Players’ Reviews

[pyrophorus]

Hi !
Adding my little contribution to this.
I don't think (against Dugi) a review can honestly reflect majority opinion, because differences between what players like or not are too wide.

It's clear to me there are different kinds of players in Wesnoth: no UMC add-on can please them all, and no unique review can give them the information they want.
What's missing in our project is (IMHO) some information about the reviewers themselves: what they like and what they like not. Of course this can be concluded from their reviews (and other contributions they can make), but maybe it would be fine to give some hints directly in the Guide.

For instance, I'm personally very interested in stories and writing, and much less in strategy and classical fighting. Since it's known, hardcore players will not search in my reviews a good link to what they like and will certainly find in taptap's reviews a much more reliable information... for them. But, on the contrary, maybe some folks will prefer my advices.

What about a one line presentation of the reviewers ?

Friendly,

[Adamant14]

What's missing in our project is (IMHO) some information about the reviewers themselves: what they like and what they like not. Of course this can be concluded from their reviews (and other contributions they can make), but maybe it would be fine to give some hints directly in the Guide.

For instance, I'm personally very interested in stories and writing, and much less in strategy and classical fighting. Since it's known, hardcore players will not search in my reviews a good link to what they like and will certainly find in taptap's reviews a much more reliable information... for them. But, on the contrary, maybe some folks will prefer my advices.

Yes, that's very important.
This is (maybe) already implemented:

Summary: * a subjective description of the things you liked and disliked about the add-on (and why you liked or disliked them), should also contain some kind of overall impression

Do you think that is not enough?
Or do you (or somebody else) have a suggestion how to describe it better?

[taptap]

I changed the blueprint renaming description and summary to "review", hopefully de-emphasizes recycling of official campaign descriptions somewhat. Added version number. Can we find better rating criteria/terms that are self explaining? I am not even sure what surroundings means as opposed to design.

It is a wiki so using hypertext would imo be best for additional informations about reviewers etc. - the wiki has some homepages already but is currently so inactive nobody bothered. When this guide/review business becomes larger I would certainly make a short homepage introducing myself / what I like about Wesnoth / favourite campaign etc. As is I believe as long as we emphasize the text part of reviews (by example) you can tell the preferences of people pretty well.

[Adamant14]

@taptap:
I like the new Blueprint.
To remove Descriptions was necessary.
Adding the version number of the reviewed campaign was necessary too.
But about removing Summary I am not sure.
For exactly the same reasons pyrophorus mentioned three posts above this one.

[Dugi]

I don't like your description of the review part. Trying to list good and bad things about it as the original description suggested should make them more informative, closer to the professional reviews we see on some websites. But I agree with the removal of the description part. I was trying to write the descriptions trying to avoid paraphrasing the official author's descriptions, but other people didn't.

Maybe asking any reviewer to review at least three add-ons might be useful, it will help to increase the quantity and make everyone understand what the particular reviewer seeks, as pyrophorus suggested.

[ancestral]

Why are you guys making this so complicated?

Just let people write some reviews, give it a few weeks and let’s see how it goes.

You can always make changes later.

[Adamant14]

Just let people write some reviews, give it a few weeks and let’s see how it goes.

Yes, let the people write some reviews.


Is anybody here willing to write one more review?
Don't let the page become forgotten.

[taptap]

Don't panic, it is not even a month old.

[pauline]

Adamant14 + taptap,
[ Don't let the page become forgotten ] ???
If it wasn´t for pyrophorus, I´ld never noticed this UMC campaigns/Players reviews-link,
although I usually search for reviews before downloading a new AddOn.
Now, I like the info here very much and I´m willing to post feedback (as a not very experienced player).
E.g.: most recently I battled through "Swamplings".
I see the Blueprint but I can´t post my answers, in other words: I don´t get it.
OK, there is this link " ... don't know how to edit the wiki page, then you can post your review also here"
and some nameless "I" will do the job.
So, should I post the stuff here ? Do you really want this forum mixed up with the reviews of players
who are to stupid to post their opinion directly on the review-page ?
I´ld appreciate a little "How to add a review"-hint. What am I doing wrong ?
Thanks for your efforts and some help.
pauline

[Dugi]

I´ld appreciate a little "How to add a review"-hint. What am I doing wrong ?

There should be a login/create account button somewhere on the page, create an account, log in, and you'll see an edit button. Add something via editing.

[pauline]

OMG, I didn´t notice that a new account is required.
First I only managed to get to this site by a link mailed from pyrophorus.
After I finally found the direct UMC campaigns/Players reviews-link
in the PLAY-section of the BfW-forum
(where I rarely to dip into, mistaking me for experienced enough )
I thought I was still in the same forum …
Sorry, thanks … I´ll give it a new try now.
pauline

[pauline]

Hi people, I just successfully messed up your review-page.
At this point I thought it might be a good idea to read this feedback thread … at long last.
Adamant14´s well explained "How to add a review"-post perfectly highlights my ignorance and the needlessness
of my 2 earlier posts here. SORRY.

1. Unable to fix my mistake I sent a PM to Adamant14 because I couldn´t figure out, if there is a "main administrator"
for the review-site. (Fortunately, I didn´t outright edit all the reviews by accident, too, Dugi.)
Maybe there should be some info on the site. (However, it seems to be normal to "hide" the Wiki-maintainers …
I have questions about other sites, too, and don´t know to get in touch with.)

2. The controversy about the value of a review cast heavy doubts on my posted feedback on the campaign "Swamplings".
I´m obviously not a "professional game tester" and think my review now a "single-colored, emotionally" post
and in consequence "overly positive" since I didn´t "spare 8-10 points rating".
I would easily accept if it was considered uninformative and deleted.
(I don´t try it myself because I might manage to delete the whole page).

3. I can justify my very personal opinions insofar as,
– I found the campaign in question even more interesting than the mainline standards.
– they are based on a still limited experience with other UMCs (I haven´t even played download-vanguards like IftU, AtS and so on).
– I tried to be objective but didn´t want to look like a "basher", so I "hid" negatives and dislikes in the review-link.
(The one interested has to fight his/her way through 18 over-detailed posts in the author´s thread ... )

4. My humble opinion on the review-site:

Adding the "reviewed version" behind my name caused a very long entry in the index. So, I "created" an extra line in my post.

I agree with taptap: The "numbers business looks like the most important part" and is very tempting to easily express (exaggerated ?) praises or condemnation. (That´s why I took the liberty of adding short explanations.)

Referring to the official, well done parent page, I consider "Description" and "Summary" unnecessary , too. I wouldn´t like to know too much of a new campaign by a even more detailed description on this site.
So. to invite for a "Review" and a personal, general evaluation seems to be the better solution.

I consider the "Tag" the best way to quickly check if a plot meets my preferences.
But a "Presentation of the reviewer", suggested by pyrophorus, would be even better.
(Surely, no one gave a farthing to my reviews if I clearly mentioned my bias towards "tomato surprises" ...)

Though not the case yet but hopefully soon: I’m not sure if I took the time reading a lot of reviews an the same campaign. To have someone neutral to limit the number by sorting out the most agreed ones (in matter of quality !) seems a good idea, Raijer.
I´m absolutely in favor of ( polite !) negative feedback !
As Pentarctagon stated: [The things people dislike about a campaign are just as important as the things that they liked.]

By the way, this was the first time I ventured into unknown feedback writing on a campaign (what led to the UMC-reviews, too). Now, the only reason was a special invitation of the author at the opening scene of his campaign asking for support ! OK, an experienced writer wouldn´t need this. But a link to the UMC-review-site at the beginning of each new UMC-campaign might be interesting for any author and the whole BfW-development team.

For now, I'm going to hold off on further commenting on UMCs and firstly watch the course of the debate in this thread.

pauline

PS My mess is already fixed !!! Thanks a lot, Adamant14, for saving me from further disgrace !!!

[Crendgrim]

Quick off-topic post:

Maybe there should be some info on the site. (However, it seems to be normal to "hide" the Wiki-maintainers …
I have questions about other sites, too, and don´t know to get in touch with.)

In case you are referring to people who maintain certain areas of the wiki (like the players' reviews page in this case), this is not organized centrally. Everyone is welcome to contribute; so far that has worked out pretty good. If you are referring to people who can administrate the wiki, here is a list of them: Wiki Administrators. (There's one further group, the people who are in charge of the wiki on a more basic level and should be contacted on technical problems, for them see Wiki Bureaucrats)

I hope this helps.

[pauline]

Thank you, Crendgrim, this info helps.
I´m confused when I read something like
"I will do this or that" or "... the information needs to be verified"
or the usual "This page was last modified on ..." without knowing by whom.
So. I understand: Now that I got my Wiki-account I could e.g. update the "Wesnoth Figures" ???
(and cause some more muddle ...)
Is there always someone to fix if things go a bite wrong ?
pauline

[Adamant14]

"This page was last modified on ..." without knowing by whom.

If you are logged in, then you can check the 'History'.
If you are logged in you find the link on the bottom of each wiki page.