Quote:
Originally Posted by Picks-at-Flies
For fear of feeding the troll:
The reviewer clearly states where he comes from: this means that the reader can judge for themselves whether they come from the same position or not and therefore weight the review accordingly. Isn't the point of having multiple reviews that the potential consumer can find one which best correlates to their viewpoint?
So if your experience is different to that of this reviewer, write your own review. You only have limited scope for picking on incidental details that do not detract from a largely well-considered review. You have definately exceeded it.
|
I didn't realise making reasonable debate about why this wasn't a particularly good review counted as trolling. I thought it counted as discussion. I'm not ranting, and I'm not just floating around the negative reviews writing short misleading personal attacks or overstated hyperbolic fawning about D&D 4e or 3.5.
This was not a well-considered review. It was unfocused, inaccurate and incomplete. I have not written screeds of detail - I have kept to the point and reiterated what i have been saying because the reviewer chooses to ignore my points, even though I have addressed his counter-claims directly.
This is not a case of just viewpoint. As I mentioned, if he supported his claims with reasoning for why he makes them - then it would be a well-considered review. But his entire review is built on a predisposed bias, misunderstanding of the rules, and a number of unsupported claims.
The reviewer has claimed that everyone knows 3.5 enough that he doesn't need to actually discuss it in his review. However, the problem is that he also doesn't really discuss 4e either. He just lists a number of points that are flimsy and unsupported. Further unsupported because many of us who do know 3.5 and 4e have noted that his comparisons are inaccurate as well - as I pointed out before.
Conan