D&D 4E Should WotC take a Step Back and Reevaluate 4E?

[KarinsDad]

Why is that positive reviews are extremist, and negative ones are in the middle and thus trustworthy?

The ones I quoted were meh reviews. Not negative ones. The authors had likes and dislikes. That's at least trying to be objective.

Whenever an extremist view comes along which is totally positive or totally negative with no room for deviation, it is by definition suspect.

 

[Thaniel]

When did expressing concerns, reservations, or not liking a game 100% automatically translate into a negative review?

The same moment that liking a game became extremist.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Karin: Well, I have a question for you in response to this. How many people do you know would go to a Con (completely paying their own way, in both time and money) simply to trash it?

I can't think of many people, off the top of my head. Also, all reviews I've read so far have mentioned 'likes and dislikes'. Is it their fault that the 'dislikes' were vastly outweighed by the 'likes'?

Whenever an extremist view comes along which is totally positive or totally negative with no room for deviation, it is by definition suspect.

You do realize that this is also an extremist view, in requiring views to not be extremist? If you suspect anything anyone says that does not qualification in them, then your statement above must also come under suspicion, for I see no room for deviation in it.

 

[Imaro]

Well, the whole 'getting rid of extremes' is a statistically sound approach... if you use it properly. (Like everything in statistics.) However, the question here is what are the extremes of your data set. Right now, you have at least 70% of the people who have played the game saying it's very good, and the rest saying it's good to middling. (I cannot think of a single review I've seen that states that they won't play 4E come June.) Right now, this is showing a very good chance that the overall reaction is positive.

Now, should WotC look at what people are saying? Absolutely! However, they should look at the comments critically, in the same way that people should look at their system critically. Evaluate what a given person's concerns really are. Determine if those concerns are valid and whether or not they have already been addressed in the system. Etc. etc.

Re: 'appealing to the younger crowd'... well, I don't know exactly where I stand in relationship to most people here, but I'm 31 and have played D&D for at least 20 years. If you want to see a zero-sum approach where an item must suffer in one area to excel in another, that's fine.

The beginning of Dungeon Crawlin' Fools (first OotS compilation) springs vividly to mind: "Damn. Time to break out the +2 Shampoo."

Emphasis mine, where are these reviews at? I'm not trying to call you out or anything but I'd really like to read them. I read Massawyrm's review but it was so sparse on actual reasons and specific examples for why he actually liked the game that I didn't read anymore after the first one.

 

[Dragonblade]

Negativity does NOT equal objectivity.

The whole notion that for a review to be "balanced" or "objective" it must be negative is wrong.

Someone could absolutely love the game, or they could hate the game. But neither extreme necessarily makes one objective. In fact, I'm not even sure true objectivity is possible. When someone reviews something they inherently bring in their own baggage, their own expectations, their own notions of what's good and bad. Which could be completely different than someone else's.

IMO, Rodrigo's review is no more or less objective than Massawyrm's review, or Mouseferatu's review. They each are worth reading in their own right, but each person approaches things differently.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, the whole 'getting rid of extremes' is a statistically sound approach... if you use it properly. (Like everything in statistics.) However, the question here is what are the extremes of your data set. Right now, you have at least 70% of the people who have played the game saying it's very good, and the rest saying it's good to middling. (I cannot think of a single review I've seen that states that they won't play 4E come June.) Right now, this is showing a very good chance that the overall reaction is positive.

Where do you get your 70% statistic?

Another aspect of this is the sample set of D&D Experience. The people going there (and paying good money to do so) tend to be ones who should have an incentive to like it. It's hard core gamers looking for the new release. It's third party game companies looking to get into the 4E market faster than their competition. It would be somewhat strange to have a subset of those people going there saying "I'm going into this expecting to have a bad experience".

But, we have a few who came out with a so so experience. Likes and dislikes. Based on the types of people going there, this might be very telling as to the actual game. People expecting to have a good time having a so so time is not a good sign.

Now, should WotC look at what people are saying? Absolutely! However, they should look at the comments critically, in the same way that people should look at their system critically. Evaluate what a given person's concerns really are. Determine if those concerns are valid and whether or not they have already been addressed in the system. Etc. etc.

Agreed.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Er, if you don't read the full reviews (and please note, by your own admission you've read 1 part of what was explicitly a multipart review), how can you expect to create an informed opinion regarding them?

The only review I've seen on here by someone who actually played the game that was not, all in all, positive (meaning 'I'll play this game) was the guy from Paizo, and he was not asked his personal opinion so much as what Paizo would do.

 

[Shroomy]

BTW, according to Mike Mearls (on his DDXP blog), they are taking the feedback from DDXP into account in the next few weeks of tweaking.

 

[Ulthwithian]

I get my 70% statistic from a general idea of how many reviews I've read, and how many sounded very positive as opposed to 'just positive'.

We're also getting into the realm of customer satisfaction, being the difference between what a customer expects to receive and what a customer does receive. Can you please show me the people who both 1) Went in looking for a very good experience, and 2) Came out not having that 'very good' experience? Stated another way, can you show me the people whose experience was not as good as they expected it to be? (Please note the difference between 'expectation' and 'desire'.)

 

[KarinsDad]

You do realize that this is also an extremist view, in requiring views to not be extremist? If you suspect anything anyone says that does not qualification in them, then your statement above must also come under suspicion, for I see no room for deviation in it.

It's not extremist. It's scientific. Throwing out the extreme data points, even in a subjective experiment, is a valid statistical approach.

One could also keep those data points in as well.

But it comes down to what type of data one is looking for: analyzed, or cheerleader, or total naysayer. The extremes of cheerleader and naysayer often tend to be of limited value, limited objectivity, and often have an agenda associated with them. Look at them, but take them with a grain of salt as potentially skewed and non-objective data.