Critique of Psion's review of MOZ 1
- Thread starter Midnight Rider
- Start date
- Status
Eosin the Red
First Post
That is a great piece of work!
FDP Mike
First Post
Ha!
Dang, that's making me bust a gut!
You've got teh funny!
* * *
On a related note (seriously!), what you posted, Midnight Rider, was not a "metareview" at all. That sort of review would discuss the nature and activity and purpose of reviewing as a whole. You posted a direct and specific rebuttal/attack to Alan's MoZ review.
* * *
Okay, back to marking essays for me!
Oh yeah, and Cla . . . er, Orcus, I'm getting down to work on those files. Honestly!
[Ducks, hoping to avoid the Wand of Orcus .... Demon Princes can be just nasty sometimes!
]
d20Dwarf said:
Dang, that's making me bust a gut!
You've got teh funny!
* * *
On a related note (seriously!), what you posted, Midnight Rider, was not a "metareview" at all. That sort of review would discuss the nature and activity and purpose of reviewing as a whole. You posted a direct and specific rebuttal/attack to Alan's MoZ review.
* * *
Okay, back to marking essays for me!
Oh yeah, and Cla . . . er, Orcus, I'm getting down to work on those files. Honestly!
[Ducks, hoping to avoid the Wand of Orcus .... Demon Princes can be just nasty sometimes!
]
Hello Folks!
It's amazing what one learns second-hand these days!
I see no reason for a battle to be waged over my poor module, though in some ways I find that flattering.
If Eric Shook is responsible for making his opinions known, then far be it from me to criticize him. The manner in which he did so, if this is truly him, might be a little suspect, and he certainly was not talking on my behalf if this is true. I have always had good arguments with Eric, the type which make you want to strangle somebody, but guess what? He's always tended to excite and vitalize my thought process.
But enough on that.
As for MoZ. Hey, what can I say? Some like it, some don't. Some reviewers have given it thumbs down, some thumbs up. I've received hundreds of poisitive letters from fans about it and even had copies of it mailed for me to autograph. I understand it is doing fairly well in sales through Clark, so all is good.
Let the reviews continue unabated!
Remember that this is a rather old module, and is somehat more conducive to a more open and less strictured style of play. In fact it was originally intended as a Greyhawk module in two parts after my creation of the Mad Wizard Zayene in Dragon # 50 or 60 something, can't remember the issue. Wel the old Lawful good guys of the Kingdom just wanted the old King offed because he was a big persecutor. Perhaps the beginning subsumes many years of familiarity of such Greyhawk matters, and thus the "railroading" at the beginning. It's merely a story hook, really, and I leave alternatives to creative DMs to discover in place of it. No biggy.
The real thrust of this module is in its many challenges, its imaginative encounters, which I feel should always induce players into some heart and brain pounding thinking, and in the other imaginative twists I put on the rules. Expect the unexpected, so to speak.
No module is perfect, and I apologize not one iota for this one and its companion parts. Its a good story overall when read as a series.
I hope everyone has a happy game!
Rob Kuntz
It's amazing what one learns second-hand these days!
I see no reason for a battle to be waged over my poor module, though in some ways I find that flattering.
If Eric Shook is responsible for making his opinions known, then far be it from me to criticize him. The manner in which he did so, if this is truly him, might be a little suspect, and he certainly was not talking on my behalf if this is true. I have always had good arguments with Eric, the type which make you want to strangle somebody, but guess what? He's always tended to excite and vitalize my thought process.
But enough on that.
As for MoZ. Hey, what can I say? Some like it, some don't. Some reviewers have given it thumbs down, some thumbs up. I've received hundreds of poisitive letters from fans about it and even had copies of it mailed for me to autograph. I understand it is doing fairly well in sales through Clark, so all is good.
Let the reviews continue unabated!
Remember that this is a rather old module, and is somehat more conducive to a more open and less strictured style of play. In fact it was originally intended as a Greyhawk module in two parts after my creation of the Mad Wizard Zayene in Dragon # 50 or 60 something, can't remember the issue. Wel the old Lawful good guys of the Kingdom just wanted the old King offed because he was a big persecutor. Perhaps the beginning subsumes many years of familiarity of such Greyhawk matters, and thus the "railroading" at the beginning. It's merely a story hook, really, and I leave alternatives to creative DMs to discover in place of it. No biggy.
The real thrust of this module is in its many challenges, its imaginative encounters, which I feel should always induce players into some heart and brain pounding thinking, and in the other imaginative twists I put on the rules. Expect the unexpected, so to speak.
No module is perfect, and I apologize not one iota for this one and its companion parts. Its a good story overall when read as a series.
I hope everyone has a happy game!
Rob Kuntz
Orcus
First Post
Rob!
Thanks for joining in!
I hope I have properly represented the thoughts you and I discussed about the importance to you that a module take players out of their comfort zone and place them in an unusual situation. Maze 1 and 2 do this beautifully IMHO.
Thanks again for jumping in!
Clark
Thanks for joining in!
I hope I have properly represented the thoughts you and I discussed about the importance to you that a module take players out of their comfort zone and place them in an unusual situation. Maze 1 and 2 do this beautifully IMHO.
Thanks again for jumping in!
Clark
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
Man oh man, what a helluva thread! Sorry I missed out on the worst (best?) part of it.
*sigh* Makes me miss Ruin Explorer...
*sigh* Makes me miss Ruin Explorer...
Hey Morrus--
Aside from the fact that Midnight Rider has a history of causing problems on this board, I think his opinion of the adventure module is just as valid as Psion's. The only reason I bring this up is because of the recent announcement on the news page:
"A new way of calculating the average score of a product so as to eliminate the effect of "aberrant" reviews. Also a weighting in favour of staff reviews. Moderators assigned to remove reviews that are either too hostile (same rules as on the messageboards) or which attempt to artificially alter a product's average score; moderators may also have the ability to reassign a review as a comment if they feel that it doesn't qualify as a review)."
Although I am greatful to Psion for the detail he puts into his reviews, I often find that I do disagree with him (or any single reviewer for that matter) on the merits of a product. The staff reviewers make far greater effort and show more patients than I have when I write a d20 review. However, although their thoroughness is great when I want a preview, I think that an average score based on the largest pool of opinions possible is the best indicater of whether I should risk money on a product.
Weighting in favour of staff reviews means a product's score is dependent on less people, which IMO is a bad thing. I don't mind that moderators will be able to reassign some reviews as comments, because some of mine are clearly that (sometimes, everything has been said, and you just have to chime in and say "yup, I agree"). But comments should count. I would take two brief opinions from no names over one review by a staffer, not that I think the staffer is being biased, it's just that people have differing opinions. I just hope that the aberrant ones will cancel each other out in the end (it also becomes a sticky business deciding which ones are "aberrant", these people who try to artifically offset a product's score will just get sneakier about it, and watch their tone, but still have the same effect).
Is there any way we can get the old ranking system back, but secure?
Thanks,
-7th
[edit: hehe, ok apparently I don't know how to use html tags on posts, so I just got rid of my messy attempts.]
Aside from the fact that Midnight Rider has a history of causing problems on this board, I think his opinion of the adventure module is just as valid as Psion's. The only reason I bring this up is because of the recent announcement on the news page:
"A new way of calculating the average score of a product so as to eliminate the effect of "aberrant" reviews. Also a weighting in favour of staff reviews. Moderators assigned to remove reviews that are either too hostile (same rules as on the messageboards) or which attempt to artificially alter a product's average score; moderators may also have the ability to reassign a review as a comment if they feel that it doesn't qualify as a review)."
Although I am greatful to Psion for the detail he puts into his reviews, I often find that I do disagree with him (or any single reviewer for that matter) on the merits of a product. The staff reviewers make far greater effort and show more patients than I have when I write a d20 review. However, although their thoroughness is great when I want a preview, I think that an average score based on the largest pool of opinions possible is the best indicater of whether I should risk money on a product.
Weighting in favour of staff reviews means a product's score is dependent on less people, which IMO is a bad thing. I don't mind that moderators will be able to reassign some reviews as comments, because some of mine are clearly that (sometimes, everything has been said, and you just have to chime in and say "yup, I agree"). But comments should count. I would take two brief opinions from no names over one review by a staffer, not that I think the staffer is being biased, it's just that people have differing opinions. I just hope that the aberrant ones will cancel each other out in the end (it also becomes a sticky business deciding which ones are "aberrant", these people who try to artifically offset a product's score will just get sneakier about it, and watch their tone, but still have the same effect).
Is there any way we can get the old ranking system back, but secure?
Thanks,
-7th
[edit: hehe, ok apparently I don't know how to use html tags on posts, so I just got rid of my messy attempts.]
Last edited:
7thlvlDM said:
I have to agree here. I'm not overjoyed to see 'collective' ratings weighted to favor the opinions of a select few--even though the 'select few' may have an 'official' relationship with the site posting the reviews/ratings.
In Alan's case, for example, I trust his judgement on most (probably 90% of) review matters; but have found that his opinions of certain companies and their policies often color his reviews of products released by those companies, with the effect of his putting a positive spin on products from favored companies (and casting a negative air upon those from 'unfavored' publishers), quite apart from the flaws/merits of the individual product. This is a natural human tendency, and a thoroughly understandable one within the context of a review, but a rating determined by a collective means should not accord such a view more import than an opposing one, simply because one opinion is expressed by a person with an 'official' relationship with the body compiling the rating, and the other is not.
I hope that the above serves to underscore why I disagree with giving any one (or two, or three) reviewer's voice added weight in determining a collective rating for a product. In reviews, the voice of 'authority' is singular, but a collective rating requires multiple voices of equal import.
Regards,
Darrell King
All that having been said, however, 'Midnight Rider'/Eric N. Shook, or whoever he is, is completely out of line.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar Threads
