Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vigilance" data-source="post: 1819624" data-attributes="member: 4275">I think it's as ok for people to talk about a reviewer's style (and whether or not they like it) as it is for reviewers to talk about products in any way they choose and judge them as they see fit.For my part, I didn't have a &quot;problem&quot; with the review, it just seemed like the whole reason for its score were the mistakes (which were minor for the most part and would not really affect play).He said the monsters were better than MMII or FF (this seems to lend itself to a better than average score, if not a 5), then listed a boatload of minor errors, and gave it a 3. So to the extent that I have a problem, as a person who doesn't own the MM III but was thinking about buying it, the review didn't really help me. The fact that a monster has an attack of +25 when it should really have an attack of +24 does nothing to let me know if the monster is good. Chuck</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vigilance, post: 1819624, member: 4275"] I think it's as ok for people to talk about a reviewer's style (and whether or not they like it) as it is for reviewers to talk about products in any way they choose and judge them as they see fit. For my part, I didn't have a "problem" with the review, it just seemed like the whole reason for its score were the mistakes (which were minor for the most part and would not really affect play). He said the monsters were better than MMII or FF (this seems to lend itself to a better than average score, if not a 5), then listed a boatload of minor errors, and gave it a 3. So to the extent that I have a problem, as a person who doesn't own the MM III but was thinking about buying it, the review didn't really help me. The fact that a monster has an attack of +25 when it should really have an attack of +24 does nothing to let me know if the monster is good. Chuck [/QUOTE]

Verification