Are reviewers evil?

[maddman75]

Heck, I don't even own a word processor and so write my reviews in notepad.

http://www.openoffice.org

There. Now you do .

 

[Umbran]

I would really like to hear him defend all of these accusations.

It would be unwise for him to do so. One does not walk into a wall of accusations and expect anything good to come of it.

 

[rounser]

Publisher Jim Ward takes exception to reviewers in his latest "900 words" article.

"Takes exception", eh? It looks to me like a wish list of standards that he wishes reviewers would adhere to.

So, what do you think?

Turnabout is fair play. Reviewers take things out of context all the time, and that's the norm. To do the same to a review is, well, poetic justice perhaps?

I don't mean that as an attack, it just looks a bit like a reversal of "the natural order of things". Reviewers are supposed to dish out criticism, not receive it! A reviewer's accountability is up to himself, he should not be held answerable for it with criticism! Does Jim Ward not know his place???

Vaguely amusing...

 

[WizarDru]

Vaguely amusing...

Which did you mean, Ward putting up a list of expectations that vary from the reasonable to the ridiculous, or his quoting someone who actually met most of his criticisms and using that as an example of the exact opposite?

Alan and I disagree on quite a few topics, but I respect his reviews, even if I don't always agree with them. I mean, does he honestly believe that if a reviewer doesn't have anything nice to say about a product, that they shouldn't say anything at all? He's got every right to expect his material to be reviewed even-handedly and with as little bias as possible...from professional reviewers. I suspect most of his detractors aren't in that category. My suspicion is that his rant is really against them.

 

[rounser]

Which did you mean, Ward putting up a list of expectations that vary from the reasonable to the ridiculous, or his quoting someone who actually met most of his criticisms and using that as an example of the exact opposite?

Neither, Wizardru, but irony of the "taking one's own medicine" type. Publishers are expected to stay silent in the face of criticisms that vary from the reasonable to the ridiculous, and the moment one breaks that rule, then there's blood in the water and it's feeding frenzy time.

If Alan feels Ward is being unfair, but expects Ward to stay mum when Ward feels Alan is being unfair, then wouldn't the best and fairest response from Alan be to stay mum on these unfair criticisms in the same way that he expects his subjects to? No, because reviewers should have the right to defend themselves against unfair criticism, dammit! Publishers? No way, they've had that right relinquished because...because...it's unprofessional!

As I said, just t'aint natchural! And that's why I find it vaguely amusing.

 

[Psion]

Neither, Wizardru, but irony of the "taking one's own medicine" type. Publishers are expected to stay silent in the face of criticisms that vary from the reasonable to the ridiculous, and the moment one breaks that rule, then there's blood in the water and it's feeding frenzy time.

If Alan feels Ward is being unfair, but expects Ward to stay mum when Ward feels Alan is being unfair, then wouldn't the best and fairest response from Alan be to stay mum on these unfair criticisms in the same way that he expects his subjects to?

Don't distort the issue and don't attribute things to me I did not say. Did I ever say that "expect ward to stay mum"? The only thing I expect (or rather, would hope) of him would be that he be honest.

 

[Graf]

There are occasionally books out there that add modular bits of rules which require some mucking about with before you can figure out how they work.
Then there are the vast majority of rules errors in D20 products, which consist of over-powered, unclearly-worded and easily abused spells, feats, classes, prestige classes, monsters, options, and rules.

I also think there's a difference between a review and a synopsis. A lot of reviews out there are really the latter. They discuss what's in the book rather than what's valuable or not-so valuable.

I agree pretty strongly with this. A lot of reviewers don't do any kind of analysis or else 80% of the review is lists of feats and prcs without having anything to say about the material itself.

Artwork in a book is certainly a subjective thing, and rarely is it ever considered a major part of any review that I've read. At most, there may be a single sentence or two in a review mentioning it. And never is it the sort of statement that would sink or elevate that product's sales.

You may just have found particularly good reviewers but reviewers are often are art obessed, to the point of calling out artists by name (often somebody I've never heard of) and compairing a given picture with a previous picture in a completely different product by the same artist, usually negatively.

I think that the reviewer should stop short of making an assessment on whether or not a particular element belongs in a book and instead comment on how that section is presented. Let the potential buyer decide whether or not it belongs.

While I can see how this would be irritating for a writer I don't think the decision about what to put in a book is beyond reproach, particularly if the section in question is tangential to the stated purpose of the book.
To be specific: lots of campaign settings don't have adventures and adventures are frequently published seperately. The decision by Bastion to bundle one sort of product with another one is worthy of discussion. From your characterization it sounds to me like the reviewer might have produced a more detailed review by going over the adventure, but it's hardly bad to openly admit you have a very strong bias against something and move on.

I think it's funny that Jim Ward seems to believe that EN World as a community is biased against his company.

If he thinks that J. Ward is right.
We're at fours pages, and I don't think I saw a single positive comment about FFE's prodcuts. Even the people who agree with his main point take pains to point out that they don't think FFE's products are good.

Maybe I'm just weird, but I usually find the reviews that really tank products to be the most useful. If I look at the reveiws here and see six 5s and a 2, I'm going to read the 2.

You aren't.
Good reviews are often vague, they basically read like little mini-ads. I may be that often critical people have, in the process of working over the product, thought more deeply about it.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

If he thinks that J. Ward is right.

Not true. Bias and unanimity are not the same thing. When something is patently obvious, many people can agree about it without having a bias.

 

[rounser]

Did I ever say that "expect ward to stay mum"? The only thing I expect (or rather, would hope) of him would be that he be honest.

Maybe you didn't Psion, but the unwritten rule says that he should stay mum. You've got nothing to do with that, it's just the way things are.

As I said, there is no balance of right of reply, here - a reviewer can respond to unfair criticism of himself by, say, starting a thread on a popular messageboard in order to build up a fountainhead of protest, whereas the same action by a publisher in response to an unfair review would probably be seen as at least unprofessional and maybe being "unable to take criticism".

My amusement has nothing to do with how fair or justified his criticisms of your conduct as a reviewer are; more, it is this imbalance in right to protest against criticism viewed as "unfair" between you and the publishers and authors of the products you review. I would suggest that you could rachet your professionalism up a further notch or two by intentionally not responding to unfair criticism. By swallowing such bitter pills, you leave yourself immune to observations in the "good for goose and not for gander" vein, where "unfair" (to who?) criticisms are being bandied about.

That's up to you, though, and I'm not saying you should, neither should you view it as an attack, because you're not the author of this state of affairs. It's simply an observation.

 

[pennywiz]

Publisher Jim Ward takes exception to reviewers in his latest "900 words" article.

http://fastforwardgames.com/900/900_29.htm

So, what do you think?

Don't distort the issue and don't attribute things to me I did not say. Did I ever say that "expect ward to stay mum"? The only thing I expect (or rather, would hope) of him would be that he be honest.

1.) You imply with the thread title that Jim Ward says that reviewers are evil but he never says that in his article (regardless of how he feels on the subject.) It looks like you are distorting the issue and attributing things to Jim Ward by implication that he has never said. There are only a couple of ways that I can see why you would do that. Either you are too ignorant to be aware of how that would seem, or you purposefully did it to make the implication as a way to start the thread off in one direction. I doubt that you are ignorant. You should be honest, and professional, and retract that implication.

2.) You started a thread designed (by the aforementioned implication) to create a general feeling about Ward and FFE. I do not think that a professional reviewer should engage in this type of activity. If someone else had started a thread on the subject and your name came up, I would expect you to respond in a professional manner, but purposefully starting a thread of this nature lacks of professionalism.

3.) Kicking a guy when he is down might be the easiest time to do it, but it doesn't make it right.

Do you really think that his article was damaging to you in some way? Or to reviewers in general? (Both questions given the circumstances involved and revolving around Ward and FFE's review history.) Did you think that your reputation as a reviewer was in jeopardy and required fanning the flames in a open forum?

From the moment I noticed that you had started the thread I could see that no real good would come of it and I think that you should have seen that as well. Oh, you might be able to point to one or two brief moments in the thread (a post or two) that may have some limited value, but that value is lost given the entire spirit of the thread as started by yourself. If your reputation is going to take a hit from this whole issue it is because of the unprofessional way in which you persued the issue by starting this thread. Bad form!