Revision Reviews

[JoeGKushner]

In my last batch of products to review, a lot of them were 3.5 versions that updated older materials.

Now I'm thinking that people are going to want to know what's the update. In almost all cases, the original products had several reviews on them.

This is a bit different than the Book of Fiends, as that product had a whole 3rd (and more) of new stuff to it.

What do people think? Reviews of the revision, or reviews of the whole product with grade reflecting it's overall utility, not just it's 3.5 conversion utility.

 

[reiella]

Hmm, I'd say review the product as if it existed on its own for terms of a 'point result'.

And include comments regarding it's value as an update.

At least, unless the book it was just an 'update book', like the D&D Update Booklet at Wizards.com. I don't know of anyone who has released 'update books' or 'update products' solely as an update except a handful of PDF publishers though.

Hmm, I hope ya know what I mean, because reading myself I have difficulty figuring out what I mean .

 

[Ottergame]

I say review the book as its own product. That can give us a good idea about weither or not its value as a suppliment has dropped since its original release by subsequent products.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

While a review of just the revision has utility, I'd rather see both aspects of the product reviewed. I want the full review for a couple reasons:
*I don't want to have to find earlier reviews to get the overall review of the product.
*A new review can reflect the changing expectations in the market. Most of us would agree that many early products, if reviewed today, would not rate nearly as highly as they did when released. We expect more from products today, in terms of presentation, accuracy, and general quality. A two-year old reveiw of a 3.0 product isn't as useful as a review written in the last couple months.

As for reviewing the revision, I think that is a necessary element of the full review. Products should be reviewed based on their purpose. A revision has all the same purposes of the original - presenting npc's, a city, an adventure, etc. - but is should also accurately and effectively update the material to the new rules-set. How well it succeeds in both areas, if it falls short in either area, I want to know that.

 

[Altalazar]

The ideal review would be identical twins, not separated at birth, who have identical RPG views - then only let one of them see and play 3.0 and have the other only see and play 3.5 then they each write his respective review and you can compare, side-by-side how they come out compared to each other.

If you don't do that, you'll likely find a lot of other things creeping into the review that have nothing to do with the actual quality of each product - grumbling about 3.5 coming out so soon, etc. is part of that. So perhaps an upfront indication of that bias is the next best thing to the twin scenario outlined above.

 

[DaveMage]

I say review the book as its own product. That can give us a good idea about weither or not its value as a suppliment has dropped since its original release by subsequent products.

I agree 100% with this.

 

[Ottergame]

I agree 100% with this.

When the various class splatbooks from Wizards were released, they were good books, and were pretty well recieved. However, our tastes have changed, we want more than just new rules to tack onto the core books, we need a complete product. Complete Warrior is much better, and much more useful, than Sword and Fist.

 

[Voadam]

In my last batch of products to review, a lot of them were 3.5 versions that updated older materials.

Now I'm thinking that people are going to want to know what's the update. In almost all cases, the original products had several reviews on them.

This is a bit different than the Book of Fiends, as that product had a whole 3rd (and more) of new stuff to it.

What do people think? Reviews of the revision, or reviews of the whole product with grade reflecting it's overall utility, not just it's 3.5 conversion utility.

You will have two audiences those with the old stuff and those coming to the book fresh. If you had the old stuff then you have a perspective on the conversion that can be useful for people who had the old stuff and are considering whether to get the new version. Things such as how many new monsters are there in the 3.5 Denizens of Dread, does it include ones that were available in other 3.0 Ravenloft supplements, did the art change, etc.

However there are constantly new people coming into the game who are considering getting only the latest current version having never seen any of the older material and they are wondering about the book on its own merits absent its relationship to other books. They would want to know if, for example, Denizens of Dread 3.5 is a good book of 3.5 horror-themed monsters for them to get for their game.

So I would try and write to both audiences if you are familiar with the old stuff, otherwise don't sweat analyzing it besides mentioning that there is conversion of old stuff and if it succeeds in complying with the new rules.

For the score I would go with analyzing it on its own merits absent its relationship to past versions.

 

[Derulbaskul]

My preference is that each product that is reviewed is treated as a new product.

I don't think it's fair that, for example, a 5 out of 5 book like Book of Fiends is marked down to an average rating of 4 out of 5 simply because it was once published as two separate books (plus a third unpublished work) and therefore the compiled and revised work is deemed to have less utility.

 

[RichGreen]

I was quite shocked by the scores you gave Complete Book of Eldritch Might and the Book of Hallowed Might revised edition, and very surprised that Book of Fiends did not get a 5/5.

IMO, the books should be reviewed as if they were new, with notes on whether buying the revised version is worth it. I have PDFs of the four Monte "Might" books. I bought the Complete Book of Eldritch Might to get a hardcover compilation, and decided not to buy the revised Book of Hallowed Might. Your review confirmed that I made the right decision in the second case, but the product is probably still a 4/5.

Cheers


Richard