there are almost no rules in it. It pails even in comparison to the 2nd Ed. DMG (*shudder*).

I've played 4e at DDXP and got the 3 core rule books for 4e. I've gotten flamed for some of my biting comments about 4e before. But I have to agree about the poor quality of the 4e DMG, as mentioned there's little rules material. You get more off of roleplayingtips.com for free than you get for $40 in the 4e DMG. The traps and poisons and other rules, might have been given away for free in a .pdf on WOTC website. I think the layout in all of the books and the artwork is great but it like D. Drader said I won't be putting away my 3.x rule books away anytime soon. If I run a campaign in the future it will be 3.5.

Mike

 

[Transit]

Yeah, the 4E DMG is rather pointless. 4E could easily be run with just the Player Handbook and the Monster Manual.

I think the DMG is just there to carry on the "tradition" of having three core books, but it might have been cooler to have the box set be a player handbook, a monster manual and a large introductory adventure that teaches everyone how to play.

 

[thatdarnedbob]

SteveC hits the nail on the head. If you think these one star reviews are poor and not representative of the product, mark them as unhelpful and write a positive review. I am going to do this within the day.

 

[The Little Raven]

Yeah, the 4E DMG is rather pointless. 4E could easily be run with just the Player Handbook and the Monster Manual.

Except for all the information on setting up and running encounters, generating NPCs and monsters, adjudicating situations not handled by the PHB rules, and a boatload of advice to get any new DM in the swing of things, you're right.

Unfortunately for your point, all of that stuff is pretty damned important.

 

[Fifth Element]

Except for all the information on setting up and running encounters, generating NPCs and monsters, adjudicating situations not handled by the PHB rules, and a boatload of advice to get any new DM in the swing of things, you're right.

Unfortunately for your point, all of that stuff is pretty damned important.

Oh, and skill challenges. And traps and hazards.

 

[Treebore]

Incidentally, the Wizards product I dislike the most is...
Map Folio II

Cheers!

I liked all the map folios! I would have given at lest 3 stars to every one of them. Just goes to show why I don't follow reviews very much. Our opinions just vary too much.

Fortunately we can still get along, despite you 3E and 4E lovers!