Post originally by Nawara at 2004-11-11 09:30:53
Converted from Phorums BB System

I'm pretty sure there have been worse reviews than this one.

While not something worth preserving through the milennia, it communicates his thoughts on the changes in the rulebook. Granted, he only talks about the changes, expecting readers to read a review of the previous edition if they're new to the game, and he gets kind of wound up, but I wouldn't call it the worst review ever.

IMO, it's best if reviews of new editions have a section at the beginning called "What's New?" that discuss whether it's worth buying the new edition over the old one, followed by a comprehensive review of the game as a whole (because most of the people reading the review will be unfamiliar with the game in its entireity, and won't really care whether it was worth the upgrade).

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it a 3.5... not great, as there are some gaping holes, but I've seen much worse.

-Jeff