Are reviewers evil?

[Mark Chance]

YEAH, you told 'em! TAKE THAT!

When I finally get my hands on Robert E. Howard d20, I'm gonna be Conan the Grammarian!

 

[Nightfall]

Are reviewers evil?

Yes. They are.

 

[Mark Chance]

Setting: North gate into orcish compound wherein slaves are kept. It is nearly dawn. Conan the Grammarian enters scene, back to the compound wall, moving slowly, quietly, his greatsword at the ready. Two orc guards stand in front of the gate, leaning on their longspears.

Orc Guard 1: Me am so tired. This sucks.

Orc Guard 2: Me agree.

[Conan begins to tremble with rage, his eyes rolling, veins bulging. He howls like a mad beast and charges the orc guards.]

Conan [shouting]: Damn your eyes! "Me" is an objective case pronoun unsuitable for use as the subject of a sentence! [Begins to hack the orc guards to pieces.] Now repeat after me: I am so tired! I agree! I am so tired! I agree!

 

[Darkness]

drnuncheon, what's the CR on those reviewers? It's gotta be pretty high if they can take down an entire company.

Not if all of the company employees are low-level Commoners and Experts whose stats and feats aren't combat-related, and who don't usually carry much in the way of weapons or armor.

 

[AaronLoeb]

"Grammar and proof reading in a critic is almost as important as their review."

- should be written: Grammar and proof reading in a critic are almost as important as their review. (Emphasis added.)

EDITOR ON

Yes, but Raistlin Majere rightly pointed out that the use of "in" is even more problematic. "Last night I was fixing my grammer and proof reading in a critic. How they ever got in a critic, I'll never know!"

While perhaps idiomatic speech, I don't think it's yet accepted to list qualities followed by a prepositional phrase using "in." I think you still need to explicitly say "are important qualities in" or "are valuable qualities in." In this case, "Grammar and proof reading are important qualities in a critic."

But I don't even know what to make of the last part of the sentence, "as important as their review." Reviews aren't a quality, as the parallelism suggests here. By that, I mean the sentence "Reviews in a critic are important," (the parallel use of grammar and proof reading in a critic are important ) makes no sense at all, nor does "Reviews are important qualities in a critic."

I also argue that you can't really list "proof reading" or "grammar" as qualities. Proof reading is an activity, grammar is a concept. The qualities are "skilled proof reading" or "effective proof reading" or even "accurate proof reading" and "knowledge of correct grammar" or "proper grammar usage."

The "is"/"are" issue really only scratches this sentence's vast surface area of grammatical inaccuracy. The sentence likely should be rewritten to:

"The use of proper grammar and an at least rudimentary facility with proof reading are both important qualities in a critic -- almost as important as the opinions expressed in their reviews that totally suxxorz, noob!!!! WTF?!"

With these small changes, I think the sentence would become what we professionals call "grammatified" (though some stodgy editors still prefer the more archaic "grammalicious.")

/EDITOR OFF

 

[Richards]

Aaron - That was grammarvelous!

Johnathan

 

[mearls]

A lot of writers I know take reviews very seriously. Whether consciously or not, they let them play a major role in their self-esteem or self-worth as a writer. That's why you sometimes see designers getting very defensive or angry about them. Personally, I've never let them get me too happy or annoyed. I wouldn't let some random person on the street get me down, so I don't see why the Internet (or a magazine) should be any different.

What I have seen in several cases, and I think Jim Ward's comments fall into this category, is a tendency to see the reviewer as the one at fault. There's a kneejerk response to assume that a review is stupid, incompetent, bitter, or too dense to see what makes a product great. A lot of people work from the assumption that their books are fantastic, and they think that only a half-wit could think otherwise.

I've run into that attitude several times in the industry, and it does a lot of harm to the process of making games IMO. If someone points out a flaw in a product, it doesn't help to accuse them of being a jerk. What does help is to look at the comments, analyze them in context of the product's goals, and think of anything you can learn from them. Sure, there are people with axes to grind, but they are few and far between and pretty easy to spot. Sometimes, you read a review and you realize that someone really doesn't know what they're talking about. IME, such reviews pretty much bounce 50/50 between positive and negative.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that, if you have tons of negative reviews for a wide range of products, you need to change how you do things.

Anyway, RPG design is essentially a service industry. I write a book with the expectation that it'll be good, useful, and interesting. If it fails in any of those regards, it helps to hear why so I can refine my approach. Gamers are what make this industry run. Without people playing games, there wouldn't be much of industry. If I design games without any regard to whether people like them, then I'm not going to be making games for long.

 

[John Crichton]

The "is"/"are" issue really only scratches this sentence's vast surface area of grammatical inaccuracy. The sentence likely should be rewritten to:

"The use of proper grammar and an at least rudimentary facility with proof reading are both important qualities in a critic -- almost as important as the opinions expressed in their reviews that totally suxxorz, noob!!!! WTF?!"

With these small changes, I think the sentence would become what we professionals call "grammatified" (though some stodgy editors still prefer the more archaic "grammalicious.")

Heheh. That made me giggle.

On the subject of reviews: I do tend to read a generous amount of reviews for a product before I purchase it. However, I have bought books no matter what the review for it. Sometimes the subject matter appeals to me or sometimes just a quick flip-thru gives me a reason. I guess my point is that just because there are bad reviews and people are influenced by those reviews doesn't make a product bad or good, especially considering the subjective nature of gamers.

That article sounded very unprofessional to me. There are plenty of folks out there with a website and an opinion. There is no need to add to that pile of sludge and drivel.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I partially agree with Jim Ward on this. I usually ignore published reviews unless my own stuff is being reviewed, but instead look for the comments by people who have spent their money on the product and have an opinion. In general, the reviewers have been pretty kind to the things I've worked on, so I don't have any real vendettas against any of them.

The biggest problem I have with reviews is when reviewers try to decide for the reader what is and is not useful. For instance, the Gamewyrd review of Plains of Penance, he panned the adventure I wrote because he doesn't like adventures and doesn't think there is a place for adventures in that type of book, not because the adventure was written badly. In fact there is a definite reason that there is an adventure in that book, as well as the other Oathbound setting books. 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.

I've seen a particlar reviewer pan nearly every Bastion Press book based on very little other than the reviewer's predisposition to not like them. How do I know its a predisposition? Because they refer back to other products that they panned, and it comes across in their tone and the generally negative langauge that they use. If a product is going to be panned, I want to see solid point by point examples of how the product is lacking. Jim Ward is dead on with this point, though I think that he is being defensive because of the mainly negative reviews his products have gotten. Having looked them over myself, I'm not overly impressed, which is sad considering that I've always respected Jim Ward in the past.

I disagree with Jim Ward about art. Whether the art illustrates what you want it to illustrate is irrelevant if you are rating the quality of the art itself. A bad artist is a bad artist, no matter how useful the bad art is.

I don't feel that you should have to use all the game mechanics to declare them bad. Most deisgners and players can tell when a mechanic is unballanced, poorly worded, or useless.

So what do I want to see in a review? I want to see a point by point discussion of (1) the contents of the book, (2) whether or not what is presented is consistent with mechanics (play ballance is important here), (3) whether or not it is well edited, and (4) whether or not there are any holes in the product (obvious things that were missed, questions left unanswered, etc.).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Evil? I prefer to think of myself as True Neutral (perhaps with Lawful Evil tendencies ).

'Course, that stat block is missing a few things ...

Skills: Bluff +5, Diplomacy -2, Innuendo +10, Profession (Rules Lawyer) +5, Craft (Essay) +5
Feats: Dodge, Speed Read, Improved Dodge Deadline
SQ: Thick Skin, DR 50/pen