Are reviewers evil?

[haiiro]

It's petty and pedantic, but he does make some good points (always find one good thing to say about a product, proofread, read things cover to cover) -- there are a lot of badly done reviews out there. He also makes some non-points (just because "art is extremely subjective" doesn't mean a reviewer can't state their opinion of it, etc.).

At the same time, if FFE is feeling ground down by the number of bad reviews of their products out there -- even if Jim Ward doesn't consider many of those reviews "valid" -- they'd probably be better off improving the quality of their products than ranting about it.

Reviewers give up their time, generally gratis, to keep us informed about the wealth of d20 material that's out there. That should be encouraged, not discouraged.

(Edit: clarification.)

 

[JacktheRabbit]

At Steve Jackson's d20Weekly.com, they had an open call for reviewers and they gave some really stiff guidelines on what a review should look like and what it should cover. Mr. Ward and d20Weekly both touched upon a lot of the same subject when it comes to what a review is all about. Perhaps it's time for the online community to mature a bit to fit the role it wants to fill. Preach on Ward!

Yeah right preach on.

Have you read and FFG products? A more formated and critical review process would only abuse the FFG product line even more.

The poor writing, condescending tone, typographical errors, and blantant rules mistakes woudl all guaruntee that the more critical and formated the reviews were the more his products would sink to the bottom.

 

[haiiro]

Have you read and FFG products? A more formated and critical review process would only abuse the FFG product line even more

Let's not start that confusion again: we're talking about FFE, not FFG.

 

[blackshirt5]

"Whaa whaa whaa give my product a good review or else why even talk about it?"

He touches on the following: Borders and Art, so I'll start off by commenting on those.

Borders: An atrocious border distracts me from the rest of the product. It's true. I'm sure it does it to other people as well(although maybe the ADD is getting to me and that's why it distracts me so much).

Art: Ask Vechs 3.0 about the art quality in some D20 books(I think he might be more critical than I am on this one). As for me, I wince when I see some of the art, especially in FFE products. It's not always subjective, it's not always a certain point of view, the big bad boogeyman reviewers aren't coming to get you Mr. Ward, sometimes the art just plain sucks.

And he wants comments on individual errors in the reviews? To comment on all the errors in an FFE product, you'd end up with a review almost as long as some of the books.

 

[The Serge]

I do reviews for Gaming Report.

Generally speaking, I agree with some of Ward's comments and concerns. Many people out there are highly influenced by reviews and will often make a decision to buy something based upon the review. This is not always a bad thing, although I think that people should be aware that even if you generally "jive" with a reviewer or a review site, there are always incidents in which you will disagree.

As for some of his comments... Well, I agree that a reviewer should not review material he hasn't played or hasn't sat down and really, truly evaluated. I also think that a reviewer should be able, particularly in this industry, to differentiate his/her personal opinions from their opinions as offering an evaluation of something for a multitude of different people.

Case in point. Although I've never written a review of FFE products, my exposure to their material has been limited to their Encyclopedia of Demons and Devils. I detest that book. Many of the mechanics are bad, the CRs are way off, the flavor text is in and out, and the art is horrendous. I would have written a review that got into specifics about issues related to mechanics and how the mechanics are a serious detriment to the material being useful to the DM. How can this book be used if the CRs are way off? How much trust can one put into the incorrectly calculated attack bonuses and iterative attacks? I would not have slammed them on the flavor-text or their decision to use "real-life" influences for the material because that's not a mechanics issue, but a matter of taste. Likewise, although I hate the art in that book, I would have noted that to some the images may evoke a sense of the forbidden and ancient.

Another point. Book of Vile Darkness. I reviewed that for Gaming Report and I gave it a favorable review. I hate the books take on the Arch-Fiends. I hate that entire section of the book. That's strictly a personal position that should have no impact on whether the book can be trusted from a mechanics perspective. ''

I think that's the crux of the matter for most reviews in this industry. I think that we too often forget that this is not just a matter of personal opinion. It's a matter of the reviewer trying to determine how useful the material is for those interested in buying it. This is a game and how this material impacts the game is more important over whether I like it or not. I don't trust FFE's EoDaD because the mechanics are out of wack, so I wouldn't recommend it. I don't like aspects BoVD, but I respect the impact it's had and will continue to have on 3ed D&D and the mechanics therein.

I think Ward's essentially on point. The one place I disagree on is the matter of having something nice to say. Reviews, critiques, evaluations. Whatever you want to call them, they will not always be pleasant. I may think that I'm being diplomatic in my displeasure with a product, but someone else may think I was being rude. It comes with the territory.

 

[Psion]

I want to say something about this "he makes some good points" bit. At least two of the unattributed quotes are mine; thus I feel like I am targeted here.

Anyway, he says things like "you shouldn't make a point without backing it up with examples." Which I would have to agree with. Here's the rub: I don't. If I am going to make an assertion about the quality of a product, I make it a point to bring up an example from the text, if not two or three.

Now there may be some reviewers who DO do that. But when you grab my quote out of contect and then make an accusation, well, I gotta take it a little personal. It's a bit like yelling "you shouldn't whip nuns", clearing your voice, and making an unsubtle stare at someone.

Likewise, he states something to the effect of that some reviewers don't read the book. Again, I find this sort of unspecified accusation aggravating, as it gives the wrong impression. Are we to beleive that anyone who criticizes an FFE product has not read it? I daresay no such thing is true for me personally. I read everything I get---else my turnaround on reviews would be much quicker.

 

[drnuncheon]

Yeah right preach on.

Have you read and FFG products? A more formated and critical review process would only abuse the FFG product line even more.

The poor writing, condescending tone, typographical errors, and blantant rules mistakes woudl all guaruntee that the more critical and formated the reviews were the more his products would sink to the bottom.

FFE. FFE!

FFE = Fast Forward Entertainment
FFG = Fantasy Flight Games

Please, don't mix the two up!

J
who does not work for either one but hates to see the wrong company get abused.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Let's not start that confusion again: we're talking about FFE, not FFG.

My bad.

It doesnt help though that half the time they go by Fast Forward Games and the other half by Fast Forward Entertainment.

 

[drnuncheon]

And oh yeah, reviewers *are* evil:

Reviewer
Medium-size Humanoid (Netizen, Evil)
Hit Dice: 9d8+27 (67 hp)
Initiative: +3 (-1 Dex, +4 Improved Connection)
Speed: 20 ft
AC: 20 (-1 Dex, +11 natural)
Attacks: Bite +12 melee, scathe +7 melee
Damage: Bite 1d10+4, scathe 1d6+2
Face/Reach: 5 ft. by 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Destroy Sales
Special Qualities: Cynicism
<snip>

Well, there you have it.

 

[WizarDru]

Weeell, it's always more fun to read the 1/5 and 2/5 reviews than those 5/5 reviews. I guess they intrest also in the same way as you really can't look away from a car crash..

Having said that, the reviewers at ENWorld aren't too harsh. 3/5 ('average' score) isn't really average, but below average.

That's not really true, and been discussed at length. Remember, most of the reviews are submitted by readers, not requested of staff. That means that a review is going to be about something the reviewer feels strongly about, such as the burning hate I harbor for "Heart of Nightfang Spire" or the love I give to "Heroes of High Favor: Half-Orcs".

Ward sounds bitter, despite some of his more salient points. He's obviously tired of reading poor reviews, and would probably like to believe that their biased or unfair reviews. Clearly, he's irritated at some not-so-well-written reviews, and he's possibly looking for criticism to improve his products, and not finding useful feedback.

However, I can't comment on his products. I opened 'Rings of Power' and 'Swords of Power', flush with cash ready to burn. I saw huge fonts, I saw scant content, and I saw items that appeared unbalanced in a cursory glance. And I'm not a reviewer, I'm a consumer. Jim Ward may wish to blame poor reviews for my failure to purchase those books, but they never entered into it. I just saw better (to me) content elsewhere, and purchased that, instead. Good writers can sell me products sight unseen, bad ones have to fight to earn my attention a second time.

Maybe Jim can pass on the message to the Avalanche folks that I've passed on their material due to the covers, and never even checked the internal content. No reviewers fault there, either.