First of all, let me express a slight 'nervousness' at what I see as a developing trend. It seems that frequently, value judgements are made over a new product on the basis of the (initial) News report. Or, in some cases, based on the first images of a master or prototype at a Trade Show.

Now, i'm NOT defending the manufacturers here - rather a plea to 'fairness' for people to wait until a product is reviewed (i.e. ASESSED, not 'Endorsed') as sometimes the official images can be very different to the final product.

So, is it fair? Should we judge a new release on the basis of Initial images or should we wait?

Is this yet another manifestation of the power of the 'net?

Yes and no ... but if you adress problems with an initial report or a testbuild, theres the chance that those problems are corrected before the initial release - to the benefit for both buyer and seller ...

Cheers

Absolute fairness will be very hard to achieve, unless you have some official "seal of approval" on the reviewers themselves.
Maybe AMPS could issue certificates to those who review kits of US armoured vehicles. Not realistic.

Instant reviews or rather instant feedback should be used by the manufacturers to improve their product. It's probably better for
the manufacturer to get feedback while the tools and the parts are
still being developed than to get it when 10000 kits have been
produced and are being shipped to retailers around the world.
Test shots shall be seen as tests and the more review and feedback
you can get the better. Some feedback will be wrong and/or malicious
but that is up to the producer to check against available sources and facts.

/ Robin

This could turn into a long winded one for me, so I'll keep it short so as to not to bore or offend anyone.

1. A News Release is just that- NEWS of a product- NOT a review. Most photos are usually supplied by the manufacturer, therefore are of course going to show off the best parts. Simply an announcement, something to wet the whistle.

2. A First Look, Preview, or "What's in the box"- Hey, nothing more, nothing less than a fast glance appraisal of the kit. English- PREVIEW is NOT REVIEW. Cat isn't Dog-both are animals.

3. Review- Anyone remember the old magazine that was nothing but reviews- great idea, and its shame it never took off, and lasted longer than it did, all the kits were built. none were finished, but you could look at the black and white photos, and even a blind man could see the gaps, warped parts, and collections of mistakes.

4. Full Build Review, can also be called an Article, but should be built out of the box. After all you are reviewing the KIT! Should point out fit problems, Mistakes, etc. Takes time to do.

5. Feature- Something with all the bells and whistles, aftermarket, corrections, suggestions on improving the basic kit, bringing it up a notch or two, with or without aftermarket parts- Probably using scratch-built parts instead. Weathering process, hopefully explained enough so a newcomer, or returning modeller can understand it, and Yes it just may mean repeating it over and over. Not everyone remembers your article, or has your article from 1999.

I gotta go with Dave's assessment on this one......... that seems more of the proper set of definitions for the various types of "stuff" published..........

Dave,
Very succinctly(sp?) put.

from another grumpy old man

Military Model Preview, or something like that. Out of Seattle or those parts. Very well done, but I think the monthly format killed them. Too short a time to do that much building and you basically "waste" a model by building it up unpainted, unputtied, etc.

It was a good thing to see the kit warts and all, but I think the mood of the time is that the magazine "bit the hand that feeds it." A company sends them the latest kit to review, they build it up for all to see and it was not always given a flattering review. That lead to the magazine's downfall, being too honest and critical. I still have most of those magazines.


To answer Jim's post, I do like to know what I am getting in the box before I buy the kit. I do not necessarily need a full up build review, but I would like to know if the kit is a rebox, what the parts on the sprue look like, marking options, level of detail and things like that.

What I want to know is something along the lines of what I would learn if I could open the box at the store and take a look myself. I am an accomplished enough modeler that I can make a judgement of whether or not I want to purchase the kit based on what I can see inside the box.

In today's world where the majority of my model purchases are made from an online source, it is nice to be able to have a virtual "open box" online for me to see what I am getting when I spend my money.

That's why I find reviews like the ones at PMMS to be invaluable. I don't really need a full build up review by the foremost expert on the vehicle in order to make a decision. Most of the times, these superb modelers give me too much information. I don't need to know I have to add a 16th bolt head, reduce the cupola height by 1mm and take the idler wheel from another company's kit in order to accurately build the kit.

Likewise, I do not need to follow someone's step-by-step build up review in order to build a model. I'm a big boy and can build one all by myself. Been doing it for years. Now I do find reviews useful where the builder points out some construction error or problem with the instructions that may otherwise hamper my build.

It's a tricky one. People should wait for the reviews or until they get the kit themselves to make a value judgement ojn the actual bits and pieces of plastic.
What happens is that people are passing judgements on news images (sometimes computer generated) and sometimes confusing them with reviews and saying "this looks like a pile of I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.
Then again if a manufacturer puts out images that show something not up to their usual standard or that looks way out of kilter with the Box Art then they are doing themselves no favours

The 'net' affect is the desire to get information out and get it out quickly.

I think that the word spreads faster now as than before where if a master came out or a prototype at a trade show came out it would be much later that word got to the 'masses' and by the time it did there would be time to temper quick judgements or even adjust the end product.

I would say that a 'first look' be just that a first look and not necessarily a review.
I agree with Daves writeup and definitions. And it should be up to the reader to assess a value on the written word not the model/subject.

I think that it's important to seperate out idea that commenting upon an image from a news article is in no way an "instant review".

Anyone reading such a thread must surely understand that it is only news and that what posts that follow are merely part of a discussion prompted by the news report.

Is it fair for an company to advertise a new product with images (which may result in folks preordering based on those images) and then change the product prior to release? Should they not wait until the product is finalised before releasing the images??? If by releasing images that prompt comment, be it negative or positive, that results in the company altering the product for the better, then such "value comments" are surely for the good.

I don't see where the "net" has any power here.........the product will get released regardless of comments and people will buy it regardless of comments.

And Dave's 5 point summary seems well balanced to me.

I have read the comments posted so far and each has a lot of merit. I particularly like Dave's comments and his definition summary. When I read Robin's post, I found myself nodding my head in agreement. I want to see close pictures of what is in the box, I would also like pictures of the kit build up OOB. I also like to know what after market goodies are out there if I want to go that route.
Just my humble 2 Cdn cents
Darryl

Here are my few cents.
As far as the basic question


Clearly the answer should be no. It's not fair to judge a kit, either pro or con, based only on initial images. As somebody said if these images are from the manufacturer then I'm sure they are very able to portray the item to it's best advantage, and hide any faults. The photos might also be of a kit that will still be changed before it actually hits the stores. Worse yet is if the manufacturer uses computer editing to make the images look better than the kit will actually be. So bottom line, to me, is that these initial images are just to wet our appetites, and shouldn't be used as any kind of review of the kit at all.





Where I think the "power of the net" is really showing is how reviews seem to feed off of each other. How many different places can you find reviews? If you look at an item on Great Models web store, for example, many times it will list two or three different web reviews of that item. Then there is Fine Scale Modeler, and all the other printed magazines. There could easily be a half dozen or more reviews. Reviewer #1 reviews the item based on their standards, and points out some small flaw. Reviewer #2 then picks up on that flaw, and expands on it. It then snow balls until Reviewer #6 makes it sound like that flaw makes this kit the worst kit ever built! The aftermarket industry really plays off of this. They come out with upgrades to correct some flaw with a kit. Then somebody looking to buy the original kit reads a few reviews and sees the aftermarket correction items, and is convinced that to build a decent kit they've got to get all the aftermarket items.

I disagree. While obviously it is not fair to say that the kit is a pice of junk or a masterpiece after seeing a few pics online, it is perfectly OK to comment on what is shown on these pics. If, as some of you wrote, manufacturers provide the best photos they have and they still show obvious problems with kits/figures/whatever, then there is nothing wrong in writing about it. As someone involved in design of some of DML kits, I always pay a lot of attention to comments posted online after DML release first images (computer generated) of future releases. Sometimes these comments help improve kits before release.

Pawel

Honestly, first impression last, so if a preview looks real sweet it will sell a lot of kits, if it looks bad .. well guess what?

I really cant see that we in any way should choose to hold back, its the company that decides to bring out the images to sell the product when it hits the market -and if the marketing aint good, they wont sell anything - basically thats there problem.

If we were to hold back comments on a preview - who would it benefit? the modeler or the company ?

I think the basic line is, that previews are not politeness from the company - its part of the marketing strategy - nothing wrong with that - just dont expect people to eat it raw without a little bit of salt...

I'm in total agreement with Dave. A news release or an out of box preview should inform the potential purchaser with an unbiased report. If on the other hand you spend time in building the model, then you should have the right to judge the quality of the model,... you might want to be clear with readers by distinguishing between the quality of model and the accuracy of model.

As far as the developing trend you speak of, it is the unfortunate reality that this hobby tends to attract too many individuals that spout off at any given chance.

Frank

Please note that this is your point of view, not the universal truth. For many people (although probably for a minority) there is no such thing as inaccurate good quality model. If a model is inaccurate, then it is a poor quality for those modelers. Molding quality and engineering of an inaccurate kit can be very good indeed, but overall quality assesment depends on what you want from the kit. If you don't care much for accuracy, then indeed you can call such model high quality one. But if you want your models to be as accurate as possible, then such model won't be of high quality for you at all, despite good molding and engineering.

Pawel

I think that's what concerned me initially. I personally DON'T think that any manufacturer does themself any real favors by publishing CAD drawings of a new project - yes it makes life easier for Pat and I getting stories up quickly, but for many modellers it's downright confusing - the final project is going to be very different from the original 'concept' drawings..

If we see the News Section as simply a means of getting out reports of forthcoming products quickly then that's all to the good. Sometimes I do tend to 'editorialize' but I prefer people comment in the 'What's New' thread.

As to 'objectivity' (in Reviews) I personally would like to be called to task if a Site-User felt I WASN'T being objective about a product - the days of 'Dragonarama' are over.