Don't take this the wrong way, but ...

I owe you nothing.

I’ve watched threads about how reviewers do this, or do that, or don’t do whatever. Reviews are too positive, too negative, too short, too opinionated, too repetitive ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/310480). Many people have chimed in postive comments, but they just wish that people would make this one little change. I’ve heard howls of protest that I (or X) reviewed a game after just one play (or half), or that I (or Y) only reviews games they like, or that someone trashed an obviously great game without understanding.

Shrug.

I write for my own reasons. Detailed analysis is tough to do; putting words on the screen helps. It reduces sloppy thinking. (Nothing eliminates it entirely). Getting good feedback helps, too. Sometimes I’ll start to write something and think “That’s wrong.” Often I’ll be told “You’re wrong.” People I respect (or will come to respect) can tell me why. (Sometimes I’ll even be persuaded by their arguments, but don’t hold your breath). I write for other reasons, too. Sometimes just to amuse myself, or annoy deserving targets. Other articles for other reasons, some of which I can’t always explain.

As to what I believe a reviewer should do (for their own personal sense), I can’t improve on Peter Sarrett’s reviewing manifesto. ( http://www.gamereport.com/tgr24/randomdraw.shtml) Rather than quote him I’ll just give a few bullet points.

• Be truthful.
• Don’t just describe, analyze.
• Entertain. Good writing helps.

(I disagree, at least in degree, that the reviewer is responsible for help out new readers by explaining your biases. Of course, Peter was self publishing in paper and I’m just typing away on the net/web where you can always read most of what I’ve written, which may explain things. I do explain my biases but I don’t need to repeat my biases every single time. The best biases are subconscious, anyway).

Do I always succeed with every review? Of course not. And my style, just like my tastes, evolves over time.

The good news is that “I owe you nothing” goes both ways!

Feel free to disagree, hide me, or whatever. I suggest ‘ignoring’ as a good default position. I ignore stuff all the time. I read a thread until I get bored or decide the signal/noise ratio is low, then stop without responding. I realize it’s difficult to do that ...



... but with practice it gets easier. (The careful observer will point out that I’m not ignoring by posting this, but at least I did manage to do everything at once, rather than spread it out).

I’ll read everything about a game that’s interesting, even if I suspect I know more than the OP. Sometimes I do it to be helpful (and answer questions). Sometimes because blind pigs find the occasional truffle, you know. Sometimes because I think the writer is entertaining.

As for some specific complaints, here are my responses:

“You didn’t play enough.” Some criticisms don’t require any plays. Since I’ve told you how many times I’ve played (otherwise how could you make the complaint fairly?) feel free to discount anything I say. I realize that not everyone knows this, but I’ve stated my policy before, so I’ll say it again. “The dedicated reviewer should have glanced at the rules before starting to write. Anything more is a bonus.” I’ll graciously admit that I could probably do a better analysis with more games, but not all games deserve that.

“Reviews are too long/short.” I don’t have a fixed length in mind. If you are bored, skim it or do something else. A lot to discuss requries lots of words. I’m happy to read a long review if it has lots of information. If I describe the mechanisms and you already know the game, that part is going to be uninformative. If I mention basic strategy to a grandmaster, he won’t care about the content (if it’s correct), although he may have thoughts about the presentation.

“I negatively reviewed this game, and then got attacked.” Bad behavior? On the internet? Hard to believe. But I've followed through several of the examples and it seems pretty tame to me. Anyone who thinks that BGG has issues should be very careful about surfing the web, you might stumble on USENET or a political site and get the vapors. BGG has amusing trolls, for the most part. If they are a pedantic and repetitive, well, that’s why we call them trolls. If you trash a game that I like, then I’ll usually point out any flaws in your argument. If I think it’s just a matter of taste, I’ll probably let it go. Likewise, I’ll defend my arguments, until I think we’ve reached the point where we both understand each other. After that it seems like a waste of time. Many times where someone has been accused of being rude, they apologize (if they felt that they stepped over a line or worded it poorly). Often times, however, the rudeness depends on the mental tone you (the reader) put onto something.

“Reviewers can’t write negative reviews because they’ll lose out on free samples.” I have said it many times ... who are these reviewers that value a few dozen free games above their reputation? It’s usually clear (and often disclosed) who gets games for free. I share a bit more respect for the complaint that “They are just trying to rationalize their purchases” but complaining about typical human behavior seems pointless to me.

“X won’t review games he dislikes/games he’s ashamed to admit he likes/my favorite game.” Yup. Remember the rule – “I owe you nothing.” If X has a rule that says “Life’s too short to write negative reviews.” Or “My god, I’d die if everyone knew I want to play the My Pretty Pony Game again” then so be it.

Calling a strategy dumb is not a personal attack. I prefer to use the word “Suboptimal,” but that’s just a fancy word for “dumb.” (What can I say, I like the sound of it. Suboptimal). There are dumb strategies in games. I hate games that offer ‘phantom choices’ ... choices that never work out. Somehow my hatred doesn't make them disappear.

“But you liked/hated the same thing in Game Y!” Game mechanisms are synergistic. Cherries are good. Chocolate is good. Diet Dr Pepper is my preferred soda. Diet Cherry Chocolate Doctor Pepper is an abomination against mankind and the more discerning mammals. Likewise, something that’s fun for an hour may cease to be fun later on. If I contradict myself, then just remember that I contain multitudes.

I’m sure there are other rules I’ve forgotten.

Anyway, like most (but not all) writers, I’m happy to hear well-thought out disagreements (and novel abuse). Like I said, analysis is difficult. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t want to read (and talk) about games.

But I don’t owe you anything.

This was too long.

You don't owe me anything. But there's still crap reviews and good reviews. I'd be a better place if we had more good reviews. What makes a good review? It's simple for me:

1. Tell me about the game you're reviewing.
2. Tell me what you liked and didn't like.
3. Sum up your final impression.

For bonus points, tell me why and tell it with style.

Thanks for contributing this in the aftermath of the "are reviews too positive" thread. This is basically the territory we ended up in.

You make 20-30 statements/observations that I wholeheartedly agree with, so instead of singling any out, let me just say: that was awesome.

If I didn't depend on reviews for GG, I'd tip you .

This is the absolute truth.

Do what makes you happy.

I think you make the error common among people who spend to much time on the Internet: confusing remarks about things with opinions about the people who make them.

I think if you can avoid that mistake, you'll see that each of the views you attempt to reject is a valid statement about the state of reviews here. In particular they are often far too long and too positive.

Your basic point is correct though (and, I think, entirely consistent with most of the criticisms you cite as misguided): people should not be intimidated by other's expectations for reviews. In particular they should ignore the many (and, again, long) "how to write a good review" posts (including, ironically, yours) and just convey as quickly and concisely as they can what they think about the game and why (regardless of how many times they've played it).

Exactly.

Particularly if it makes Chapel unhappy.

I think it's interesting that you're willing to completely gloss over what Brian said, assert what you believe to be "valid" without any explanation of the validity, and include a link to a forum in which you solicit feedback and then ignore 90% of users' comments. On the positive side, at least anyone who follows your link will find lots more discussion rejecting your rhetorical question rather than simply confirming it, which is all you seem to want.

See above.

what about that 10 bucks I loaned you so that you could buy a case of Milwaukee's Beast?

I agree. I write AND read reviews.

When I read them, I'm not really one to post a disagreement. Rather, I make it a point to read the review, then use BGG to see what the author rates. A lot of time I find that the ones I disagree with are ussually folks that enjoy a different style of game than myself. So I just chalk it up to differing tastes.

But I try to keep in mind a saying I heard long ago, when the internet was young and there were still such things as "Sys-Ops"....

"Arguing on the internet is like *F*ing for virginity."

It makes a LOT of sense.

As far as owing people, I'm kinda the same way. If you take time to post a review, be it long, short, whatever, I'm gonna click to give ya credit. Not that I feel I owe it to you, I just figure, hey why not. I like it when people do it for me.

With that said, if it's completely out there and off topic, yeah, I might decline, but all in all *meh*.

That's a good and well-written post. I agree with almost all of your points. My only disagreement is nothing more than a semantic point:




I think you are blurring the line between a General Comment, versus a Review. There are different sections of the forum for a reason. If all you have done is skim through the rules, feel free to leave a General Comment about your impressions and/or your best guess as to how the game might play out.

But if you haven't even played the game, why do you feel the need to call it a "Review"?

Disclaimers:

1. I don't mean "you" specifically, of course.
2. I agree that you owe me nothing.
3. Yes, it's a semantic argument. If you want to call your General Comment a "Review", then knock yourself out. Just don't be surprised when people challenge the claim.
4. I haven't read the other thread on reviews, so sorry if this was discussed already.



I agree completely. And one of the best things to read is well thought out (or novelly abusive) reviews!

A lot of your confusion, and the confusion in the comments you refer to, comes from the problem I cited above. People have a lot of trouble separating observations about features of things they make from themselves. The OP here is clearly feeling threatened by having some attributes of reviews being pointed out. He shouldn't. People should feel free to write reviews in any format and style they choose. That doesn't change the fact that most of them are too positive to be useful, and too long to be worth reading.

OK, following grimstuff's lead, I'll divide this into pieces.

1.) I don't think Brian's statement "I owe you nothing" automatically implies "I'm threatened by you." His statement is, afterall, part of a manifesto/personal philosophy of reviewing. I interpret him as outlining his approach for those who are interested, not warding off detractors. But this is not really where the action is for me. I'm more interested in...

2.) Your repeated claims that reviews are "too long and too positive." Neither of these are fact-based, assumption-proof, or objectively "valid" statements. They do not exist in some self-evident realm where the act of questioning is pre-empted in advance.

As I and others have extensively explained in your thread, whether a review, a body of reviews, or a percentage of reviews are "positive" or "negative" bears no relation to whether or not they are "useful" or "well-done" etc. As I've said in your thread, every single review on this site could end in a positive recommendation without constituting a disservice to users.

Since I do not want to import the specific question raised in your thread into the comments following Brian's manifesto, I would ask that anybody interested in the question of "positive/negative" (or of length, as related issue) take up the ongoing discussion in that thread. And since you started the thread and asked "Am I right," I don't think it is unreasonable of me to ask that you engage the ongoing answers and possibilities unfolding in response.

Cheers,

Jack

You owe me a thumbs-up. Two, in fact. Oh, and 5 minutes of my time it took me to read your argument.

It looks to me like opinion is divided. Certainly (and not surprisingly) more words have been written asserting that my hypothesis is wrong. But I also see a lot of people agreeing with it.

(Can we take this back over to your thread??)

Are you taking a head count? Why didn't you say so?

Also, are you implying that, because the users that agree with you don't explain themselves, you feel better about it? That less words = stronger position?

Lastly, why aren't you participating in your own thread?

I think in every review there is a tension between game analysis and entertainment. Personally, my bias is towards the latter. I like to attempt to convey my feelings about playing the game. I prefer reading reviews that are well written rather than an attempt to explain mechanisms and strategy.

Additionally my negative reviews get way more thumbs than my positive ones.

Just to annoy you, apparently.

No, I'm not taking head count, but I'm filtering out posts that aren't relevant to my original assertion that "reviews aren't a good place to look for guidance on what games to avoid".

I'm not annoyed. Aren't you the one who's big on separating users from content?




that aren't relevant to my original assertion that "reviews aren't a good place to look for guidance on what games to avoid". answers to the question "Am I Right?"

Also, it's not a "hypothesis" if you aren't willing to test it.

In fairness to me, I wrote that on my website (which, in earlier forms, predates BGG). And it's slightly hyperbolic for effect. But addressing the specific point .... Many games contain a hodgepodge of mechanisms that I've seen before, and reading the rules is usually enough to sniff something out. I don't strenuously object to calling it something other than a review, but if I'm discussing it in detail then it fits the definition.



It's a limited evaluation, to be sure.

Other people do this for things like a review of components ("What's in the box") or their reaction to the rulebook ("I had to read it twice"). Often these are labeled "Initial Opinions" or some such.

I happen to like seeing those. Since I have the "Reviews" module on my personalized front page, these are easy to find. I'm more likely to miss general comments. I rarely do this on BGG, so I don't think we're actually that far apart on practical matters.

Fair enough. It's no big deal regardless. We've all seen session reports that are basically reviews. We've seen variants posted as General comments. We've even seen Rules questions that set up the situation with a detailed session report.

For me personally, if I see something in the Review section, I'm going to assume the writer has played it, probably a few times. If that's not the case, it's no worry -- it's just not what I was expecting.

Feel free to filter this post.