What constitutes a good vs bad review?

[Hand of Evil]

It is all art.

I like to think there is defined criteria; subject matter, quaility of information, quaility of art, layout, understanding, playability...

I know I can't write a review.

 

[MEG Hal]

Not having read the book or the review I can't really comment on the review, per se. But I find the complaint contradictory.

This is a D&D/D20 site. It may be a great game system but Ars Magica stuff isn't covered on EnWorld. If an Ars Magica product came out and was presented as a supplement that might be appropriate for a D&D player/DM to look at I would expect a reviewer to discuss how much was useful to D&D, how much could be changed to be useful for D&D etc.

I expect the same for setting based products (is the material useful outside of the setting, does it require a lot of assumptions that aren't present in generic settings?). Likewise if a 3.0 product came out now I would appreciate comments from a reviewer about whether it incorporated 3.5 changes and how much effort would be required to change a book to match up with 3.5.

UA seems particularly likely to get into this problem due to its peculiar marketing: on one hand it's implied that its D&D compatible, covered on EnWorld, etc. On the other hand it's really its own game system. Most UA material requires at least some work to translate to D&D. A review to D&D oriented consumers mentioning clearing mentioning that aspect of the product, and considering that aspect in giving a review rating seems more than fair.

I mean, UA could, like so many other fantasy games that are similar-to-but-different-than-D&D, not be covered on EnWorld at all.

It was not on this site It was on a gaming site not a d20 site. I have no problem with them telling you what you need to do to convert it but do not cut it down because of it.

Hope that clarifies that particular review.

 

[green slime]

I'm fully with psion on his scale of the reviews. Products with a "3" are perfectly acceptable, average products.

The problem being, that as a consumer of limited means, there are many of these products which intrigue me, but I do not have the means to indulge in. Hell I can't even get the FLGS to bring in most stuff anyway, to even browse through.

If I am on my way to a cinema, on one of those far-to-few child-free evenings I have, and I can choose between a film I know I'll like that was rated 3, or one that was rated 5, and I also know I will like, I'll be more likely to go see the 5-rated movie. Because my resources in time and money are limited.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

1: This product is useless even if you are interested in the subject matter. To date, I have only ever awarded one "1" at ENWorld.

Well I got a one out of five for something I wrote even though it said in the review: "Well, I guess if you like your humour coarse and black, this will probably have you rolling on the floor with laughter."

Which given that it was intended as a black/course humour book would seem to imply that it isn't totally useless for people looking for such a book.

http://www.enworld.org/reviews/index.php?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=Simon+Collins&product=TSGTGM

 

[diaglo]

It depends.

I tend to read staff reviews and skim fan reviews. A staff reviewer reads a book because the editor said to do it. A fan buys the book and reads it because he wants to. So there tends to be less bias in the staff review.

i do the opposite. fans paid money to read the book so i give them more weight. esp. when their reviews are negative. as compared to a staff reviewer who got his handed to him.

But, much more importantly, I can read a dozen staff reviews and reach my own conclusion about the reviewer. There is one staff reviewer for a popular gaming site that praises mechanics and seems to skip over the flavor text. That's fine, but I'm going to remember that if he highly recommends a book that its going to be heavy with PrCs, feats, spells, and magic items.

So really, it depends on who is writing the review and what I know of the reviewer.

on this i agree. from reading many sites. i know some reviewers i think are hacks. and some i trust.

 

[S'mon]

Well I got a one out of five for something I wrote even though it said in the review: "Well, I guess if you like your humour coarse and black, this will probably have you rolling on the floor with laughter."

Which given that it was intended as a black/course humour book would seem to imply that it isn't totally useless for people looking for such a book.

http://www.enworld.org/reviews/index.php?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=Simon+Collins&product=TSGTGM

"...the humour went beyond black and into just plain sick..."

As a GM I'm sure I'd give it a '1' also - don't want players buying this filth...

(Oh, & Critical Miss is great, BTW. Reading your group's exploits reminds me of all the bad players I've had over the years, and how lucky I am now.)

 

[Jonny Nexus]

"...the humour went beyond black and into just plain sick..."

As a GM I'm sure I'd give it a '1' also - don't want players buying this filth...

(Oh, & Critical Miss is great, BTW. Reading your group's exploits reminds me of all the bad players I've had over the years, and how lucky I am now.)

Well I'm a bit confused by your response. The level of "sick humour" in the Slayers Guide is the same as in Critical Miss - less in fact, since I was always somewhat inhibited by the fact that this was a printed book to be distributed in games shops. I'm pretty sure that the author of the review would be equally unimpressed by Critical Miss. (Which is fine, that's his opinion, and it is - after all - a very distinct style of humour).

I suppose what I'm saying is that while I can perfectly understand why someone might not like my style of humour, I don't understand how they can like that humour in Critical Miss, but not like the same kind of humour in a printed book. (After all, it's not in any way a serious guide to "beating" a GM - it is a humourous parody after all).

I'm not trying to get at the author of the quoted post you understand. I was just a bit confused.

 

[S'mon]

Well I'm a bit confused by your response. The level of "sick humour" in the Slayers Guide is the same as in Critical Miss - less in fact, since I was always somewhat inhibited by the fact that this was a printed book to be distributed in games shops.

Sorry - not enough smilies I guess.

I was obviously just kidding about rating it a 1, I'm _sure_ all my players are _far too mature_ to take up any of your suggestions. Better?

I guess it is worth noting though that while the reviewer may well have been over-sensitive, paying £5 for a book is a lot different than browsing a website for free, and raises different expectations. Anyway, published games designers eventually learn not to let reviews affect them one way or the other (except for Rob Kuntz of course).

Personally I have bought and enjoyed low-rated products (Lost City of Gaxmoor by the Gygax brothers comes to mind), and I'm sure I will again. The numbers are always of limited value, a good review tells you what the product is about and why the reviewer liked/disliked it, so you can form your own opinion (I'd say that review was a good review, BTW).

 

[Voadam]

The numbers are always of limited value, a good review tells you what the product is about and why the reviewer liked/disliked it, so you can form your own opinion (I'd say that review was a good review, BTW).

I hate the numerical rating aspect of writing reviews, which is why I prefer writing them for pyramid where it is just a straight discussion and analysis of products review without a rating scale.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

Sorry - not enough smilies I guess.

No, sorry, it's me not being that bright at the best of times, and considerably less so when my ego's feeling threatened.

I guess it is worth noting though that while the reviewer may well have been over-sensitive, paying £5 for a book is a lot different than browsing a website for free, and raises different expectations.

True, although what I would add to that is that I think it would be helpful in this case if the review had mentioned me (i.e. said the name of the author) and mentioned that I do Critical Miss. That way, people could have a look at my webzine first (for free) to see if they liked my kind of humour, and not waste their money if they didn't.

I should also point out at this point that I'm not egotistical enough to think that the reviewer should have heard of me, but instead feel that it would be sensible when doing a review of a product to google the author to see what they've previously written, and mention that in the review. This is because when a reader of that review is deciding whether to buy the product or not, previous work by the author - which they might have read - could be a deciding factor.

Anyway, published games designers eventually learn not to let reviews affect them one way or the other (except for Rob Kuntz of course).

Well I read the review a week or so ago, and I wasn't going to mention anything because, well, I think it's a bit sad to whine about reviews, and people have a right to their opinion. But when I read this thread, which was discussing what the review ratings were supposed to mean, it seemed pretty on-topic.