Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mythmere1" data-source="post: 2405046" data-attributes="member: 26563">I posted my comment to the review itself.&nbsp; Basically, I think it makes good points, but as a review I think it misses some of the things a review needs.&nbsp; I don't object to what's said - I have a player with opinions almost identical to der Kluge's and der Kluge does an excellent job of characterizing the way that rules-heavy players will dislike C&amp;C.I think reviews that clearly state when the reviewer dislikes (or likes) a game are good reviews - that's not bias.&nbsp; I think der Kluge could have expressed his dislike far more fervently than he did and still not have a &quot;biased&quot; review - but not to mention the positive points leads to an incomplete review - and an incomplete review that focuses on the negative is a biased review.&nbsp; So, I think the review does end up being biased - not because of what der Kluge said, but because of what he didn't bring up.For example, I think a C&amp;C review is incomplete if it doesn't mention lower prep time or at least mention that the game's simplicity can be viewed as a positive by some people.&nbsp; Lower prep time probably isn't a big deal to der Kluge as a player, but it's an almost universal comment from people who GM the game.&nbsp; I think a review has to mention both sides, even if the conclusion is absolutely to one side or the other.&nbsp; Otherwise it fails as a review.For what it is, though, it's good.&nbsp; Like Scadgrad says, it reflects considerable effort and thought.&nbsp; I think it's an excellent summary of one side of the C&amp;C debate.&nbsp; Not a good review because I think it misses some vital elements of a &quot;review,&quot; but an excellent essay.EDIT: on the point about how it bridges editions, it would be a violation of the OGL for TLG to make a statement about compatibility with the D&amp;D trademark.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mythmere1, post: 2405046, member: 26563"] I posted my comment to the review itself. Basically, I think it makes good points, but as a review I think it misses some of the things a review needs. I don't object to what's said - I have a player with opinions almost identical to der Kluge's and der Kluge does an excellent job of characterizing the way that rules-heavy players will dislike C&C. I think reviews that clearly state when the reviewer dislikes (or likes) a game are good reviews - that's not bias. I think der Kluge could have expressed his dislike far more fervently than he did and still not have a "biased" review - but not to mention the positive points leads to an incomplete review - and an incomplete review that focuses on the negative is a biased review. So, I think the review does end up being biased - not because of what der Kluge said, but because of what he didn't bring up. For example, I think a C&C review is incomplete if it doesn't mention lower prep time or at least mention that the game's simplicity can be viewed as a positive by some people. Lower prep time probably isn't a big deal to der Kluge as a player, but it's an almost universal comment from people who GM the game. I think a review has to mention both sides, even if the conclusion is absolutely to one side or the other. Otherwise it fails as a review. For what it is, though, it's good. Like Scadgrad says, it reflects considerable effort and thought. I think it's an excellent summary of one side of the C&C debate. Not a good review because I think it misses some vital elements of a "review," but an excellent essay. EDIT: on the point about how it bridges editions, it would be a violation of the OGL for TLG to make a statement about compatibility with the D&D trademark. [/QUOTE]

Verification