Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've been thinking about ways we could use this board more, and one thing that sprung to mind would be if we did product reviews. I thought it might be good to open up a discussion about how we might do that and especially, how we might make the reviews be of a good quality and useful to other buyers.

My initial thought was if people were interested in doing reviews (I'm going to, anyway) then we could work off a rough set of guidelines so that they are coherant and welll structured. I'm not always the best at structure, so feedback is appreciated.

Here's what I had in mind.
Each product could have it's own thread, or we could do threads for categories of products, or for products from particular companies. I think one of the latter options is better to prevent us from clogging the main pages with lots of stubby threads.
Each reviewer should give a little bit of background as to their preferences and gaming history, to provide a context for the review. In that way, we can suss out if we have similar tastes to the reviewer and are likely to agree with them.
For books, an overview and then breakdown of contents would be how I'd structure it. I'd also focus on presentation and artwork, as well as my general feeling on the product. (I'm open to suggestions)
For board games, the review should probably always start with a brief overview of how the game plays and it's genre, then a detailed description of the contents, and then finally comments and feelings about the game.
Is anyone else interested in doing a bit of this sort of stuff? I know there are some people on here who I will sort of stalk for product information, because they are knowledgeable. I think it would be great if we got organised and took it a bit further, it could get some excellent discussions going. I have a few other ideas for how we could use this board, but that was the one I felt like posting today.

I'm up for it, as I was thinking of doing a review of Battle for Slaughter Gulch soon(ish).

Each project should definitely have it's own thread. (Easy to find in a search; comments/questions should be about the reviewed game, etc.) There should be a five star rating system with a rating in each of several categories (rules, production values, fun, etc). And I think reviews should have pics by OP, not just links to other pre-esixting content. Whether Dakka will be willing to host these images is another story . . .

Woo a response! I had a feeling you'd be up for it, Manchu!
Yeah, pictures are a good idea, definitely. I'm going to review Castle Ravenloft first, and then some of the D'n'D sourcebooks I have. (I had the idea while reading my Manual of the Planes for 4th and being disappointed it wasn't as good as the Underdark supplement)

So, a thread per product? Dpes a roleplaying system count as a product into itself, or will each supplement get it's own thread?

I think you could do interrelated supplements together. So Manual of the Planes could go in a thread with The Planes Below and The Planes Above but not Martial Power 2 or Dark Sun Campaign Setting. Reviews could certainly be written as comparisons, however. I could see wanting to write a Talisman/Descent comparison review, for example.

I'd contribute if I actually owned any products worth reviewing, but it seems like an interesting idea at any rate.

However, can I suggest that as well as making a thread on these, you also make it into a series of Articles? They'd be more permanent and you'd have more scope and room to put them, instead of having to spread them over several different forums. You could also put up review requests in the form of unfinished articles.

@Dave:

My preference is for threads over articles. One frustrating thing about articles is that they are not interactive. They are a monolog, like a lecture, rather than a discussion. This has advantages for publishing a review, of course, like lending the reviewer's opinion authority. But there is plenty of that sort of thing on the internet already (blogs, podcasts, etc) and I think the best use of a fourm is dialog. Practically speaking, I think this has many advantages. For example, other voices in the discussion can immediately correct my mistakes. If I misunderstood a part of the rules and therefore reviewed the rules negatively, someone else can not only correct me but re-review that section. This works out for me (I get more clarity and maybe more enjoyment from the game) as well as people curious about whether the game is any good.

Manchu wrote:@Dave:

My preference is for threads over articles. One frustrating thing about articles is that they are not interactive. They are a monolog, like a lecture, rather than a discussion. This has advantages for publishing a review, of course, like lending the reviewer's opinion authority. But there is plenty of that sort of thing on the internet already (blogs, podcasts, etc) and I think the best use of a fourm is dialog. Practically speaking, I think this has many advantages. For example, other voices in the discussion can immediately correct my mistakes. If I misunderstood a part of the rules and therefore reviewed the rules negatively, someone else can not only correct me but re-review that section. This works out for (I get more clarity and maybe more enjoyment from the game) as well as people curious about whether the game is any good.

I quite agree, but presumably this doesn't stop you putting an article up once the thread has died? (and perhaps getting a sneaky bump in there as well).

What you're proposing then is a set of threads for the discussion and reviewing of board games and supplements? Or am I reading this incorrectly?

Yep, and RPGs too. But with a bit of structure to try and foster some decent quality and help get a good discussion going. I think there are some lurking RPG and board game people around and it'd be good to get them participating a bit more. Manchu mentioned he was hoping to achieve something like this in one of the "Is Dakka Doomed" threads, and I thought it was a good idea. He was right about the monthly "4th ed sucks!" "No it doesn't" threads here, and I was thinking of how we could foster something a bit more constructive and interesting. (though I've enjoyed the 4th ed threads, I have to say.)

On my "To Review" list:
Castle Ravenloft
D'n'D 4th Core Rules (but not the new ones; the originals)
D'n'D 4th Underdark and Manual of the Planes Supplements
Rogue Trader (I have a lot to say about campaign structure in this one, having run a few sandbox type RPGs before)
I like seeing other people's takes on things too- I'm especially interested to see a pathfinder review by someone less negatively disposed towards it than me, to see if they can change my mind

About the only RPG I could feasibly do is Dark Heresy, and even that would be based on only two adventures worth of (forum-based) gaming.

Still, if you want a review based on a new player/GM's perspective, I'd be happy to do it if I was given an appropriate structure to use.

Reviewing DH qua forum gaming could be useful. The main question your discussion would be aimed at is "are these rules conducive to forum-based RPGing?"