Players’ Reviews

[iceiceice]

Keep on mind that most add-ons, major exceptions are only A New Order and Invasion from the Unknown, aren't translated and are played in English language by almost everyone (it was funny to see a screenshot of my add-on with generic weapon special names translated to Chinese).

I really don't agree with this. One way to find high quality campaigns imo is to browse the add-ons list at http://addons.wesnoth.org/1.10/ and look for the ones with a ton of translations. This is how I found The Dark Hordes. Look at its translation list:

Code: Select all

af, bg, ca, ca_ES@valencia, cs, da, de, el, en_GB, eo, es, et, eu, fi, fr, ga, he, hu, id, it, ja, ko, la, nb_NO, nl, pl, pt_BR, ro, ru, sk, sl, sr, sr@ijekavian, sr@ijekavianlatin, sv, tr, zh_CN

When you see that many languages you know that its not like, the designer just happened to know a several languages and added some translations himself. This happened because people played his/her campaign and liked it enough that they wanted to put the time and energy to make it available in their language / whatever languages they know.

Searching this way also biases you towards older campaigns I guess, since newer ones won't have had time to be translated. But it's better than just looking at raw number of downloads. I'm not sure that I would have played The Dark Hordes if I hadn't searched this way, since it isn't actively being developed (here's its thread) and the description doesn't particularly stand out. Version 0.7.1a suggests it might not be finished. I don't even know if it is reviewed (update: looks like it has no review), but as I've said I don't use the reviews.

Anyways Wesnoth's internationalization features are first in class, it's a mistake to ignore them.

[taptap]

Google Translate

The use of google translate should be discouraged wherever it is found. It is evil. Moremirmu to the rescue.

I freely admit that I completely forgot about the language, although I am not a native speaker myself. In fact subliminally I am only posting so much on the forum to try out new words and phrases

[Iris]

When you see that many languages you know that its not like, the designer just happened to know a several languages and added some translations himself. This happened because people played his/her campaign and liked it enough that they wanted to put the time and energy to make it available in their language / whatever languages they know.

As an aside, TDH is kind of a special case because it used to be a mainline campaign until version 1.1.1, so it was published to the add-ons server with the mainline translations. Translators working on mainline generally don’t get much of a choice to skip campaigns if they want to get listed with 100% completion in the stats page.

[iceiceice]

I see, didn't know that. Anyways I'm about 2/3 finished, its a nice campaign so far.

[pauline]

I´ve read yesterday´s posts about the worries about UMC Reviews and would like to add my negligible thoughts about some unsolved issues:

1. As a pretty vanilla I chose my campaigns by the number of downloads (justified or not) and the review (very important !).

2. Regarding opinions (quote-mine, deliberately without names) :

• * We seriously need to get people to review all the unimportant stuff.
  * Negative reviews tend to bash anything / exception to the general rule = strongly negative review
  * We need more criticism in reviews.

Whoever bothers to read this thread won´t take a gamble posting a negative review (for long, maybe for all times).
An "ongoing personal battle" as a result of one single adverse criticism will surely prevent a bash to the project "Players Review".

• * We need more criticism
  * I wonder about the whole numbers business
  * Numbers are totally confusing / … only if there is a lot of people who have rated
  * … people can't tell a flawless campaign from a campaign without errors.
  * If the player really sucks at English, he shouldn't review ...

So, what you – and everyone interested in feedback – would like is objective and fair criticism (and maybe constructive info for the authors).
As you realized yourself:

• * People are likely to review only what they like … so other people can see how great it is.
  * Not many people want to take time to make a review.

IMHO, a "normal" player is unable to cope with a professional write-up on unimportant stuff (whatever is meant here) or a campaign in general because:

• * First, the reviewer should be familiar with the number-system and the more or less strict (subjective?/generalized?) ranking or rating system.
  * In addition, he/she should be willing (might be forced) to write about the yeas and nays and explain the reasoning.
  * One should have played most (or all) of the UMC-campaigns to be able to score by BfW-standards.
  * The censor should not "suck at English".
  * A faultfinder should know about WML and lua and coding and artwork (design, sound) to be able to draw a distinction between "flawless" and "errors".
  * Who acts as critic can be no stranger to the sensibility of artists !
  * Reading the detailed "Critique Guidelines" of the development team is a must-rule before posting critique in this forum.

My personal conclusion:
I agree with this statements: "A key part of it is that reviewers build a brand" and therefore an
"… in-depth understanding of how the reviews business works for games" seems a premise to me.
Since there are, unfortunately, not many common players who undertake the hassle of elaborating a review on a campaign they´re fond of
and even less who are willing to add a review of a game they didn´t like, the advise of GunChleoc appears to me
the most feasible one to meet the purpose of a campaign review:
"It´s easier for professional reviewers to take a step back from what they've played and analyse it; they have more experience in doing this.
If you allow everybody to review, many of them will post emotionally ... " and insignificant blah blah blah and pointless high rating only.

My suggestion: A Review-Workshop … for those who are worthy !
Only players that meet all the criteria are accepted to evaluate a UMC ... membership = "Gold Eagle Wings " .
A forum with restricted access: members=Write&Read / ordinary Joe&Jane=ReadOnly.
The bog-standard player can post sweetest praise or stinging rebuke in the author´s thread (who deals with it or not)
and - if there is none – in a thread for abandoned campaigns.
OR in the BfW-Board > AddOn Feedback-section, a "forum for players to review and rate user-made campaigns and MP scenarios"
with simple default-questionnaires and the usual 1-10 rating to get a general overview.

Finally, a question that Is so very absurd and awkward that I prefer a spoiler:

Spoiler:

Why, after all, is there a UMC/Players Reviews-Wiki-link for a second player´s input as well ?

pauline

[taptap]

Actually, several of the more discouraging comments pauline singled out come from Dugi, who currently leads in the "download score" on the 1.11 server with his campaign and wasn't very enthusiastic about this whole review business to begin with. Apparently, he still isn't. While he may give the impression, that you have to qualify to write a review and get a certificate for objectivity first etc. this is simply not the case. It is a wiki and everyone is invited to contribute. Even if this results in a few awkward reviews that may not be very enlightening individually.

It would be helpful, however, if it doesn't work simply as a duplicate of the feedback threads on the forum, but as a review system by players for players, who should disregard the wishes of UMC authors for a second. It is not a ranking for them, but intended as a help for players to navigate among the many campaigns available. (Please write a lot of feedback in the feedback threads as well.)

[Dugi]

Actually, several of the more discouraging comments pauline singled out come from Dugi, who currently leads in the "download score" on the 1.11 server with his campaign and wasn't very enthusiastic about this whole review business to begin with.

Yes, I have written most of them. But I don't know how does that relate with the fact that I lead the 1.11 download score, because I started leading it in September 2013, and the basic topic of my posts here didn't change much from June 2013. And I was quite enthusiastic with this review thing at the beginning, but I wanted it to have some rules because otherwise it would be utterly chaotic. Sometimes, I expect the future quite well, and I was right - it is utterly chaotic now - many campaigns have contradictory reviews (this would be good if there were 10 reviews for each, which will not be achieved), other campaign have a single review that can be overly positive as the reviewer was obviously enchanted by it (this is probably worse than contradictory reviews). Now, my belief that there should be some rules is even stronger because of the chaos that reigns there.

[taptap]

That people with different priorities like different things or the same thing for different reasons is to be expected and it would be wrong, if it were otherwise. Give it time, give it exposure and yet again, this is not a ranking for UMC authors to obsess about, but a help for players to navigate among the UMC available.

[pauline]

Ehm ... with these "singled out comments" I didn´t mean to discourage anyone but rather support my serious opinion:
I´ld really appreciate UMC-reviews by BfW-professionals !

The lack of players willing to write a review might very well be caused by the same problems I came across when dabbling in writing a review :
It was everything but objective because I am unable to take a step back and analyze s.th. without being emotionally charged.
( I don't like to think what might happen if I ventured a comment on a campaign I appreciate less ...)
I know nothing about WML and coding and can´t tell if a perceived "flaw" goes on the account of the writer or the game engine.
I´ve played so few UMCs that one has to rate my lavish praises rather presumptuous than the result of experienced comparison.
I can´t tell what artwork has been provided so far and might get crazy about a sprite, a map or an effect only because I saw it the first time.
So, is such an input helpful ???
I´ld like to support BfW, but isn´t it kind of overdone to ask for 1) feedback on the author´s thread, 2) rating on the forum threads, 3) review on the Wiki ?
I mean, do the players need that much help from other players to find the right campaign ?
Where are the differences supposed to be ?
A review by qualified "Gold Eagle Wings " with a certificate for objectivity would certainly be more interesting, for me at least.

pauline

[pyrophorus]

Sometimes, I expect the future quite well, and I was right - it is utterly chaotic now - ...

I'm sorry. I don't see anything chaotic there. Yes, reviews are not all formatted in the same stretched frame, but all of them are argumented and give a good insight of the campaign content.

As Taptap said, it's the normal result of players variety. Are you not confusing variety and chaos ?

I´ld really appreciate UMC-reviews by BfW-professionals !

Err... Who are those BfW-professionals ? If you mean the devs, they clearly are busy with others things (Shadowm said in another thread they lack time to review and evaluate UMC).
And, IMO, players' reviews are not quality audits. Who cares about WML code quality if the campaign is playable and enjoyable ? IMO, sharing player experience is the goal, and, of course, it is strongly emotional.

Friendly,

[pauline]

@ pyrophorus: Who are those BfW-professionals ?

Dugi and bumbadadabum, to start with ? ... to make sure the review system includes several opinions !
Maybe those who decide which campaign gets to mainline ? (I couldn´t find out yet how this works … )
Everyone who applies for "membership" due to experience (writing + playing), willingness and interest in the advancement of BfW ?

By the way: There is this old thread "Popularity Contest" (http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php ... 77#p385938),
an interesting initiative (imo) to understand the tastes of the community as well as to obtain orientation for the next campaign to play.
It had a questionnaire guiding the reviewer to the matter of interest (similar to the mainline feedback form) but no numbers:
Every response had to have some reasoning behind it.

Wouldn´t something called "UMC Contest" be a better alternative to the BfW-Board > AddOn Feedback-section ?
(since I still don´t understand the need of several user-helps and -input locations
and why the much more extended and completed "Player´s Review" has to be hosted on the Wiki
instead of replacing the easily accessible "AddOn-Feedback" on the board).

pauline

[Astoria]

Maybe those who decide which campaign gets to mainline ? (I couldn´t find out yet how this works … )

That's decided by the developers.

[pauline]

@ bumbadadabum: All those 110 people listed on the bottom of the index page > Developers ?
OK, I can very well imagine that they already volunteer a lot of their time.
But some surely keep up with the news in the UMC-section
and might even find the time for professional evaluations ... status sometimes is a compelling force.
It´s not that new campaigns are provided on a daily basis.
Well, it was just an idea ... and thanks for answering.
pauline

[Astoria]

Do note that not all of the people in the "Developers" group are active developers.

Also, on the subject of 'professionals': I don't think it's a very good idea. The main complaint for me is that there needs to be a selection. The problem with that is, in my opinion, that there is no clear definition of what a 'UMC expert' is. How would they be chosen? Who chooses them? Who will get the title? Also, problems might arise when you create an 'elite', mostly because person X might not agree with person Y being in there, as person X believes he has more authority on the matter. I think the current system is fine, and I feel it's the most 'fair' as well. Perhaps if there is a clear plan for this, I might change my opinion, but for now I think the current system will do.

[Crow_T]

Obviously there are many players with varying styles, but there are no "professionals" (well maybe oaq http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=39408 ) Input from crappy players like myself could be useful to other crappy players, or you could end up following a particular reviewer no matter the skill level.