KC LC, on Feb 7 2010, 07:25 PM, said:
But leaving it open to anyone -- even with moderator approval -- will ultimately produce lower-quality reviews. Guaranteed. Sure, the staff can moderate out the absolute junk. But trying to enforce quality control on the GMC ultimately creates a low-quality product.
[snip]
And what practical criteria do the Staff use to remove (disapprove) a review?
[snip]Do we allow negative reviews?
Good points, I didn't think of that. It's a bit of the same problem the Dutch forum has with their tutorials section. I think I'm going to go with you and change my mind, the idea of a staff-chosen review team would ultimately produce better content in the long run (and that's what the forum would be for; quality long-lasting content).
Also I'd say no negative reviews, for the reasons already stated. But of course a review should point out negatives. Reviews are meant for players to decide if they want to try that game. If a review talks about e.g. the bad music, the reader can either think "enough reason for me to not try the game" or "I don't care for the music anyway" himself and decide for him/herself whether to play. A purely positive review isn't honest and realistic (no game is perfect).
KC LC, on Feb 7 2010, 09:59 PM, said:
My comment to the Staff was to discourage them from posting reviews. I want this to be the members' voice.
But a few staff members are actually active members, right? It'd be weird if they couldn't review games.
Quote
My plans were to create a new "member group" where ordinary members rotate in and out on a regular basis. I wanted to limit the number of reviews, so that getting one is something special.
Make sure it's possible for members to "resign" from the group, e.g. if they don't feel like reviewing anymore or can't find games they particularly like and that haven't been done yet.
Quote
I think it should allow negative reviews. Otherwise, it's just "I recommend this game... and here's why... the graphics are great, story is great, gameplay is great..."
As pointed out before, there's a world of difference between a negative review and a review that contains negative points. In fact all reviews should contain negative points but negative reviews don't really serve a purpose here.
(bold = quote from C-c-JEC-c-C)
- Minimum/maximum word count. I can understand the minimum, but why a max? It would be weird to limit the amount of thoughts a reviewer has on a game. A great review also looks at e.g. whether the save system works well, the difference between the difficulty levels, etc. Also, imposing a max would mean someone (or something) has to count. I simply don't see the need.
- No spelling mistakes whatsoever. Not everyone is a native English speaker.
Of course it should be easy to read on the whole, but everyone can make mistakes.
- Permission from the creator of the game. Why? We're in a free world, we have the right to express our opinions about everything provided we're being civil and all. Also, who
in the world would oppose to their game being reviewed, provided that negative reviews won't be tolerated? A review means long-standing positive attention, who wouldn't want that?
- A picture from the creations topic is to be included in the review.
No, why? Take any screenshot you think shows best what the game is about.
- A topic for only the moderation team to see. This topic will contain headings for each submitted review that has passed all the criteria. Then, at least 5 moderators have to post a percentage and perhaps one additional comment next to the percentage; that way the review will either be accepted or rejected.
Way too complicated. And unneeded: if a reviewer is "trusted", why vote at all about whether accepting what he/she writes? That only slows down the process and puts a burden on the staff.
- "Practice makes perfect" should not be taken into consideration [snip five lines]
Also way too complicated. Using some common sense and judgement from the staff would be so much simpler. Also, regular members could PM the staff to "recommend" other members they think write useful stuff.
Obj_Control, on Feb 8 2010, 12:13 AM, said:
No, we can't bash bad games, but bad aspects of good games
can be bashed. Example:
Quote
I reviewed this game because it was fun. The graphics were horrible though. I can't even begin imagining how to describe the horridness. It was simply that bad.
I honestly think that a game that so good that it's worth reviewing, however has graphics (or whatever) that's so bad that it is to be described like this,
doesn't even exist. I have yet to see a game with "outstanding X yet horrible Y". Usually if one aspect is really great, the others are at least somewhat decent. So this is really a non-issue.
paul23, on Feb 8 2010, 02:26 AM, said:
* the forum is closed for replies
I would say accept replies that are full reviews of the same game
that show a different point of view.
Help
MultiQuote
And it inevitably would, since that's how this forum and a majority of the Internet in general is.
My original purpose for a Reviewer Group was to create a sense of exclusivity -- so receiving a review would be something special. But many members might lose interest if they can't post reviews whenever they want. So I'm not so sure now.
