Re: PBM Review site?

From: lademark@get2net.dk (Niels Lademark)

Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:46:10 +0000

lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl) wrote in message news:<3cb701b4$1@news.meer.net>...
[Snip]

> >   Look, here's a simple exercise. Check out the review praised here on
> >11th April by Niels Lademark, which we published in issue 87 and which
> >Niels says is available at:
> >    http://www.pbem.dk/wotdg/top.html
> >Then tell us all what's wrong with it.
>
> 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.

Well since English is NOT my first language I'll refrain from
commenting on the grammatical errors (my Danish is bad enough no need
to demonstrate my linguistic dysfunction in yet another language :-).

> 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.

Probably?! Well it is hard to deduct from the review that the author
is unfamiliar with computer moderated fantasy war games. Actually the
reviewer goes to great lengths to tell the readers which game/scenario
elements are new to him (set sides and play by e-mail), hence giving
the reader a good idea of his gaming experience. That is by default
experience can be assumed within most of the other elements described
in the review.

> 2) The reviewer doesn't seem to have played enough of this particular
> game to really understand and review the game.

As I wrote in by original post this is not true. Take it from an
expert who has tutored lots and lots of new players in this particular
game. His understandings of the game concept are excellent.

> The reviewer played one
> closed-ended game. He doesn't say if he talked to any experienced
> players about the game.

Again this is not true. He clearly states that he was guided by
experienced teammates using a forum. I believe he noted that the 24
turns generated 1100 (eleven hundred e-mails). It is also stated that
he was under the tutelage of experienced teammates.

> 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.

O contraire! As requested (by yourself) he lists his qualifications
(or lack of background knowledge), leaving the reader to judge his
review by his merits.

On a side note I might add that playing set sides or not is irrelevant
for understanding the game mechanics, although it is of course
relevant for the scenario in question.

> He also says that he has an "awful lot more to
> learn." A good review should not contain only novice material.

That he has not played every single position and explored 5+ of the
numerous different strategies open to the various nations does not
disqualify the reviewer. His statement about having much to learn
reflects upon the games depth and the complexity of the scenario not
on his skill as a player.

> 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?"

First of this is your preference other readers of reviews might have
other preferences.

Second most of us can read between the lines of a review. Here the
reviewer states that the team-game is an advantage for new players, as
the teammates tend to review the orders of new players. It is
important to note that the reviewer infers that he himself examines
the orders of his teammates. It is also described that the smooth
computer interface is learned rather quickly and that the GM as well
as the team helps. He even gives an example of complex orders and
leaves the judgment of their complexity up to any would be player.

My interpretation of this is that you need and get help during the
first quarter of your first the game but are in a position to help
others from then onwards. I would like to hear how other interpret
this particular review.

> 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.

It is inferred.

> Other popular questions: "Are all the sides balanced?" "Are
> repeat players satisfied with the game and company?"

Here is clearly room for improvement in this particular review. Those
issues are not addressed and I to believe that in a team game such
questions should be posed.

> 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!

Generally you've got a point. In this particular instance it is moot
since no favors are given (thrust me, I've know this guy for 20
years). Speaking of journalism and general criticism it is worth
noting that it is hard to do favors to a single team member in a game
where 1100 e-mails are exchanged including most orders submitted and
turn reports received without giving the game away (excuse the pun).

> greg

Niels

References

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
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

Referenced By

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
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