Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6682729" data-attributes="member: 2525">If most people take it as a bad thing, then it's a bad thing.  It really doesn't matter if some dictionary definition paints it in neutral tones, or if you feel neutral about it.  All that matters is how it comes across to most people - and it comes across as a negative to most people.  We've run a sufficiently large test right here at EnWorld and the Wizards boards, seen the reactions of a sizable number of D&D fans, and can draw at least some conclusions from that sample that it's being taken as a negative.  So, it's a negative in this context - even if you disagree, even if a dictionary disagrees.Missed the point by a mile.  Not as good AS WHAT?  It's a "WOTC" adventure when talking about a comparison to "Paizo adventures".  But it's a Sasquatch Game Studio adventure when talking about the business end and outsourcing.  It's a disingenuous moving standard.  When Richard Baker, Stephen Schubert, and David Noonan write a Pathfinder adventure, there is none of this crap about outsourcing.  And when that Pathfinder adventure is compared, it's compared based on reviews.  Well Tyranny got a 75%, and Rise got an 85%.  So, that's consistent with the reviews.  Second Darkness got 50% by the way.They hit and exceeded that standard with PotA (which is the thread topic).  PotA  is at 91.5%, with a lot of reviews in.  In a comparison: Rise is at 85%, Second Darkness is at 50%,  Skull & Shackles is at 79%, Kingmaker is at 70.5%.  How is that not them being worthy of mention alongside those adventures? It got the best rating, it had a larger sample size for that rating, seems like it's fair to mention it along side those other fine adventures as also a fine adventure.Agreed, and they do.  They shouldn't however have a different standard.  They should not be treated as "outsourcing" when other companies don't get treated that way for identical authorship of their adventures.  They shouldn't get treated as "the Reviews section isn't good enough of a standard" when comparing reviews, when it was considered perfectly good for rating the adventures of other companies.  It's the constant double standard that I don't like - the shifting of goals and criteria whenever focusing on a WOTC product in ways that are never done for the products of other companies.When you read the reviews - which is obvious you have not done so - you will see it would be very difficult to post any of those reviews without having at least read it.  They're written (obviously) by people who have read the adventures and put the time in to provide a review.  They're not just pat "Oh wow this is awesome!".The second part of your comment is my point about double standards.  This isn't the WOTC board full of WOTC fans just posting automatic positive reviews.  And for years WOTC wasn't even publishing anything for the game and this board was full of Pathfinder fans who were honestly and sincerely reviewing Pathfinder products - there is nothing about the reviews of those Pathfinder adventures that suggests anything was being skewed or unfairly reviewed or reviewed by people who never read the adventure.  And nobody has ever complained (that I am aware of) that the reviews for those Pathfinder adventures were anything other than fair and rationale and well thought out honest reviews.  That system was perfectly good for Pathfinder reviews.  But now comes WOTC products, a couple of their products got positive reviews (not even all of them - as I said, Tyranny isn't stacking up so well), and suddenly that entire Reviews section is being questioned with the implication it's flawed and shouldn't be trusted in any way.It's a double standard.  Obviously so, to anyone paying attention.  It's unwarrented.  The Reviews section is a good one.  It's not going to be perfect, as no system is perfect.  But it's pretty darn good, and it's not being unduly biased by over the top fans in any particular direction.  It's not biased in favor of WOTC products and their fans, any more than the Pathfinder adventure reviews were being biased.  It's a reasonable fair, thoughtful, thorough, and honest Reviews section.  It is that for Paizo products, and it is that for WOTC products.  And it's a double standard and disingenuous to pretend otherwise, but only suddenly when WOTC products are being reviewed.</blockquote>

Verification