Are reviewers evil?

[S'mon]

Re: Re: reviewers evil? puh-leeze!

Oh, I intend to. But at the same time, I thought that a rebuttal to Jim's article was well warranted. But I was curious to see if anyone other than FFE employees felt that reviewers were being unfair to FFE.

Your reviews look very fair to me, and a charitable explanation would be that Jim Ward was drunk when he wrote that piece. OTOH, Psion, I don't think you should let it get to you. Authors always think their work is great (I know mine is!) and get upset when others disagree. Most have the sense to keep quiet about it (as Monte Cook sensibly advises in that article). Those who don't diminish only themselves.

Personally, I don't pay too much attention to review ratings as such. I took twisted pleasure in buying several Avalanche Press books purely for their covers...

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: Re: reviewers evil? puh-leeze!

I took twisted pleasure in buying several Avalanche Press books purely for their covers...

So, were you disappointed to find that some of them actually have meaninful and thoroughly considered historical content on the interior instead of the frustrated schoolboyish material that the cover suggested?

Not saying there's anything WRONG with that... just that I find that the central problem with Avalanche is that they don't seem to advertise what they sell.

 

[S'mon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: reviewers evil? puh-leeze!

So, were you disappointed to find that some of them actually have meaninful and thoroughly considered historical content on the interior instead of the frustrated schoolboyish material that the cover suggested?

Not saying there's anything WRONG with that... just that I find that the central problem with Avalanche is that they don't seem to advertise what they sell.

A good point.

Of the 3 I bought:

Black Flag - Piracy in the Caribbean - lots of info, interesting but too grimly historical, a more swashbuckling approach would've suited the subject matter better IMO. Classic Avalanche - nice T&A cover that is wholly misleading as to the contents within.

Ragnarok - Tales of the Norse Gods - there was almost nothing in this, almost a complete waste of money. Cover would have been fine, except why would a hammer-wielding nymphette work for Loki, not Thor?

Greenland Saga - the Valkyrie on the cover was actually not wholly inappropriate IMO, if you play up the mythical element of the plot (which can be done either 'mythic' or 'straight historical') - I thought this was the best of the 3 purchases, a good adventure that I hope to run someday. Hard to fit with a regular campaign, though.

 

[Greatwyrm]

Re: Re: Re: Re: reviewers evil? puh-leeze!

Not saying there's anything WRONG with that... just that I find that the central problem with Avalanche is that they don't seem to advertise what they sell.

No kidding! I'd probably have picked up most of their stuff, if it wasn't just for the half-naked women on practically every cover. My wife gives me enough crap about gaming, no way I'm bringing one of those books back from the FLGS and not sleeping in the dog house.

Some fights just aren't worth fighting.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

I'm both a writer, a player, and a DM.
So, I look at a lot of different things. The reviews have a lot with it, but unlike Jim Ward seems to think...
I'm smart enough to tell which reviews are total crap, and which ones are informative and real reviews.

I've been reviewed, sometimes harshly, by people who admitted, in thier review (including Peer Review) that they did not read the item (one person on RPG Now only read the ad!) they were reviewing. One instance sticks in my mind, and that was someone who admitted: "I didn't read this, I just skimmed it and pointed out a flaw whenever I felt like picking something out."

BUT, even being the hothead I am (My publisher made me read the Monte Cook take on reviewers over and over and over and over and over and then appealed to my NCO professionalism to keep me from writing really nasty notes to reviewers who couldn't review the last... never mind) I can tell the difference between a review that stinks worse than my product..
And the one that HONESTLY points out the flaws in my product.

I need reviews, and reviewers, and thanks to my genetic mutation (a working brain), I can tell the difference between a real review and some methed up monkey with a keyboard. The real reviews point out my writing and mechanics weaknesses, and make me work on those problems, so my next product is better than the last.
And real reviewers notice that.

Jim Ward, in my opinion, is complaining because he keeps getting burned in reviews, but he doesn't USE them to improve his work. If he's just putting them out, and not writing them, he needs to have his writers read those articles.
Reviews are a tool, and instead of blaming the craftsman on the works, he'd rather blame the tools.
But then, I don't know the man, only the work. And if Metamorphis Alpha or Grey Cover Gamma World was his work, I can give him a link to the mechanics articles for 3E.
Maybe reading those will help, since he won't listen to reviewers who are trying to point out why people aren't buying.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Yes, and perhaps he chose not to give attribution because he felt teh quotes demonstrated his theme, and he specifically wanted to avoid making it a personal attack, hm?

To follow his own advice, he must give examples. However, if he gives attribution it becomes a personal insult to whichever reviewer he's quoted. In order to keep it civil, he has to avoid attribution.

Do you realize what you are saying? You are saying he needed examples to support his arguement. So the only way he could get examples is the take quotes out of context. Even then he only supported what he said by omitting the text that followed the quote.

That is dishonest pure and simple. If he cannot find accurate quotes to support his stance then maybe his stance is wrong.

Or maybe, his product really is crap and he knows it and he is frustrated that reviewers are letting people know the product is crap.

 

[John Crichton]

Are you saying there's enough drivel on the internet as is?

PS

By golly, I believe I am.

 

[WizarDru]

Actually, his influence of D&D predates 2e, or even 1e. He was a primary contributor to the old Gods, Demigods, & Heroes, went on to write much of the 1e Deities & Demigods and 2e Legends & Lore (among other things, but the deity books are his most notable chain of products.)

Ah, gotcha. Now the name clicks. It sounded familiar, but I couldn't place where I'd heard his name, before. He falls under the 'figured he was dead or something' category. He was back when I didn't connect names with D&D, per se. EGG and Dave Arneson were the only names that stuck in my head, short of the writers at Dragon like Roger Moore.


As far as his attacking Psion is concerned: no, it wasn't an attack, per se. But why does he only quote Psion, and misrepresent his reviewing style? There are some truly abhorent reviews about...why doesn't he quote one of those?

 

[AaronLoeb]

Note these are stories from a different industry, so this is just general thoughts - I am NOT saying this applies to anyone particular in the RPG industry.

But, reviewers are human. They review for a reason. Sometimes it's because they love the game and want to give back to it. Sometimes it's because they want recognition and status. Sometimes it's because they like the mountain of free stuff that comes to their door.

The sad fact is that Ward's rant isn't as off-base as I wish it was. I don't agree with the tone of his article, but that's different than whether I think its true at its core.

I've now been on both sides of this fence in the videogame industry (I now work for a developer, but most of my time in the videogame industry has been spent as a reviewer and editor for lots of publications: Next Generation, PC Gamer, the UGO network, Daily Radar, etc.) and this old canard of developers and angry fans is pretty off base.

Actual professional videogame critics do spend quite a bit of time with the games they are reviewing and most do their job because of the obvious benefit: they love playing videogames and they get to do it for a living. I've met maybe three professional game reviewers in the past six years who were obviously in it for the status or free stuff or other "fringe" benefits.

But you are right that almost nobody writing a game review plays for 40-120 hours. There are barely any games coming out these days that have that much gameplay in them!

 

[Psion]

But why does he only quote Psion, and misrepresent his reviewing style?

He doesn't only quote me, but without links or names, I couldn't tell you who some of the others are.

That said, I can't really speak for other reviewers, but I do take umbrage when he quotes my reviews and makes assertions about them that a reader would see don't pan out in reality if they had a chance to see the entire review.