Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5391374" data-attributes="member: 61155">You know, I've seen a lot of these complaints of late, and I'm not so sure I agree with them. My biggest issues, quality wise, have been the lack of editing of some specific content (usually fixed in the compilations). But in terms of genuinely good articles, there actually has been (at least in my opinion) an improvement in recent months. &nbsp;The major weakness is the lack of any game-changers that really knock it out of the part, of which there were a decent number early on. (Domains of Dread, Codex of Betrayal, the Gladiator articles, etc.) That said, some of the recent stuff has come close - the Ecology of the Scarecrow article in November was absolutely fantastic. &nbsp;Overall, the article in the last few months have had a great focus on flavor and most of the discussion of seen on the actual articles is pretty positive. But I keep seeing comments about how weak the overall quality of the magazines has become, and I'm wondering what is the actual cause. Even the adventures seem to improving - the most recent one, Lord of the White Field, seems to have been exactly what people have been asking for. &nbsp;I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anyone who is concerned about the quality of the magazines. But my suggestion would be that specifics might be more useful. Simply saying one is upset over the quality doesn't much help - why do people feel the quality is lacking, and what about these recent articles is actually a problem?&nbsp;Edit: And, just to clarify, I wasn't specifically objecting to the above post (which actually does a good job of listing specific concerns, including ones that I tend to agree with!) but more the general 'lack of quality' comments that seem to be showing up everywhere of late.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MrMyth, post: 5391374, member: 61155"] You know, I've seen a lot of these complaints of late, and I'm not so sure I agree with them. My biggest issues, quality wise, have been the lack of editing of some specific content (usually fixed in the compilations). But in terms of genuinely good articles, there actually has been (at least in my opinion) an improvement in recent months. The major weakness is the lack of any game-changers that really knock it out of the part, of which there were a decent number early on. (Domains of Dread, Codex of Betrayal, the Gladiator articles, etc.) That said, some of the recent stuff has come close - the Ecology of the Scarecrow article in November was absolutely fantastic. Overall, the article in the last few months have had a great focus on flavor and most of the discussion of seen on the actual articles is pretty positive. But I keep seeing comments about how weak the overall quality of the magazines has become, and I'm wondering what is the actual cause. Even the adventures seem to improving - the most recent one, Lord of the White Field, seems to have been exactly what people have been asking for. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anyone who [I]is[/I] concerned about the quality of the magazines. But my suggestion would be that specifics might be more useful. Simply saying one is upset over the quality doesn't much help - why [I]do[/I] people feel the quality is lacking, and what about these recent articles is actually a problem? Edit: And, just to clarify, I wasn't specifically objecting to the above post (which actually does a good job of listing specific concerns, including ones that I tend to agree with!) but more the general 'lack of quality' comments that seem to be showing up everywhere of late. [/QUOTE]

Verification