Revision Reviews

[JoeGKushner]

Based on some of the feedback here, I've changed the scores.

I personally still don't find Book of Fiends a 5. Sorry that I disagree with people on this but I'm very anxious to see other people, and I've seen at least three or four, who say they are going to do their own 5 star review of the book. It's work but trust me, people have different taste and its important that those using the review guide get to see as many opinions as possible.

 

[Nikchick]

Based on some of the feedback here, I've changed the scores.

I am utterly flabbergasted. It is beyond my ability to put to words.

Nicole

 

[Psion]

I am utterly flabbergasted. It is beyond my ability to put to words.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Conaill]

Guess it could be a bad thing if you interpret it as "I changed my scores because people seemed to disagree with them." I'm sure he meant it as "I changed my scores because people wanted me to rate the whole product, not just the changes from the 3.0 version". No problem with that.

Joe: make sure to proof read your entries! Here's some typoes that jumped out at me in the BoHM review (I probably missed a bunch):
- "That information is found on page pages latter [...]"
- "Monte rewords what his ranger is now as opposed to a standard one is."
- "it's special weapon"
- "versitility"
- "a arcane-divine spellcaster"

 

[Taelorn76]

I'd like to see a review of the product on it's own.

 

[Arnwyn]

"Both".

Certainly, review the product on it's own. However, it would be very much appreciated if you also reviewed and described the updated material as well (both in terms of quality and quantity of said updated material).

I think the overall review score should reflect the book on it's own, I also think that at the end of the review you include an "update score" in the review text. If it's a good book but weak update (*cough*BoHM*cough*) you would score the book itself as a "4" (for example), but in the review text itself score the update part as a "3" or even a "2" (again, for example).

I am utterly flabbergasted. It is beyond my ability to put to words.

Guh??

 

[Pramas]

Guess it could be a bad thing if you interpret it as "I changed my scores because people seemed to disagree with them."

I think Nicole was more reacting to the fact that Book of Eldritch Might score went up by 2 but the Book of Fiends score was kept the same.

 

[Psion]

I think Nicole was more reacting to the fact that Book of Eldritch Might score went up by 2 but the Book of Fiends score was kept the same.

I see that now.

I think that what Joe changed was his stance on whether you should assume that the reader has the pre-revision products, and Joe's original stance was that the BoEM was not a very worthwhile product because it didn't offer much to someone who already had the books.

Indeed, BoEM has much less original material than Book of Fiends; BoF is arguable much more valuable to previous owners of its constituent products than BoEM is to owners of its constituent products. I think that it didn't go up because, well, it wasn't being judged as not having value to someone who had the original books in the first place. Joe would have to speak for himeself, but I suspect Joe might think that the Hordes section was much more significant than any revision that the BoEM offered and/or the revisions and additions to other sections of the BoF were much more substantial than any that the BoEM.

So, in short, I think that BoEM got a boost because the "changed criteria" is not one that Joe was judging it that harshly on in the first place.

I can see, though, that it may be wise to skip BoF ahead in my queue to offer an alternate view.