Players’ Reviews

[Dugi]

I'm a bit confused. What's even the point of having reviews if negative ones aren't allowed?

Please see a website where everybody can write reviews. You'll see that there are three classes of reviews, the rarest one is purely positive, where the author praises everything and forgets all problems about it, then a lot of reviews that list good and odd sides of the thing, obviously from people who liked it, but liked many other things and can tell what is it worse at, and some negative ones, that just bash everything that is there, maybe mentioning that some aspects weren't so bad but weren't much used (and bashing also things that were praised in other reviews). Both fully positive ones and fully negative ones carry no particularly useful information, they should be taken into some kind of final average score but not as any kind of informative review.

I have usually found good things about everything I have played, and bad things about everything I have played. There are of course things that I just can't describe positively (in my case, popular radio music, but music isn't a video game). But I have learned that there are different people than me in this.

The review site not a blog, a place to write personal opinions, it is a place that should help people get some idea what are these add-ons about. You should post there only if you think that your opinion represents the majority (and therefore is the most likely opinion of a random person coming to play it) and lists the positive and negative aspects people will encounter when playing it.

[vultraz]

You should post there only if you think that your opinion represents the majority (and therefore is the most likely opinion of a random person coming to play it) and lists the positive and negative aspects people will encounter when playing it.

No, just no. Any and every review is useful, because the represent the spectrum of opinions of every player. If a new player came and saw only average reviews on all campaigns, they probably wouldn't know what to make of it, or what to pick to play. Whereas if several campaigns had a great many positive reviews, and others a great many negative ones, the player would immediately know which ones to try. And this, I'm afraid to say, is exactly what it seems you want to avoid, lest it be YOUR campaign that gets the negative reviews. If you want a review system, you must accept all that are submitted, both positive and negative.

[GunChleoc]

I don't think a synthesis is good for reviews. I think it's best to just list all the reviews and let the reader decide which one he agrees with.

And is there a way that would let him decide?

Well, since there is already a good review up as well and bumbadabum states that it receives a lot of praise on the forums although he doesn't like the campaign at all, that might get people curious. They will try to find out what the controversy is about and play the campaign to find out for themselves. So, I don't think you will lose players, if that's what you're worried about.

Of course, reading a bad review about your own stuff always hurts on a personal level, that can't be avoided.

[Dugi]

Of course, reading a bad review about your own stuff always hurts on a personal level, that can't be avoided.

I don't want anybody else to be hurt on personal level like this. There are surely people who can flame the review's author on IRC, hate him forever, but take it lightly, but it is not my case. I have reviewed in my mind anything I have played including things I disliked, always finding positive things (and means to explain the odd sides in euphemisms if necessary), but there is always somebody does not have problems to describe his personal opinion openly.

I am not expecting any 'loss of players' or something, but I am doubting the actual purpose of totally negative and totally positive review. If you see actual gaming sites that make their own 'official' reviews for games, they all write down all the good and odd sides of games. If you see reviews somewhere where any users can post, there are always reviews full of negativity or full of praise.

[GunChleoc]

If you see actual gaming sites that make their own 'official' reviews for games, they all write down all the good and odd sides of games. If you see reviews somewhere where any users can post, there are always reviews full of negativity or full of praise.

That's because it's easier for professional reviewers to take a step back from what they're played and analyse it; they have more experience in doing this. If you allow everybody to review, many of them will post emotionally about what they've played. So, this can't be avoided, because there is no way we can restrict who does the reviews without opening up the "elite" discussion again. The Wiki is open for all to post.

Maybe you can find a way to get over this, even see if there are any points in bumbadabum's review that help you make your campaign even better than it already is. I haven't played any UMC myself yet, but there seem to be many people out there who enjoy your campaign, so keep working on it for them - and for your own pleasure!

[lipk]

I don't want anybody else to be hurt on personal level like this. There are surely people who can flame the review's author on IRC, hate him forever, but take it lightly, but it is not my case.

Oh, come on, let's get over this. I got a similarly distressing feedback on my campaign from a certain person, and you know what? I still talk to him. That was how we started to talk to each other, actually.

I am not expecting any 'loss of players' or something, but I am doubting the actual purpose of totally negative and totally positive review. If you see actual gaming sites that make their own 'official' reviews for games, they all write down all the good and odd sides of games. If you see reviews somewhere where any users can post, there are always reviews full of negativity or full of praise.

Yeah, probably bumbadadabum's reviews isn't particularly useful. Sure there will more useless reviews in the future. Still, we'd make much more harm to the system by starting to police people's opinions than by having a few crappy articles.

[vultraz]

I don't want anybody else to be hurt on personal level like this. There are surely people who can flame the review's author on IRC, hate him forever, but take it lightly, but it is not my case.

Oh, come on, let's get over this. I got a similarly distressing feedback on my campaign from a certain person, and you know what? I still talk to him. That was how we started to talk to each other, actually.

QFT.

Though the thing about bumba's review not being useful isn't very true, since it IS useful in the way that it expresses the views of someone who dislikes the campaign.

[Dugi]

That's because it's easier for professional reviewers to take a step back from what they're played and analyse it; they have more experience in doing this. If you allow everybody to review, many of them will post emotionally about what they've played. So, this can't be avoided, because there is no way we can restrict who does the reviews without opening up the "elite" discussion again. The Wiki is open for all to post.

That is a good point. But the point of that site is to help the users find easier what do they seek, not to serve as some kind of blog. The only place to host it is the wiki at the moment, so we can only advise people not to post overly biased reviews, trying to be as objective and comparative to other reviews as possible.

Maybe you can find a way to get over this, even see if there are any points in bumbadabum's review that help you make your campaign even better than it already is.

I have said that he bashed anything, there isn't much I might take from it. The other, positive review showed the actual problems I see there too and I was told about them repeatedly (and I am trying to fix them).

But I got over it emotionally, I have even sent an apology PM to bumbadadabum (hope I didn't misspell it again). Without being told to do it.

Though the thing about bumba's review not being useful isn't very true, since it IS useful in the way that it expresses the views of someone who dislikes the campaign.

Everything has its haters, everyone knows it. Remember the posts from AxalaraFlame about mainline campaigns and many others. If there was an automated way to insert numbers, it should count into some kind of average to express how many haters are there.

[Crendgrim]

I do not like the direction this topic is going. It started out as a good idea: A way to create reviews to give other players a source to look which add-on to play. To achieve this goal, people who played it already are meant to leave feedback in form of a review. That is good.
Now we, as a community, consist mainly of people who are not professional game testers; thus opinionated feedback is inevitable, which was (or should have been) clear from the very beginning of this project. As a community, we should understand that about ourselves. What happens, though, is that the community fractionizes about this:
bumbadadabum and dugi had a personal dispute. Nevertheless, bumbadadabum decided to write a review on dugi's campaign, which turned out to be negative. Okay, one could argue at this point that the review might have been influenced by his attitude towards dugi; however, vultraz stated in this thread that he thinks similarly. Now, I do agree that the time might have been poorly chosen to write the review, but dugi's reaction was far worse. A review system is meant to include several opinions. It is obvious that yours differs from a negative one, but this does not mean that the negative review is wrong or bad. If somebody does not like your campaign, he will rate it bad. That hurts, but you cannot please everyone.
What I also read a lot from you, dugi, is that negative feedback was "biased". Isn't positive feedback biased as well? Isn't all kind of feedback except completely objective one based on some kind of bias? And that we cannot and will not achieve fully objective reviews I explained above. I agree completely with taptap, whose reply sadly god ignored.
The longer this project goes on, the better and more informative the results will be, as more opinions are published. What happens could however lead to a sudden death of it, as it is nothing but personal arguments by now, for almost 2 pages, completely erasing all meaningful discussion. This is bad.

[Dugi]

bumbadadabum and dugi had a personal dispute.

The problem is that I had (paranoid) reasons to believe he had a problem with me. But he just hated my campaign. I don't want to pull this back neither, you can delete some of these posts.

What I also read a lot from you, dugi, is that negative feedback was "biased". Isn't positive feedback biased as well? Isn't all kind of feedback except completely objective one based on some kind of bias? And that we cannot and will not achieve fully objective reviews I explained above. I agree completely with taptap, whose reply sadly god ignored.

When some people dislike something, they will tend to dislike anything about it. Read some negative reviews elsewhere. When people adore something, they tend to ignore all flaws or even see them as brilliant features (think of Apple fanboys). And it is usually possible to tell which review describes both the good sides and the bad sides, even by the author. Most of the reviews there have succeeded at this (I believe the reviews I wrote did), they well wrote the good sides and the bad sides, in a way most players would agree with. These reviews are much more helpful than fully positive or fully negative ones, they contain little information, but their quantity should be recorded somehow (no way to make a counting like dislike system or something, I fear). So I would just like to tell to write the reviews there to be helpful, not to show your opinion. If you know you would not be very helpful (not representing the opinion of majority, for example or inability to see what some people liked about it), just don't post it there. It might be posted elsewhere, for example making a topic I hate that and that add-on like AxalaraFlame. The players' reviews page was meant to be informative. Two texts stating an exact opposite is a nightmare for any kind of gathering information.

What is better for providing information, one text that most people agree with or a lot of texts stating different things, from which you might agree with some, but can't tell a thing in advance.

[Crendgrim]

I don't want to pull this back neither, you can delete some of these posts.

No, I will not censor anything. That's exactly my point; censorship is not the right way to go here.

When some people dislike something, they will tend to dislike anything about it. Read some negative reviews elsewhere. When people adore something, they tend to ignore all flaws or even see them as brilliant features (think of Apple fanboys). And it is usually possible to tell which review describes both the good sides and the bad sides, even by the author.

Such as Raijers? I think that his review is biased positively towards your campaign. And you did not complain about that either.

Most of the reviews there have succeeded at this (I believe the reviews I wrote did), they well wrote the good sides and the bad sides, in a way most players would agree with.

So, you're basically saying here that what you wrote is what the majority thinks. I doubt that. It is what you think, that's why there are supposed to be several reviews. As shown in the example of your own campaign, people can think differently, and having both positive and negative reviews (not both inside one) helps laying out flaws and advantages of something. Especially since one can criticize what the other really likes.

So I would just like to tell to write the reviews there to be helpful, not to show your opinion. If you know you would not be very helpful (not representing the opinion of majority, for example or inability to see what some people liked about it), just don't post it there. [...] The players' reviews page was meant to be informative.

(splitting your text up here a bit to allow a better answer)
Here you are wrong. The idea of a review is that it is the subjective opinion of the reviewer. Looking at the wiki page, that's exactly what's asked for:

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

It might be posted elsewhere, for example making a topic I hate that and that add-on like AxalaraFlame.

No. A bad review is not hate. Also, hate topics are going to be locked / deleted on sight. I hope nobody will follow this encouragement.

Two texts stating an exact opposite is a nightmare for any kind of gathering information.

I disagree. Whenever I look at reviews of something, I always look at the most positive and the most negative reviews (discarding those who are obvious trolls) to make up my own opinion. As stated above, people like different things. Someone who loves role playing games will probably like an RPG-style campaign more than someone who is a hardcore strategy player.

What is better for providing information, one text that most people agree with or a lot of texts stating different things, from which you might agree with some, but can't tell a thing in advance.

A lot of texts, as nobody's (not even yours!) opinion is the full truth.

[Dugi]

This is the point:

A lot of texts, as nobody's (not even yours!) opinion is the full truth.

I know, but somebody else might edit it, adding the points the previous author left out. It might be possible to add more reviews, but in that case it would need some kind of synthesis. You just read one and there is a big chance that the person who reads it will agree with it to a certain extent. I really hate trying to learn something from reviews where each review states an exact opposite.

[Crendgrim]

This was about reviews, not about campaign descriptions.

[Dugi]

I wasn't speaking about descriptions neither. The descriptions are quite useless, mostly paraphrasing the author's description. An overall description of storyline, number of scenarios and completition level are things that author's description should contain anyway. It does not reflect quality, and its standards don't really allow it.

It was meant to inform people what they can expect from it, what can they expect to be less developed there. Something like the professional reviews written by official game critics. Of course that we don't have the ability to achieve something like that, but we should strive for it. Not writing things most people will disagree with, collaborating to show what do the people like about it and what do they dislike.

I am for example too much bothered about lacking animations. Headbutting as an universal attack is really an eyesore in my opinion. Using some ~SCALE to make the unit look like crouching and moving to attack and ~BLIT to add a swinging of something is better than nothing in my opinion (not telling that I have ever seen it). Many people find default era boring and want to play campaigns using other eras, despite the usual lack of animations that bothers me badly about them, and I don't enjoy the different eras much (still the same archers, fighters, shamans etc.). The usual sources of negativity can be concluded in a single sentence and it is all. Same could be said about positivity.

[taptap]

The descriptions are quite useless, mostly paraphrasing the author's description

Indeed, especially given this is a subpage of the Guide to UMC campaigns.