Players’ Reviews

[pauline]

Great !
Now, just one more question. (It´s the wrong place to post this but I didn't want to make a new topic elsewhere.)
When I go to http://wiki.wesnoth.org/Guide_to_UMC_Ca ... rs_Reviews
the head of the page looks like the one of the BfW-forum. That´s why I didn´t think about a new account.
The site looks different when I go to http://wesnoth.wikia.com/wiki/The_Battle_for_Wesnoth,
where I tried in vain to get to the UMC_Campaigns/Players_Reviews.
What is the difference between "wiki.wesnoth.org" and "wesnoth.wikia.com/wiki/" ?

Adamant14, the review-site even improved with
the new "Campaign"-line, the Blueprint-help and the info on the subject Feedback Thread at the bottom.
As a beginner I think it´s perfect now and very good to handle.
Hopefully, there will be many review-posts: It´s really a good guide to find a new campaign to play next !

pauline

[lipk]

What is the difference between "wiki.wesnoth.org" and "wesnoth.wikia.com/wiki/" ?

Well, uh, they're different sites? wiki.wesnoth.org is the home to Wesnoth's official wiki, the other one is a wiki site about Wesnoth by a random person(s).

[8680]

http://wesnoth.wikia.com/wiki/The_Battle_for_Wesnoth

Is that still alive?

[pauline]

off-topic - ref Wiki-link

Spoiler:

Yeah, well I realized that these are different sites but didn´t know about this "random" thing.
Thanks for the link to the locked topic "New Wiki".
So, "http://wiki.wesnoth.org/" is the real BfW-Wiki
and the necessity of creating a new user account here
(I used, actually, exactly the same data as those of my normal BfW-account)
is required to get access to hidden info and editing ?

pauline

[8680]

So, "http://wiki.wesnoth.org/" is the real BfW-Wiki and the necessity of creating a new user account here […] is required to get access to hidden info and editing ?

Yes and yes.

[taptap]

We need more criticism in reviews. The average score is about 8 to 9 in the reviews I have seen, which makes them extremely pointless. Doesn't help at all in deciding what to play.

[lipk]

Yeah, that's true, but... I honestly think that the campaigns I reviews are really good, and I don't really care to play through anything but really good campaigns, let alone reviewing them.

[Dugi]

I think that people mostly rated the campaigns they liked, not just any campaigns they played, without trying to make the list complete. Also it appears that was discontinued like 5 months ago.
bumbadadabum is an exception, he played almost all campaigns and decided to rate only one, one of the larger part he didn't like (this is not any kind of assumption). I am not trying to persuade him to rate any other campaigns.

The ratings are 8 or 9 in average because the usual rating in reviews on things I (and probably most other people) see on the internet are like this (and unlike bumbadadabum, I think we should better stick to this tradition):
10 - legendary, (almost) no faults, aspects that are better than anywhere else
9 - very good, leaves a very good impression, though you can find some petty faults and mistakes, but the awesomeness overrules it
8 - good, worth playing definitely if it is your style
7 - not bad, but try this after trying all the 8s, 9s and 10s that caught your eye
6 - mediocre, nothing interesting, play if you are bored
5 - uninteresting, some bugs, better don't play
4 - incomplete or really bad or bugged
3 - not quite sure what was the author trying, it's bad, bugged, many things that could be there aren't
2 - really sucks, list of things that aren't good but don't really suck is much shorter than the list of things that suck
1 - must have been uploaded by accident, there is no other explanation
0 - can be achieved only on purpose

These two premises together explain why are they rated so high. To solve this, I think that it would be better to rate also other campaigns, not being more strict with ratings.

I have rated most UMC campaigns I played (the one I haven't rated was significantly redone after I played it).

[taptap]

I think that people mostly rated the campaigns they liked, not just any campaigns they played, without trying to make the list complete. Also it appears that was discontinued like 5 months ago.
bumbadadabum is an exception, he played almost all campaigns and decided to rate only one, one of the larger part he didn't like (this is not any kind of assumption). I am not trying to persuade him to rate any other campaigns.

The ratings are 8 or 9 in average because the usual rating in reviews on things I (and probably most other people) see on the internet are like this (and unlike bumbadadabum, I think we should better stick to this tradition):
10 - legendary, (almost) no faults, aspects that are better than anywhere else
9 - very good, leaves a very good impression, though you can find some petty faults and mistakes, but the awesomeness overrules it
8 - good, worth playing definitely if it is your style
7 - not bad, but try this after trying all the 8s, 9s and 10s that caught your eye
6 - mediocre, nothing interesting, play if you are bored
5 - uninteresting, some bugs, better don't play
4 - incomplete or really bad or bugged
3 - not quite sure what was the author trying, it's bad, bugged, many things that could be there aren't
2 - really sucks, list of things that aren't good but don't really suck is much shorter than the list of things that suck
1 - must have been uploaded by accident, there is no other explanation
0 - can be achieved only on purpose

These two premises together explain why are they rated so high. To solve this, I think that it would be better to rate also other campaigns, not being more strict with ratings.

I have rated most UMC campaigns I played (the one I haven't rated was significantly redone after I played it).

Basically, this shows that you consider 7 a bad score and anything below 5 an insult. I much prefer writing what I have to say instead of numerical scores, but if you do numerical scores 5 should be average and 4s and 3s fairly common, 7 and 8 a seriously good score, while a 9 or even 10 should be extremely rare. I mean, I do like and recommend After the Storm, but clean 10s including for the story, when you face the same opponent like ten times and it keeps resurrecting like in some drawn out series, where they run out of ideas, when the hero is killed off in a cutscene to keep the group size manageable? Seriously?

[vultraz]

People are likely to review what they like. Not many people want to take time to make a review, so if they find something they really like, they're more likely to want to make a review so other people can see how great it is.

[Dugi]

Basically, this shows that you consider 7 a bad score and anything below 5 an insult. I much prefer writing what I have to say instead of numerical scores, but if you do numerical scores 5 should be average and 4s and 3s fairly common, 7 and 8 a seriously good score, while a 9 or even 10 should be extremely rare.

Sure that it makes sense. But if you see the reviews on the internet, high scores are given everywhere. Totally mainstream first person shooters like Battlefield or Call of Duty are getting 9/10 all the time, even if they bring nothing new at all and are all just like a more interactive action films from the 80s, just without Arnie Schwarzenegger. Assassin's creed 3 got 8/10, even if I started to be bored by it after playing a half of it, and just wanted to know how the story ends (only one event actually surprised me). GTA V had 10/10 almost everywhere, and I am not even bothering trying it out. High rating for little reason has become the usual style, we can only accept it.

People are likely to review what they like. Not many people want to take time to make a review, so if they find something they really like, they're more likely to want to make a review so other people can see how great it is.

Thanks for input, Captain Obvious. But we seriously need to get people to review all the unimportant stuff, any ideas how to achieve that?

[Astoria]

bumbadadabum is an exception, he played almost all campaigns and decided to rate only one, one of the larger part he didn't like (this is not any kind of assumption). I am not trying to persuade him to rate any other campaigns.

The ratings are 8 or 9 in average because the usual rating in reviews on things I (and probably most other people) see on the internet are like this (and unlike bumbadadabum, I think we should better stick to this tradition):

Thanks for listing me personally and painting me as a big meanie.

As it seems you're still not over the bad review, let me clarify that I do not write reviews just to hate on campaigns. Since the page was started, I wrote, or at least attempted to write, a review on every single campaign I finished since the page started (which aren't that many). Also, although I do follow a slightly different scale than you do, I just gave my opinions, which is what I think the page is for.

Thanks for input, Captain Obvious. But we seriously need to get people to review all the unimportant stuff, any ideas how to achieve that?

I don't think insulting others is the way to do it.

[Dugi]

As it seems you're still not over the bad review, let me clarify that I do not write reviews just to hate on campaigns.

There is a lot of unfriendly things I could have replied, especially about the irony in your reply, but I will better try to stay on topic. Your review is the only review that is strongly negative and you, according to your own words, don't accept the score ranges given by others. That's why your review was a huge exception to the general rule, and I had to exclude it in order to generalise something.

[iceiceice]

I much prefer writing what I have to say instead of numerical scores, but if you do numerical scores 5 should be average and 4s and 3s fairly common, 7 and 8 a seriously good score, while a 9 or even 10 should be extremely rare.

If everyone is using numbers and there is a broad consensus about what they mean, why would you want to try change this? If it ain't broke don't fix it.

But we seriously need to get people to review all the unimportant stuff, any ideas how to achieve that?

LOL. What did you have in mind, cash prizes?

Maybe Wesnoth can take a cue from Call of Duty and reward people with meaningless badges. Once a month, perhaps a forum moderator or dev or official person of some kind will look at one random campaign review, and if the quality seems good, the author will get a gold star next to their name. Maybe they can have gold eagle wings in addition to the crown that shows up on the movement orb for their leader. XD

I don't have an in-depth understanding of how the reviews business works for games, but obviously a key part of it is that reviewers build a brand that consumers come to know and trust. To do that they review everything and try to be thorough and consistent, and they have to post negative reviews also in order to define the brand. You aren't really going to get that in wesnoth, people are just going to react to the campaigns they happen to play. In fact by writing a negative review of a popular product, Bumbadadabum is the only one who may actually be sort of building a brand, so he is the only one helping your cause Dugi XD.

Why exactly is it so important to have all campaigns systematically reviewed? It seems to me that campaign reviews are pretty unimportant, its not like you have to pay money to play them. If you try one and don't like it just download a different one.

[vultraz]

As it seems you're still not over the bad review, let me clarify that I do not write reviews just to hate on campaigns.

There is a lot of unfriendly things I could have replied, especially about the irony in your reply, but I will better try to stay on topic. Your review is the only review that is strongly negative and you, according to your own words, don't accept the score ranges given by others. That's why your review was a huge exception to the general rule, and I had to exclude it in order to generalise something.

By "others" I assume you mean yours, and if you look a few posts up, taptap also does not agree with your rating system. I advise you stop singling bumbadadabum out whenever you bring this up.