Sergio -
I won't get into a pissing contest about how your law degree beats my ten years as a professional critic. Obviously we both feel our historical perspectives are relevant to a proper assessment of our writings on the subject...
QUOTE=smascrns;7034239]This is a very important issue about the methodology of reviewing games. The problem is that we have to deal with books that are published separately, so we need to look at them both as part of a whole and as independent products. The fault is not only with the reviewer.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure that you need to look at classic games as independent products because they form closed systems (no new product being produced in the line) and you can therefore have the full range before you. But in any case Lev doesn't seem to want to look at them as "part of a whole" at all, and I think that is a serious fault when we all know perfectly well that AD&D 1e has a vast back catalogue which does address some of the criticisms and which refined itself as it developed.
Actually a reviewer has a duty to explain that something is a part of a larger thing or requires other material to make it work - and whether that material is available. Could you review "The Return of the King" without talking about how it is the conclusion of the trilogy?
Lev doesn't. He doesn't tell us for example in this review that the monster stats are repeated in the DMG and usually in the modules, and that ecology material is in the settings books and modules, and therefore the MM is not, in fact, very necessary to playing modules, but is more useful for constructing your own campaign. That would be the result of treating the book as part of the historical product line and also acknowledging there are other products connected to it.
Then a reader would be in a better position to make up his or her mind about the effect of its deficiencies on the sort of game they want to play today. It does not have to mean the rating changes or the recommendation, but it would make it a more useful description of the book. Does this make sense?
You may of course argue that any game that spreads itself across three or more books is bloated and undesirable, but Lev does not argue that point. He only reviews one book at a time. I quite like his review of DragonQuest, for example, but then he has a pretty complete game before him there and can balance its faults and virtues more fairly as a result.