I find it absurd when people “review” a game they have not yet played.
I find it absurd when people “review” a game they have not yet played.
I find it absurd when people “review” a game they have not yet played.
54 thoughts on “I find it absurd when people “review” a game they have not yet played.”
Comments are closed.
Care to elaborate? Or is it more a general “I’m fed up with behaviour I’ve observed”?
Care to elaborate? Or is it more a general “I’m fed up with behaviour I’ve observed”?
I have a hard time with that too. I guess I can see it if they state right in the beginning that they haven’t played it but their review is based on layout, design, art and general impressions.
I have a hard time with that too. I guess I can see it if they state right in the beginning that they haven’t played it but their review is based on layout, design, art and general impressions.
I saw it three times on my feed this morning; different games, different “reviewers.” I suppose they are performing some sort of service by talking about the art and paper quality of a book, and I can get behind that, but when they couple those surface observations with a hearty recommendation or non-recommendation, I feel like a disservice is being done to the reader.
I realize a lot of my feelings on this are informed by Gauntlet gaming culture, as we value play over everything else.
I saw it three times on my feed this morning; different games, different “reviewers.” I suppose they are performing some sort of service by talking about the art and paper quality of a book, and I can get behind that, but when they couple those surface observations with a hearty recommendation or non-recommendation, I feel like a disservice is being done to the reader.
I realize a lot of my feelings on this are informed by Gauntlet gaming culture, as we value play over everything else.
I not only find it absurd, when the reviewer is incorrect about key aspects of the game, such as core mechanics or the procedures of play at the table it makes it hard for me to take anything they say about any games seriously.
I not only find it absurd, when the reviewer is incorrect about key aspects of the game, such as core mechanics or the procedures of play at the table it makes it hard for me to take anything they say about any games seriously.
Yeah. I think it’s silly if they haven’t play tested it to make any comment on that part of it. Again, I think it’s ok if the review is specifically on those other things but for me I want to know primarily is it easy to run, and how easy is it to make characters. Everything else is secondary for me
Yeah. I think it’s silly if they haven’t play tested it to make any comment on that part of it. Again, I think it’s ok if the review is specifically on those other things but for me I want to know primarily is it easy to run, and how easy is it to make characters. Everything else is secondary for me
I recently read a review of tremulus by Martin Ralya where he reviewed it after a couple plays, then played more, and revised his thoughts. Then he played even more and checked out the expended sets of playbooks and now considers it a gem. It was fascinating seeing his process of thought.
(still not sure tremulus is for me, but it was neat)
I recently read a review of tremulus by Martin Ralya where he reviewed it after a couple plays, then played more, and revised his thoughts. Then he played even more and checked out the expended sets of playbooks and now considers it a gem. It was fascinating seeing his process of thought.
(still not sure tremulus is for me, but it was neat)
Richard Rogers tremulus is a great example. I have misgivings about it based on reading the book, and knowing what I know from playing lots of PbtA. But I have yet to play it, and because I have yet to play it, I have kept my mouth shut. And it’s not because people haven’t asked. Over the years, I’ve had a number of people ask me my opinion on it.
I suppose someone could make the argument the fact we have not yet played or covered tremulus in any way is a sort of critique of the game, and maybe that’s true, but it’s certainly not the same thing as doing a review.
Richard Rogers tremulus is a great example. I have misgivings about it based on reading the book, and knowing what I know from playing lots of PbtA. But I have yet to play it, and because I have yet to play it, I have kept my mouth shut. And it’s not because people haven’t asked. Over the years, I’ve had a number of people ask me my opinion on it.
I suppose someone could make the argument the fact we have not yet played or covered tremulus in any way is a sort of critique of the game, and maybe that’s true, but it’s certainly not the same thing as doing a review.
I’d also like to point out my (quasi) rant here today is in no way to suggest coverage of a game shouldn’t happen outside of it being played. Particularly for smaller press games, that coverage is really important.
I’d also like to point out my (quasi) rant here today is in no way to suggest coverage of a game shouldn’t happen outside of it being played. Particularly for smaller press games, that coverage is really important.
I review everything so whatever i say should be important. by now I can probably tell if a product is good or bad just from looking at the picture… #neverWrong
I review everything so whatever i say should be important. by now I can probably tell if a product is good or bad just from looking at the picture… #neverWrong
There’s a lot of things there that may appear to not work on paper but will become apparent why it was integrated only during play. When people say they have system mastery and can then review that niche of gaming, that’s fine — you still need to realize that without playing it you can’t know if it truly works at the table or not. In regards to PbTA games, Vincent has said he doesn’t regard AW as a system but something that poses design problems in an accessible way. You still need to address the design problems. Narrative control episode 80 is great because it has Luke Crane talking about his views on design, and then episode 82 is Vincent pretty much saying they’ve got it all wrong — here’s why. Really enjoyable episodes from Sean Nittner podcast. Highly recommend.
In other words, I agree completely. =)
There’s a lot of things there that may appear to not work on paper but will become apparent why it was integrated only during play. When people say they have system mastery and can then review that niche of gaming, that’s fine — you still need to realize that without playing it you can’t know if it truly works at the table or not. In regards to PbTA games, Vincent has said he doesn’t regard AW as a system but something that poses design problems in an accessible way. You still need to address the design problems. Narrative control episode 80 is great because it has Luke Crane talking about his views on design, and then episode 82 is Vincent pretty much saying they’ve got it all wrong — here’s why. Really enjoyable episodes from Sean Nittner podcast. Highly recommend.
In other words, I agree completely. =)
“when the reviewer is incorrect about key aspects of the game, such as core mechanics or the procedures of play at the table”
These skim-readers seem to be among the most prolific reviewers, sadly.
“when the reviewer is incorrect about key aspects of the game, such as core mechanics or the procedures of play at the table”
These skim-readers seem to be among the most prolific reviewers, sadly.
I think you also wanted to put quotes around “absurd” — because I can think of a lot of other, harsher words to put in that slot too. 🙂
I think you also wanted to put quotes around “absurd” — because I can think of a lot of other, harsher words to put in that slot too. 🙂
I have reviewed games I haven’t played; however, these have been “kleptoreviews”, where the point is to grade the work on what in it is worth stealing for other games.
I have reviewed games I haven’t played; however, these have been “kleptoreviews”, where the point is to grade the work on what in it is worth stealing for other games.
Lester Ward interesting. I’m not sure I’ve seen any reviews like that. Do you mean something like highlighting a mechanic that works great for interpersonal play, so that later when people are wanting to create that kind of drama in their games they look at your reviews to get inspiration for specific mechanics?
Lester Ward interesting. I’m not sure I’ve seen any reviews like that. Do you mean something like highlighting a mechanic that works great for interpersonal play, so that later when people are wanting to create that kind of drama in their games they look at your reviews to get inspiration for specific mechanics?
Pretty much any idea worth stealing, be it mechanical, conceptual or fictional.
Pretty much any idea worth stealing, be it mechanical, conceptual or fictional.
Yeah that and people that start hacking games before playing them. Games are interlocking systems, you don’t understand them until you’ve played them, and sometimes extensively.
Play them as written first!
Yeah that and people that start hacking games before playing them. Games are interlocking systems, you don’t understand them until you’ve played them, and sometimes extensively.
Play them as written first!
As someone who used to collect every RPG I saw, I have also read many a game and given it an internal review. With every purchase I had to make the decision of whether that game was worth investing not only more of my time in, but the time of my players. Playing a game isn’t always going to highlight the strengths of weaknesses of a game. Play can easily obfuscate those details. It is entirely possible to have a great game experience grow out of a mediocre or even bad game system. Sometimes everything outside the game’s control just clicks and you get these amazing experiences.
The more time you spend playing the game before reviewing it, the more likely you are going to end up reviewing your play experience rather than the game itself. I’m fairly certain we all know lots of gamers who ardently defend some pretty bad game systems. Not only is there the bias from play being introduced, there is bias being introduced purely based on time invested. The more you play it, the more you need to be able to justify that time spent, thus the more likely the review is going to be better than the game itself justifies.
That said, I’m not sure RPG reviews are generally of much use. I think enjoying any specific RPG comes down mostly to taste and feel.
As someone who used to collect every RPG I saw, I have also read many a game and given it an internal review. With every purchase I had to make the decision of whether that game was worth investing not only more of my time in, but the time of my players. Playing a game isn’t always going to highlight the strengths of weaknesses of a game. Play can easily obfuscate those details. It is entirely possible to have a great game experience grow out of a mediocre or even bad game system. Sometimes everything outside the game’s control just clicks and you get these amazing experiences.
The more time you spend playing the game before reviewing it, the more likely you are going to end up reviewing your play experience rather than the game itself. I’m fairly certain we all know lots of gamers who ardently defend some pretty bad game systems. Not only is there the bias from play being introduced, there is bias being introduced purely based on time invested. The more you play it, the more you need to be able to justify that time spent, thus the more likely the review is going to be better than the game itself justifies.
That said, I’m not sure RPG reviews are generally of much use. I think enjoying any specific RPG comes down mostly to taste and feel.
John Alexander​ I was going to instantly and strongly disagree but you actualy have a very interesting point. But can it really be better to create a review from less information even if it is less biased? Is it possible, would it be better if, these reviewers are doing some sort of sterile research online before writing?
John Alexander​ I was going to instantly and strongly disagree but you actualy have a very interesting point. But can it really be better to create a review from less information even if it is less biased? Is it possible, would it be better if, these reviewers are doing some sort of sterile research online before writing?
I’m not so sure about that. When you design your own game you’re essentially reviewing it by way of exhaustive playtests. Both run by yourself and by others, until you’re satisfied with the outcome. You could review things like the communication from the designer to you, the consumer, without playing the game. Everything about how that game is conveyed to you is up for grabs, but until you play it and declare you dislike a certain mechanic or others seem unnecessary, you’re actually doing the game a huge disservice by stating these things without play.
Tremulous is a perfect example. Lots of people claim to have system mastery of AW now, and because of that pbta label on it, it actually suffered greatly in being reviewed. Loads of people said they don’t like it and refuse to play it because of its deviation from the normal mechanics and the presentation to a fan base that claims to know what works and what does not work mechanically in pbta. A lot of people end up actually really enjoying Tremulous, only after play though.
And, whenever people have system mastery of anything, I find people don’t play the game as written and therefor don’t get the intended experience, too. I see this all of the time on Kyle’s Worlds in Peril community, because people believe they have system mastery they do what they think works for pbta based on their own play experience and then end up with a bad experience with it since it does do things quite differently. To them I say, “You’re not playing it right!”
Another game like this is Burning Wheel, if you decide to skip some of the in-depth fighting mechanics, you’re getting huge amounts of Artha because you’re not spending it, because you’re not engaging with the mechanics properly. Luke brings this up alllll the time. It’s a very tight interlocked game that was designed through a ton of iteration, if you don’t engage with a certain mechanic it breaks down very easily. Engage with all the mechanics and it rewards you, don’t, and you break it and have a bad experience.
I’m not so sure about that. When you design your own game you’re essentially reviewing it by way of exhaustive playtests. Both run by yourself and by others, until you’re satisfied with the outcome. You could review things like the communication from the designer to you, the consumer, without playing the game. Everything about how that game is conveyed to you is up for grabs, but until you play it and declare you dislike a certain mechanic or others seem unnecessary, you’re actually doing the game a huge disservice by stating these things without play.
Tremulous is a perfect example. Lots of people claim to have system mastery of AW now, and because of that pbta label on it, it actually suffered greatly in being reviewed. Loads of people said they don’t like it and refuse to play it because of its deviation from the normal mechanics and the presentation to a fan base that claims to know what works and what does not work mechanically in pbta. A lot of people end up actually really enjoying Tremulous, only after play though.
And, whenever people have system mastery of anything, I find people don’t play the game as written and therefor don’t get the intended experience, too. I see this all of the time on Kyle’s Worlds in Peril community, because people believe they have system mastery they do what they think works for pbta based on their own play experience and then end up with a bad experience with it since it does do things quite differently. To them I say, “You’re not playing it right!”
Another game like this is Burning Wheel, if you decide to skip some of the in-depth fighting mechanics, you’re getting huge amounts of Artha because you’re not spending it, because you’re not engaging with the mechanics properly. Luke brings this up alllll the time. It’s a very tight interlocked game that was designed through a ton of iteration, if you don’t engage with a certain mechanic it breaks down very easily. Engage with all the mechanics and it rewards you, don’t, and you break it and have a bad experience.
How even CAN you review a game, especially its playability, if you haven’t played it or at least seen it in play?
How even CAN you review a game, especially its playability, if you haven’t played it or at least seen it in play?
You can’t review it’s playability. You can look at its layout, design, explain it, and compare its text to other games. But what does all that tell you? It’s not reviewing the GAME, it’s reviewing the book. 🙂
You can’t review it’s playability. You can look at its layout, design, explain it, and compare its text to other games. But what does all that tell you? It’s not reviewing the GAME, it’s reviewing the book. 🙂
Interesting point. I have “reviewed” several games, many of which I haven’t played.
http://schirduans.com/david/2014/04/rpg-micro-review-mega-list.html
Justifications
1) These are only a few sentences long, and are more like impressions or overviews than a full-blown review
2) It’s a huge help to me. I have a bunch of role-playing games that I wanted to invest time in and read. Although they were helpful as a designer, I saw an opportunity to generate content for my blog, and I grabbed it.
3) As long as the reviewer explicitly states that they did not play the game up front, then I know to take everything they say with a grain of salt.
Interesting point. I have “reviewed” several games, many of which I haven’t played.
http://schirduans.com/david/2014/04/rpg-micro-review-mega-list.html
Justifications
1) These are only a few sentences long, and are more like impressions or overviews than a full-blown review
2) It’s a huge help to me. I have a bunch of role-playing games that I wanted to invest time in and read. Although they were helpful as a designer, I saw an opportunity to generate content for my blog, and I grabbed it.
3) As long as the reviewer explicitly states that they did not play the game up front, then I know to take everything they say with a grain of salt.
Fraser Simons The designer of a game often has the absolute worst understanding of the game that they have made. People involved in playtest groups will generally be the next worst reviews you can get (Talking about playtesters who do so in the early stages with a lot of contact with the designer). These people often understand what the intent of rules are, even if those intentions are not communicated in the game itself.
Everyone processes information differently of course, but everything needed to review a game is written down on the page if you can process it and understand it.
Most peopele can’t get all the information out of a game book on a single read through. A lot of people can play a game for years and not know it very well. A lot of people who play games avoid thinking about the game analytically at all.
Fraser Simons The designer of a game often has the absolute worst understanding of the game that they have made. People involved in playtest groups will generally be the next worst reviews you can get (Talking about playtesters who do so in the early stages with a lot of contact with the designer). These people often understand what the intent of rules are, even if those intentions are not communicated in the game itself.
Everyone processes information differently of course, but everything needed to review a game is written down on the page if you can process it and understand it.
Most peopele can’t get all the information out of a game book on a single read through. A lot of people can play a game for years and not know it very well. A lot of people who play games avoid thinking about the game analytically at all.
An example would be Pathfinder with all its supplements. To my wife, the game was overwhelming. To the people she tried it out, it was fun and simple. They had played 3.5 and had graduated to Pathfinder and bought every book as it came out. Both views of the game are valid in their own way.
An example would be Pathfinder with all its supplements. To my wife, the game was overwhelming. To the people she tried it out, it was fun and simple. They had played 3.5 and had graduated to Pathfinder and bought every book as it came out. Both views of the game are valid in their own way.
I mean.. That’s not the designers fault even remotely though. The intent of a supplement it to build off of something established. Sure it’s overwhelming when you see them all there but they designers are aware of what they’ve done and what games they’ve made. Developmental editors specifically are hired to make the text concise and clear to a specific audience. Layman or not, the designers are aware of what they’ve done, usually targeting a specific audience. Blind play tests are done specifically to generate the kind of feedback you need to make the games intent presented properly.
I mean.. That’s not the designers fault even remotely though. The intent of a supplement it to build off of something established. Sure it’s overwhelming when you see them all there but they designers are aware of what they’ve done and what games they’ve made. Developmental editors specifically are hired to make the text concise and clear to a specific audience. Layman or not, the designers are aware of what they’ve done, usually targeting a specific audience. Blind play tests are done specifically to generate the kind of feedback you need to make the games intent presented properly.
Fraser Simons I am not blaming designers for anything. I was simply pointing out that someone less familiar with a game will provide a different view of a game than someone who is intimate with the game and both of those views are valuable.
Fraser Simons I am not blaming designers for anything. I was simply pointing out that someone less familiar with a game will provide a different view of a game than someone who is intimate with the game and both of those views are valuable.
John Alexander Sure, absolutely. Sorry I misunderstood you then.
John Alexander Sure, absolutely. Sorry I misunderstood you then.