Review of 4E on Aint It Cool News

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I understand satire but there are still some subjects that are offensive even if being used as part of satire.

Yes, Satire can be offensive to some people. That's very often the case. But that doesn't mean it should stop a Satirist. On the contrary, offensive satire can be quite effective, since it is thought provoking and forces people to deal with the issue presented.
[/off-topic]

A review can be positive or negative on a topic. Are you telling me that if a games magazine puts out a review on GTA IV and gives it a rating of 90 %, it means it is biased and cannot be used to give an insight into its quality?
Does every "good" review have to rate at 50 % then?

Is this some kind of "Zero-Sum"-fallacy? For every good point, there must be an equally strong bad point?

 

[Vigilance]

As someone still on the fence about 4e, I will say this. I really think the whole "only allowing a few playtesters to say only positive things about the game" was a bad move on WotC's part. It almost feels like they are purposefully directing "reviews" to give one oppinion, in other word being disingenuous, regardless of whether the person felt that way or not. Add to that the fact that Mouseferatu is already writing a supplement for the rules and you wonder "would I, or any of my friends say something bad about anything that was gonna determine my financial state?"...so yeah, I can definitely see where people are coming from.

Except that the person who wrote the review for AICN has said a couple of times now that HE received no such directive to only be positive.

He's also not a freelancer.

It's just possible that he really liked it as much as he says he did.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I thought it was quite funny actually. Horrified and disgusted? Ahhh, I get it. You're one of "those" people...

How about clarifying that.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Brown Jenkins, we don't allow that type of attack here. If you dislike someone's review, then use that to color your other perceptions of other reviews they have written, not berate them publicly.

In the meantime, while you're welcome to keep reading this thread, you will not post in this thread again.

Everyone else, could we please shift this back to a more on-topic discussion?

Thanks,
Dinkeldog/Moderator

 

[Imaro]

Except that the person who wrote the review for AICN has said a couple of times now that HE received no such directive to only be positive.

He's also not a freelancer.

It's just possible that he really liked it as much as he says he did.

Link please...I find it hard to believe that he was given free reign to write whatever he wanted and no one else was.

 

[Vigilance]

Link please...I find it hard to believe that he was given free reign to write whatever he wanted and no one else was.

Dude, it's from THIS THREAD.

Sheesh. Try to be at least a little informed huh?

The "try to be positive email" was internal, sent to Wizards employees and freelancers.

As this reviewer is neither, he never got it, never even knew about it.

He asked for permission to write a review and it was granted.

 

[Imaro]

Dude, it's from THIS THREAD.

Sheesh. Try to be at least a little informed huh?

The "try to be positive email" was internal, sent to Wizards employees and freelancers.

As this reviewer is neither, he never got it, never even knew about it.

He asked for permission to write a review and it was granted.

My bad, I will now clean some of the egg off my face...


However, I still think (and again my feelings as a consumer) that the "reviews" so far have been placed in a compromising position. Even in this situation, Ari is a friend of the reviewer and someone whose, at least in part, livelihood is affected by the number of people that buy into 4e. Thus I still see reason to consider bias. (Whether it does or doesn't influence the review is something only Massawyrm knows). It's like asking a friend to review a play that you play a minor role in...there could be a conflict of interest. It also worries me that no "real reviews" will be allowed until after the books are released. It reminds me of those movies that won't let a reviewer critique them early, and IME they usually (though not always) aren't that great. YMMV of course.

 

[Vigilance]

It also worries me that no "real reviews" will be allowed until after the books are released.

There's almost no "real reviews" of anything until it's released. Movies are something of an exception I think, and I think even then companies are starting to make reviewers wait until the movie is released before posting their reviews, ostensibly to avoid spoilers.

I know in video game circles for example it's considered bad form to review something pre-release.

But in this case, you got a real review, he just happened to really like it, and you refuse to accept that.

From what I've seen of this guy's (movie) reviews, knowing Ari wouldn't have stopped him from slagging the game if he didnt like it.

But he DID like it.

If you can wait two whole weeks to buy the books after release, my guess is you'll be swimming in reviews, good, bad and indifferent.

 

[Psion]

Same with your comment about bias. So, what, people who like something shouldn't be allowed to review it? Reviews are only acceptable if they come from people who have both something positive and negative to say?

Because they like something, no. Otherwise, no "unbiased" review would offer anything but a middle of the road score.

Now, the fact that the reviewer in question playtested the review and further later versions of playtest rules incorporate his playtest recommendations would be an indication of bias.

 

[Kesh]

Because they like something, no. Otherwise, no "unbiased" review would offer anything but a middle of the road score.

Now, the fact that the reviewer in question playtested the review and further later versions of playtest rules incorporate his playtest recommendations would be an indication of bias.

Is that really bias, though? Would it be less biased if his suggestions were not incorporated into the final rules?

Really, we need to know what people consider the line between biased and unbiased before we start tossing that word around here.