Are reviewers evil?

[Zappo]

...I challenge you to look at some reviews of products I have given average ratings and tell me that I did not highlight positive points...

Don't get too defensive.
I wasn't implying you (or anyone else) anywhere in my post, and neither I intend to. I just stated that Ward's article actually has good guidelines to writing reviews.

 

[Greatwyrm]

In defense of low scoring reviews

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.

The way I look at it, if a score is good, the reviewer liked it. No need to go to the details. But when somebody gives a 1 or 2, they've probably got something to say. I want to see what the person specifically didn't like. If these points are things I think would affect my enjoyment of the product, I pass. If they're on things I don't care about, I'll probably go ahead and buy it.

Case in point. Encyclopedia of Demons and Devils -- the main complaint I saw on this one was the screwy stats for the critters. To me, this seems rather important for a book of critters. Pass. Green Races -- the main complaints I saw for this one were some mildy off mechanics and some not so great art. I don't care much about art and I can fix or ignore small mechanical problems (I played 2e, after all ). I'll probably end up buying Green Races some day.

 

[Psion]

I wasn't implying you (or anyone else) anywhere in my post, and neither I intend to. I just stated that Ward's article actually has good guidelines to writing reviews.

Right, and I am just saying that one should take Ward's rant with a grain of salt. Yes, some things that he says you shouldn't do, you shouldn't do. But a lot of the people he quoted (without context or attribution) DIDN'T do what he said you shouldn't do, so it's an empty complaint.

This tactic is very misleading. Let's say you are new to FFE. You see lots of hardbound books at your FLGS, so you decide to check it out online. You check out the companies website and you check out some reviews. Lots of people have tepid to bad reviews. Oh, but look here, the website says that it's bad when reviewers do this... so those reviewers must being doing this. I guess I'll go out and buy it...

 

[Ghostwind]

A good article about reviewers that doesn't have all of the "less professional" behavior about it is one written by Jim Butler some time back (http://www.bastionpress.com/column.htm). In it, he also brings up valid points about reviewers and reviewing, but does so in a very professional manner.

 

[WizarDru]

OK, so who is Jim Ward, then, historically? Apparently he's been in the industry for a long time...but his name doesn't exactly roll off of my tongue. Was he big during 2e, when I wasn't playing D&D, only GURPS?

What's his claim to pre-3e fame (or infamy, depending)?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

He goes way back, to the beginnings of D&D and RPGs. The Drawmij spells are named for his PC (Drawmij is Jim Ward backwards), he created Metamorphosis Alpha and, I think Gamma World, both very early scifi RPGs.

 

[Psion]

OK, so who is Jim Ward, then, historically? Apparently he's been in the industry for a long time...but his name doesn't exactly roll off of my tongue. Was he big during 2e, when I wasn't playing D&D, only GURPS?

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.)

 

[seasong]

Who is Jim Ward:

Jim Ward did a fair amount of writing for TSR, and was a Vice President of Something-Or-Other for a while. I'm pretty sure he was behind Metamorphosis Alpha and Gamma World, and was involved in the original Dieties & Demigods, and his name was among the credits of a whole slew of 1st edition stuff.

He's contributed a pretty fair amount to gaming as a whole, and when he's not writing game mechanics, he comes up with some pretty cool stuff. I mean, a lot of what he wrote, I look at, and think, "His campaign's probably a heck of a lot of fun". But that's also because, in his campaign, the players probably don't worry much about the rules either .

 

[Umbran]

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

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.

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

Taking the quote out of context (and it's a matter of opinion as to whether he's given enough context to make the quote meaningful) does not render it an attack.

In addition, I have a hard time seeing it as an attack, insofar as it does no damage to Psion. It isn't like anyone else is going to recognize those quotes as given. It was a complete non-issue in the discussion until Psion brought up the possibility. And suddenly it turns into a "beat on Mr. Ward" fest.

Perhaps folks here should remember that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Read the post right above yours, written by DonAdams:

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 it is wrong for Mr. Ward to question the motives of reviewers, it is equally wrong for us to question his motives. In addition, it's not constructive. Accusing him here certainly isn't going to make him change his mind or behavior. What good is done by it?

 

[Psion]

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?

Sure, I understand that he might want to avoid being specific. But what I take umbrage with is that he describes an undesirable pattern of behavior and quotes me (without attribution), and since you can't read the review he quotes, you just have to take it on faith that the people he quotes really are engaging in the pattern of behavior that he describes. In fact, he quotes me in the context of "unsubstantiated assertions" and that you should give examples. But if the reader had a specific review to link back to, they would see that I DO give examples.

It may be an error of ommision, but it is still ultimately misleading if not outright deceitful.