I would have to disagree. While I expect reviewers to have a biased opinion (everyone does one way or the other), I do expect a certain professionalism from them. Many years ago I worked on a music fanzine with friends and I cringe when I read my so-called "reviews" from back in the day.
In order to make a review more professional, the reviewer might start with truly or mostly objective information, so as to make the review useful to everyone who reads it. What does the box look like? Is it sturdy or flimsy? What is actually in the box? How many cards? How big are they? Do they look crowded in a layout sense? Can the text be easily read? How does the artwork look like? How many pages do the books have? What´s the layout like? The binding? The artwork? Is a lot of the artwork recycled or new? Read an example of a fluff text. Does it have a lot of spelling mistakes? Is it well written and evokes the atmosphere of the game? Read an example of rules text. Is it concisely written and easy to understand? Do you have to reference other books/charts/cards all the time or is the information presented in an easy-to-use way? I could go on.
After having gone over these things, you can add your own opinion based on your own experiences. And yes, I do think that a reviewer should have played the game he is reviewing or at least read all of the material once and make up a character. I would also appreciate a little background on the reviewer. What other games does he like and play regularly? That way I can gauge whether his opinion will be similar to mine. I would definitely like to know if the reviewer worked on a previous edition of the game or has had a professional relationship with the company that publishes the new one.
A good reviewer might even make the controversy on the Net part of his review and adress some of the concerns that are out there (going either way with his opinion).
That, to me, is the obligation of a reviewer. Unfortunately, anyone can publish anything on the Net these days and there really isn´t any way to enforce a standard of quality. If, however, you want to keep your credibility and that of the site you´re writing for, you should do a better job. If you don´t, why should I go to your site instead of just lurking on forums where I can actually get more information by reading reports of people who have played the game (some of whom were very critical to begin with).
As for FFG´s response, in general I would agree that a company should not react to bad reviews. However, in this case I really appreciated the information about the reviewer´s professional background. I did cringe at the D&D4 reference, however. While it is true that sharing a PHB is a pain in the butt (which means a group of 4 players will have to buy 4 PHBs), there is also a lot of information in the DMG and MM. I expect that especially the D&D Monster Manual is a lot more comprehensive than anything that´s in the WFRP box, so that argument is a little shaky ( I don´t mind to be proven wrong here, btw). I don´t think, however, that FFG should be apologetic about the price. If they put out a good product they should charge for it accordingly. And that´s why I need professional reviews: to help me decide if I want to spend that kind of money or not and whether the game is for me or not.
CEO,Christian Petersen Disappointing by the review of ICV2.com and speak is Mind about it!!!!
in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
Posted
I would have to disagree. While I expect reviewers to have a biased opinion (everyone does one way or the other), I do expect a certain professionalism from them. Many years ago I worked on a music fanzine with friends and I cringe when I read my so-called "reviews" from back in the day.
In order to make a review more professional, the reviewer might start with truly or mostly objective information, so as to make the review useful to everyone who reads it. What does the box look like? Is it sturdy or flimsy? What is actually in the box? How many cards? How big are they? Do they look crowded in a layout sense? Can the text be easily read? How does the artwork look like? How many pages do the books have? What´s the layout like? The binding? The artwork? Is a lot of the artwork recycled or new? Read an example of a fluff text. Does it have a lot of spelling mistakes? Is it well written and evokes the atmosphere of the game? Read an example of rules text. Is it concisely written and easy to understand? Do you have to reference other books/charts/cards all the time or is the information presented in an easy-to-use way? I could go on.
After having gone over these things, you can add your own opinion based on your own experiences. And yes, I do think that a reviewer should have played the game he is reviewing or at least read all of the material once and make up a character. I would also appreciate a little background on the reviewer. What other games does he like and play regularly? That way I can gauge whether his opinion will be similar to mine. I would definitely like to know if the reviewer worked on a previous edition of the game or has had a professional relationship with the company that publishes the new one.
A good reviewer might even make the controversy on the Net part of his review and adress some of the concerns that are out there (going either way with his opinion).
That, to me, is the obligation of a reviewer. Unfortunately, anyone can publish anything on the Net these days and there really isn´t any way to enforce a standard of quality. If, however, you want to keep your credibility and that of the site you´re writing for, you should do a better job. If you don´t, why should I go to your site instead of just lurking on forums where I can actually get more information by reading reports of people who have played the game (some of whom were very critical to begin with).
As for FFG´s response, in general I would agree that a company should not react to bad reviews. However, in this case I really appreciated the information about the reviewer´s professional background. I did cringe at the D&D4 reference, however. While it is true that sharing a PHB is a pain in the butt (which means a group of 4 players will have to buy 4 PHBs), there is also a lot of information in the DMG and MM. I expect that especially the D&D Monster Manual is a lot more comprehensive than anything that´s in the WFRP box, so that argument is a little shaky ( I don´t mind to be proven wrong here, btw). I don´t think, however, that FFG should be apologetic about the price. If they put out a good product they should charge for it accordingly. And that´s why I need professional reviews: to help me decide if I want to spend that kind of money or not and whether the game is for me or not.