[Fulsrush]

It's a good review, but describing the game as the best ever, complete with exclamation mark/point, in the blurb, suggests, hang on, this guy's not coming at this entirely objectively. It colours the reader's perspectives on what's going to be inside the text of this review.

Obviously, reviews are subjective (that's kind of the point), but they're also meant to be critical. If there's something in your favouritest game ever, ever, ever, that you don't love, then this should definitely be flagged up in the review, because it could be the dealbreaker for someone who doesn't want to have Cthulhu's babies.

I've just re-skimmed your review and there isn't a single negative comment, or even something that caused you to pause and think before deciding maybe that is a good bit, after all.

Reviews are written for the reader - what is there about CoC that some readers might not like?

Why is CoC "a must for every serious roleplayer"? From the gist of your comments about tactical planning and powergaming, I can say with certainty that there are people who are 'serious roleplayers', with all the character depth, motivations, histories, sense of drama, teamwork, etc. etc. who would hate Call of Cthulhu, who wouldn't want to waste the £20 on a book that, quite frankly, has nothing for them.

Because they don't like horror games or games where a single shot can kill.

In that light, "a must for every serious roleplayer" becomes meaningless hyperbole, or even, to some readers, offensive. "What, because I prefer games like Exalted or Dungeons & Dragons, it means I'm not a serious roleplayer?"


In short, the reason people comment on reviews is because, just like the reviewer, they have opinions.