Re: PBM Review site?

From: Carol Mulholland <carol@flagship-pbm.co.uk>

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:08:59 +0000

I'm starting to get a bit bored with this, but what the heck.

Greg Lindahl wrote:

> Carol, I know English is your first language. "There is no PBM
> community" is an assertion that I argued in favor of before, giving
> the "because" part. Because that is true, I argue that you can
> conclude that PBM reviews aren't worth much. Feel free to disagree, but
> you can stop claiming I don't know how to argue.

OK, I'll concede this merrily enough. But I think you're wrong to deduce
that players don't share enough common knowledge to write/understand
reviews. What I most like about PBMers is that they're bright.

> It would be a good idea to stop implying that you're better at English
> because you're an artsy person and I'm a scientist. Not only is that
> silly, but my hobbies are Renaissance music and dance.  Go search on
> google.com for "Renaissance Music" and "Renaissance Dance" and see
> what you find.

Eek, Shostakovitch is my current craze, but I've no sense of rhythm so
I dislike dance. I do know a fair amount about literary criticism,
however. Not the most gripping of subjects, I admit.

> Not necessarily. You might get plenty of useless material that
> way.

The technique is to find intelligent players - plenty of those around.

> Um, ditto? In general you're OK at it, but in regards to me, you've
> had a pretty steady decline over the last couple of years.

Advancing age, I guess...

> I know you're smarter than that, Carol. Steve made a snide comment
> implying that I think I "manage" this newsgroup. You've been around
> for enough years to understand what's going on: Steve is saying
> something he knows isn't true to attack what he thinks my attitude is,
> and to make fun of it. He's done exactly the same thing many times
> before. It's pretty childish.

Steve's comment wasn't openly aggressive - better ignored: who cares?

> First off, there are numerous grammar errors which I would have
> expected the editor to help the author fix. It's not like a review is
> a letter to the editor.

I do fix the grammatical errors which I spot, though there are always some
that slip through editing and proofing because we work at speed. I don't
think that the errors are 'numerous' in this review, though they do exist.
(There's a chance that the website text is an earlier version than the one
we printed - can you give, say, the first egregious example?)

> Second, it seems to suffer from all of the flaws I outlined earlier:
>
> 1) The reviewer probably isn't familiar with the numerous similar
> games, so he can't compare properly. In this case the reviewer doesn't
> give us any idea of what his credentials are.

Hmm, I don't think that there are many fantasy wargames that are played
by teams? I can only think of Middle-Earth, though would be interested
to know if there are more. I don't expect to list a reviewer's credentials
for every review - too pompous - I think that's something that a reader
can deduce.
   But - as a more general point - maybe the idea of making comparisons is
a hindrance rather than a necessity? To take up Rob Harper's example, I
don't myself like film reviews that openly expect me to know as much about
films as the reviewer does.

> 2) The reviewer doesn't seem to have played enough of this particular
> game to really understand and review the game. The reviewer played one
> closed-ended game. He doesn't say if he talked to any experienced
> players about the game. He did play in a team game, and says it was
> his FIRST team game he'd ever played with any system that had "set
> sides". Not promising. He also says that he has an "awful lot more to
> learn." A good review should not contain only novice material.

Niels seemed to think that the approach was OK, and he's an experienced
player.
   Well, yes, there's a difference between a 'first impressions' type
of review and an 'in-depth' one, but the former is the one that's
necessary with a new game, and WotDG was being launched in the UK,
and UK players needed to read about what to expect: Jeremy had played
in the designer's version, so his review was well timed.
   Going slightly off topic, I find that in-depth reviews tend to be
less popular with readers than first impressions: readers seem to
identify more readily with someone who's exploring a game than someone
who knows it well. While strategy articles are unjustly disliked. Sigh.

> The effect of (1) comes out when you consider what the reviewer talks
> about. The first thing I want to know in this review is "How much
> advantage do repeat players of the game have?" This is a question that
> commonly comes up in my group of gaming friends, so I don't think it's
> a unique phobia on my part. This question is not addressed in the
> review.  Other popular questions: "Are all the sides balanced?" "Are
> repeat players satisfied with the game and company?"

The question of repeat players wouldn't be relevant for a newly launched
game, but should it really matter in a team game anyway, where players
have to work together? I know that team games have inherent problems,
but repeat players shouldn't be one of these.

> And, finally, from the journalism side, it should be noted if the
> company was aware that the reviewer was a reviewer. I think you should
> include this information in every review, especially ones being used
> by the game company as advertising!

Our system is to inform the moderator who is reviewing - this doesn't mean
that he's going to get favourable treatment to write a favourable review:
quarrels are pretty common. From earlier bitter experience, if a moderator
doesn't know who his reviewer is, it's possible for the latter to go dead
without us knowing - very frustrating. Incidentally, bad games often fold
before the 10-turn review period is over.

Cheers, Carol

References

PBM Review site?
"Sid" <seyed@monkeyx.com>
Tue, 09 Apr 2002 20:37:25 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
Carol Mulholland <carol@flagship-pbm.co.uk>
Thu, 11 Apr 2002 19:01:28 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Fri, 12 Apr 2002 04:49:53 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
Carol Mulholland <carol@flagship-pbm.co.uk>
Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:44:50 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:48:26 +0000

Referenced By

PBM Review site?
"Sid" <seyed@monkeyx.com>
Tue, 09 Apr 2002 20:37:25 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
Carol Mulholland <carol@flagship-pbm.co.uk>
Thu, 11 Apr 2002 19:01:28 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Fri, 12 Apr 2002 04:49:53 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
Carol Mulholland <carol@flagship-pbm.co.uk>
Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:44:50 +0000
Re: PBM Review site?
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:48:26 +0000