Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 1000301" data-attributes="member: 3586">I'm going to say this straight: Monte's review is a terrible review.It contains much that is of worth in it. Even if I disagree with some of his arguments and conclusions, I greatly appreciate seeing his thoughts on the matter.However, as a review, it sucks.The reason it sucks is one of balance.Monte says, "most of the changes it presents are good."Why then, does it read so much as a slam of the 3.5 books?I think it's because he spends no time discussing the good changes, and why they are good changes, and spends a huge amount of time discussing those changes he thinks are bad.Compare the following two excerpts from the review:Why is there such a discrepancy in length? If "most of the changes it presents are good", why then does the emphasis fall on the negative?Because Monte, despite his disclaimers, is concentrating on the negatives of the 3.5E books.A review? No. It is a rant, and I wish he'd labelled it as such. The insights given are important, but I do believe, very strongly, that more attention needed to be given to the positives for it to be properly called a "review".</blockquote>