FastForwardGames & Reviews: The Confrontation

[pennywiz]

Well, Wil, Monte probably has spelled out this stance the most clearly on his website. The one thing that Monte says is kosher is to correct something that is factually incorrect. All I ask is license to do the same when a factually incorrect assertion is made about one of my reviews.

That said, if that's the standard, Jim certainly isn't living up to it.

 

[trancejeremy]

While I agree with most of Mr. Smith's column, I have to take issue with this:

This is especially true -- I think -- of reviewers who have never designed anything themselves. Ignorant of the effort it takes to bring an idea to final publication, all too many of them assume that they could do better, and that attitude shows in their writing -- especially on the Web, where flaming is so common. It's the old human failing of putting somebody else down in order to feel better about yourself. But in the end, it's self-destructive. People who fall into this trap never accomplish much themselves.

Personally, I know I couldn't do better. Otherwise, I would (what with PDF publishing and all). What FF is being compared to is a) the competition and b) reality. And people actually running or using their products also should be able to express an opinion of them.

This is an old argument that tries to demonize critics, by saying if you can't do it yourself, you're not allowed to comment on it. It's used quite a bit. But I've always thought it was the people who the product that it's aimed at that are the best critics. They might not be able to tell you how to make something better, only that it needs to be improved.

For instance, take Keanu Reeves. I would wager that many people who have seen his movies have criticized his acting. Yet how many could act better, or tell him how to improve? Very few. But most people still know they want better acting (unless it's a movie where he's supposed to look confused...)

 

[Flyspeck23]

This is an old argument that tries to demonize critics, by saying if you can't do it yourself, you're not allowed to comment on it.

But if you can do it yourself (meaning: you are a "professional game designer", whatever that is), then you're not supposed to be a critic at the same time (Monte Cook is trying to walk that fine line somehow, but he's very, very careful...).

 

[Morrus]

Personally, I know I couldn't do better. Otherwise, I would (what with PDF publishing and all). What FF is being compared to is a) the competition and b) reality. And people actually running or using their products also should be able to express an opinion of them.

This is an old argument that tries to demonize critics, by saying if you can't do it yourself, you're not allowed to comment on it. It's used quite a bit. But I've always thought it was the people who the product that it's aimed at that are the best critics. They might not be able to tell you how to make something better, only that it needs to be improved.

For instance, take Keanu Reeves. I would wager that many people who have seen his movies have criticized his acting. Yet how many could act better, or tell him how to improve? Very few. But most people still know they want better acting (unless it's a movie where he's supposed to look confused...)

I agree entirely. The only reason that anyone ever pays for a product or service is that they either don't have the time and/or the ability to do/create that thing themselves. Does that therefore mean that they are not allowed to criticise or complain about the product or service they receive? Of course not.

If I buy a car, I have certain expectations of it. Just because I can't build a car, doesn't mean that I lose my right to complain when the car I buy doesn't work. The fact that I'm not an expert chef doesn't mean I can't complain when a restaurant provides me with a poor meal.

That's what you're paying for - something you couldn't do yourself, for whatever reason. You're exchanging your money for "expertise" which you don't have, and you have a right to expect a standard higher than that which you could provide yourself. Otherwise, why would you ever buy anything?

 

[Cergorach]

The publisher creates certain expectations, if the products can not life up to the expectations, the publisher still made a mistake by creating the impression of a high quality product.

 

[Vigilance]

But if you can do it yourself (meaning: you are a "professional game designer", whatever that is), then you're not supposed to be a critic at the same time (Monte Cook is trying to walk that fine line somehow, but he's very, very careful...).

I find this statement silly. I was told by a fellow game designer that we "weren't supposed to do reviews".

As long as the reviews you do are unbiased, what's wrong with the opinion of someone who CAN do what the writer has done (ie design games and get paid for it).

Morrus I agree with you that people who buy games have the right to criticize whether they could do it or not (as you say, that's what they pay for).

However, I find this notion that writers can't/shouldn't write reviews a little odd.

 

[Flyspeck23]

However, I find this notion that writers can't/shouldn't write reviews a little odd.

If that's what you think my "silly" remark was all about then, well, read again. I've even given an example.

As long as the reviews you do are unbiased

My sentiments exactly. But if you are ripping someone else's work to shreds, then anyone will pay close attention if your review really is unbiased. And it better should be, or else...

The "RPG industry" is somewhat different from any other business, in that you could presume that the people who are working in it are doing it because they love that hobby, and not (only?) for the money. Therefore it is at least possible for professionals to review other professional's work.

Maybe that statement wasn't silly, but me (if I didn't get my point across). Or maybe I'm not that silly, because I'm not a native speaker and am faced with "language problems"...

Anyway, tread carefully, and you should be ok by me.

 

[Mark Chance]

As long as the reviews you do are unbiased, what's wrong with the opinion of someone who CAN do what the writer has done (ie design games and get paid for it).

There is no such as an unbiased review because the review is at least in part subjective. The review includes, as you say above, the reviewer's opinions.

My opinions are influenced, consciously or not, by my biases. The trick for a reviewer is to not hide his or her biases but rather to explain what those biases are and how the product in question meets or fails to meet the criteria established by those biases.

If a reviewer cannot handle his or her biases, that reviewer is better off not reviewing the material in question.

 

[DaveMage]

I think the danger in a designer doing a review is more practical than anything else.

For example, if you are a freelancer (or even working for an RPG company) and you review a different company's product negatively, then that company (or members thereof) may develop a poor opinion of you (even if your review was accurate), and it could hurt you down the line.

All this, IMO, of course.

 

[tensen]

I think the danger in a designer doing a review is more practical than anything else.

For example, if you are a freelancer (or even working for an RPG company) and you review a different company's product negatively, then that company (or members thereof) may develop a poor opinion of you (even if your review was accurate), and it could hurt you down the line.

All this, IMO, of course.

Actually if the reviewer made the review negative but had a lot of constructive criticism.... it would give the reviewer a plus on my side.....

heck I think we hired our current layout artist even after reading his specific comments about layout in a review.