Are reviewers evil?

[Buttercup]

reviewers evil? puh-leeze!

I think he’s suffering from sour grapes.

His company produces books that have serious flaws in game mechanics, shoddy art and egregious typos, and he’s mad that reviewers call him on it?

And as a DM, I vehemently disagree that one must play test a book to know whether or not it is mechanically flawed. Subtle flaws might not stand out in a reading, but the serious ones sure do.

And another thing. I have a limited budget for gaming materials. I have wasted some of that budget on crap before (in the early days of 3E, when I was less experienced, and more eager for now stuff). I hope to never purchase crap again. So I read the reviews. I want them to tell me the truth if a product stinks. I would be furious if ENWorld came up with a policy to only say nice things in reviews, because then they would be totally worthless. I may not always agree with Psion’s opinion, but I value his thoroughness. If Psion points out something in a product that he doesn’t like, that does not mean I’ll refuse to buy the product out of hand, but it does mean I’ll look at it a lot more carefully before I do buy.

So Psion and the other reviewers, keep calling ‘em like you see ‘em. After all, you’re reviewing products for us, not for Jim Ward.

 

[Psion]

Re: reviewers evil? puh-leeze!

So Psion and the other reviewers, keep calling ‘em like you see ‘em. After all, you’re reviewing products for us, not for Jim Ward.

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.

 

[seasong]

Speaking as a buyer, rather than as a publisher, I prefer a review that is honest and tells both what's in the book, and why the reviewer didn't like it. If the reviewer has nothing nice they can say, then I'd rather they didn't reach. If a product has more than one reviewer, I read more than one review. I ignore ratings - my experience with ratings is from the video game industry, where a review could say something like "and it crashes every five minutes", and then give a 4/5.

An example of how I see reviews:

Green Races Campaign Book
JoeGKushner's review:
1. Didn't like the cover; I kinda did. But cover art rarely sways me.
2. Interior, 2-page map somewhat hard to read due to grayscale.
3. Map has too many "fantasy" style place names; ignored this point.
4. Plenty of cool ideas; listed some of them; cool!
5. Poorly balanced crunch; fits with my understanding of FFE's prior stuff; if I buy them, it's not for crunch.
6. Layout + art decent, but art repeated from earlier products; ignored, even GURPS does this .
7. Does not compare favorably with FFG's Monster Handbook or WotC's Savage Species.

Psion's review:
1. Described (no judgement) the cover; I kinda liked it .
2. Art is medium to poor, repeat from earlier; ignored.
3. Maps simple, textured shapes (no judgement); okay, that's fine.
4. Text changes sizes throughout; that will bother me while reading .
5. Refers racial stat blocks to the DMG; Psion didn't like this, I think it's BETTER that way, especially from FFE.
6. Each race has background, regional details, organization, PrC, and a "lair". Sounds good!
7. PrCs not consistent, many are bad; yeah, yeah, it's FFE, we know.
8. Conclusion, sucks, but FFE has improved since then; okay.

What I took from these:
1. Layout/Design: I like the cover. The interior art is fine, but not excellent. The text changes sizes (ick).
2. Some neat ideas, a mediocre map to help arrange those ideas, an interesting overall idea (but not one that I haven't seen already in Orkworld).
3. Not so great crunch.
4. If I was running a green-skinned campaign, this would make a solid second choice.

 

[Desdichado]

Joshua Dyal, for example, prefers a radically different game than I do.

My notoriety precedes me!

 

[Umbran]

Which is another instance of unsubstantiated allegations and false implications by Jim.

If he had anywhere in the piece specifically made an allegation against you, this would be reasonable. He didn't. You are inferring charges against you, from a piece that's nominally supposed to be giving advice in general. Is it possible he's talking about you? Yes. Is it also possible that he's talking about other reviewers in general? Also quite possibly yes.

If nothing else, finding a fight where he doesn't give one specifically and explicitly is a good way to worsen blood between you. One way to show him (and the public) that you aren't out for his blood personally is to not take it personally unless he mentions you by name. You can critique his essay without any reference to implied or inferred conflict between individuals. Wouldn't a good professional do that, rather than react to percieved mudslinging?

 

[Storminator]

<SNIP>

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.

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

PS

 

[DonAdam]

Along comes a reviewer who prints out a review just to get their words in print.

This part of the article is not just intellectually but morally offensive. Questioning the motives of people that disagree with you is, in my opinion, the lowest form of argument available to man. Let the argument stand on its own grounds.
It is perfectly fine to point out someone's biases when disagreeing with them, but to assume that their intentions are evil is ridiculous.

If they don't say something positive, then they shouldn't even have bothered to review the product.

Then why did you review their reviews Jim? You didn't have anything positive to say. Follow your own advice.

Edit: Not that I think the advice is good. If you're a reviewer that thinks a product is worthless and you're willing to be clear about your biases, you're doing a disservice to those that read you to not warn them away from spending their hard-earned dollars on products they will not enjoy (if they agree with your biases, which is why it is important to be clear).
This inconsistency, along with the reviews that FFE tends to get, leads me to think that this is less about negative critical comments in general and more about the ratings his company has received, which he disagrees with.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

If he had anywhere in the piece specifically made an allegation against you, this would be reasonable. He didn't. You are inferring charges against you, from a piece that's nominally supposed to be giving advice in general.

WRONG.

Read a little more closely what Psion wrote. Jim takes several quotes out of context straight out of Psions reviews to make his point.

Not only is Jim attacking Psion he is doing it dishonestly by taking out of context quotes.

 

[Maggan]

Lead by example

For me reviews is just another word for opinions. They can be expressed eloquently and well-reasoned, or they can be expressed with much cursing and invective.

People can have an opinion on a game without playing it.

People can have an opinion about a game without reading it.

People can have an opinion on any aspect of a game product, such as art, borders, typography, spelling, rules, idea, plot, you name it.

People can have an opinion about a game.

Just about the only thing I expect the reviewer to state is how he is coming into the review, such as "I have read it, but not played it, here's my opinion on it...".

That's about it when it comes to my expectations on a review.

As to mister Ward, I would pay more heed to his advice to reviewers if one of his previous 900 words did not contain the following words:

In the recent past, I haven't been impressed with Upper Deck and its card game titles. I just haven't liked their design efforts. Although they have amazingly deep pockets, lots of money clearly doesn't always make for good card game designs. The company is very aggressive and they have bought some powerful licenses that are going to make the company an even bigger deal in the next two years in the collectible card game arena. However, I wasn't too worried about the quality of their future games until I saw two of their new employees. Long ago and far away, I had the pleasure of working with Kevin Tewart and Mike Hummel when I was helping Precedence grow. I was very impressed with how hard they worked and it was primarily due to their efforts that Precedence lasted as long as it did. Now I have to change my opinion of Upper Deck new releases. With those two helping out, there are going to be some sound designs coming out of Upper Deck, sigh.

Ouch, not much explanation as to why Upper Deck is an unimpressive company there. Not much motivation as to the reasons for the verdict. No references to what part of their game design that is unimpressive. Not even products are mentioned. Just a blanket "In the recent past, I haven't been impressed with Upper Deck and its card game titles. I just haven't liked their design efforts."

I suppose the basic wish from mr Ward is that reviewers should treat FFE with more respect than he is showing his competitors...

Maggan

 

[reiella]

Slight error in thought there.

Many Computer Game reviewers will actually only play a short segment of a game before sending out a review. Usually around 2 hours, with one mainstream internet game reporting agency requiring only 30 minutes. Now if it's a particularly "long game" it may get more, but the 140 hr+ testing practically only happens with Fan Reviews on a cult game classic a few monthes after release.

Another big thing, a review is not a proofread edit. It's a review.

And of course, the big thing, numbered reviews are very near worthless imo. The content of the review is much more interesting.

And now I remember where I knew Ward from now, Precedence, oi.