The good, the bad, and the ugly
Reviews
What are the qualifying factors to write one? What are the reasons behind writing a critique of a dmod? Are they meant to spur creativity or rein in the truly awful? Are there are unofficial guidelines to writing a review? If a review is bad and good, should the reviewer only state the good or sugar-coat the bad? Does a reviewer need to have made a dmod so s/he will know the difficulty of making one before s/he writes a review? Do reviews, good and bad, encourage or discourage new dmod authors? How far should a reviewer go in critising a review? Is the dmod author responsible for his finished product?
Perplexing questions and needful answers.
There are many of you out there who made dmods and might have felt shot down by certain aspects of a review. Did you take note of the criticisms with an eye to improving your next dmod or did you take the criticisms personally? Please be honest and give back to the reviewers some input so they can write better reviews.
What are the qualifying factors to write one? What are the reasons behind writing a critique of a dmod? Are they meant to spur creativity or rein in the truly awful? Are there are unofficial guidelines to writing a review? If a review is bad and good, should the reviewer only state the good or sugar-coat the bad? Does a reviewer need to have made a dmod so s/he will know the difficulty of making one before s/he writes a review? Do reviews, good and bad, encourage or discourage new dmod authors? How far should a reviewer go in critising a review? Is the dmod author responsible for his finished product?
Perplexing questions and needful answers.
There are many of you out there who made dmods and might have felt shot down by certain aspects of a review. Did you take note of the criticisms with an eye to improving your next dmod or did you take the criticisms personally? Please be honest and give back to the reviewers some input so they can write better reviews.
What are the qualifying factors to write one?
Basic english skills, and having played the D-Mod/used the file or died trying.
What are the reasons behind writing a critique of a dmod?
Allow others to see if a D-Mod is worth downloading.
Are they meant to spur creativity or rein in the truly awful?
Neither, they aren't 'meant' for anything. Its up to the reviewer.
Are there are unofficial guidelines to writing a review?
There are a couple on the page of unwritten rules.
If a review is bad and good, should the reviewer only state the good or sugar-coat the bad?
Uh... that depends of the reviewer found the bad to be bad enough to make them not appreciate the good. So say a D-Mod doesn't have any details at all except for a few trees. This is a Bad Thing. But if everything else about it is exquisite, then the bad should be mentioned, but shouldn't be focused on.
The opposite for some minor Good things in a sea of Badness.
Does a reviewer need to have made a dmod so s/he will know the difficulty of making one before s/he writes a review?
It might help to appreciate/depreciate a D-Mod, but is in no way required. If you've played quite a few D-Mods, you'll know when a D-Mod is good or bad, and be able to review it if you have a good way with words.
Do reviews, good and bad, encourage or discourage new dmod authors?
Doesn't look like it.
How far should a reviewer go in critising a review?
As far as they want. If a D-Mod author obviously has some skills, but then decides to release something absolutely horrid that seems like they spent all of 5 minutes making, then they deserve no pity in my opinion. But if someone seems earnest and genuine in trying to create a good D-Mod, then constructive criticism is the best route to go. Again, in my opinion.
Is the dmod author responsible for his finished product?
Uh... yemaybo?
Basic english skills, and having played the D-Mod/used the file or died trying.
What are the reasons behind writing a critique of a dmod?
Allow others to see if a D-Mod is worth downloading.
Are they meant to spur creativity or rein in the truly awful?
Neither, they aren't 'meant' for anything. Its up to the reviewer.
Are there are unofficial guidelines to writing a review?
There are a couple on the page of unwritten rules.
If a review is bad and good, should the reviewer only state the good or sugar-coat the bad?
Uh... that depends of the reviewer found the bad to be bad enough to make them not appreciate the good. So say a D-Mod doesn't have any details at all except for a few trees. This is a Bad Thing. But if everything else about it is exquisite, then the bad should be mentioned, but shouldn't be focused on.
The opposite for some minor Good things in a sea of Badness.
Does a reviewer need to have made a dmod so s/he will know the difficulty of making one before s/he writes a review?
It might help to appreciate/depreciate a D-Mod, but is in no way required. If you've played quite a few D-Mods, you'll know when a D-Mod is good or bad, and be able to review it if you have a good way with words.
Do reviews, good and bad, encourage or discourage new dmod authors?
Doesn't look like it.
How far should a reviewer go in critising a review?
As far as they want. If a D-Mod author obviously has some skills, but then decides to release something absolutely horrid that seems like they spent all of 5 minutes making, then they deserve no pity in my opinion. But if someone seems earnest and genuine in trying to create a good D-Mod, then constructive criticism is the best route to go. Again, in my opinion.
Is the dmod author responsible for his finished product?
Uh... yemaybo?
What are the reasons behind writing a critique of a dmod?
To make the author aware of the good and bad stuff so he can improve.
Does a reviewer need to have made a dmod so s/he will know the difficulty of making one before s/he writes a review?
No, ofcourse not.
Do reviews, good and bad, encourage or discourage new dmod authors?
I'd say a good review encourages, ie when a reviewer says what can be improved and such. Bad reviews like "this game sucks I hate everything about it but there were no bugs so I still give it a 4" discourage authors, I think.
How far should a reviewer go in critising a review?
As far as he thinks is needed.
Is the dmod author responsible for his finished product?
Don't really understand the question, I think.
To make the author aware of the good and bad stuff so he can improve.
Does a reviewer need to have made a dmod so s/he will know the difficulty of making one before s/he writes a review?
No, ofcourse not.
Do reviews, good and bad, encourage or discourage new dmod authors?
I'd say a good review encourages, ie when a reviewer says what can be improved and such. Bad reviews like "this game sucks I hate everything about it but there were no bugs so I still give it a 4" discourage authors, I think.
How far should a reviewer go in critising a review?
As far as he thinks is needed.
Is the dmod author responsible for his finished product?
Don't really understand the question, I think.
Is the dmod author responsible for his finished product?
Don't really understand the question, I think.
If an author takes credit for all the 'hurrahs' s/he recieves, then s/he must also take credit for the 'boo's'. Yes or no?
Don't really understand the question, I think.
If an author takes credit for all the 'hurrahs' s/he recieves, then s/he must also take credit for the 'boo's'. Yes or no?
If an author takes credit for all the 'hurrahs' s/he recieves, then s/he must also take credit for the 'boo's'. Yes or no?
The author takes credit for what s/he has created as a whole. So yes, I'd say.
The author takes credit for what s/he has created as a whole. So yes, I'd say.
And what if the author feels unfairly critized ie, 'isn't my fault' or 'you did not understand' or 'that's all I had to work with' or many varied reasons? Does s/he still take credit for the good, bad, and ugly? Or is there a responsibility for the reviewer to make excuses for any negative comments or should they ultimately be honest? Not cruel, just honest. For example: There is praise and negative comments about a dmod. The reviewer knows the negative comments will upset the author. Does he still say the negatives?
ofcourse, that would be censorship. Kinda. The reviewer just writes about the dmod how he feels that review should be, nothing less, nothing more.
But reviews which come out with criticisms that don't make much sense are pretty annoying. Many imes I've read a review, which seems to heavily criticise something that is actually down to the reviwer himself to figure out, or put some effort into.
I dislike reviewers who fail to point out the good and bad points in good detail, with REASONS for both.
I dislike reviewers who fail to point out the good and bad points in good detail, with REASONS for both.
The best reviews is the honest ones. It's good because if the score is true the players that downloads the DMOD can't really be dissapointed.
They know if it's worth to download before downloading it.
I don't think you have to play many DMOD's nor create any yourself before writing a review, after all the score should only show the entertainment -value of the game, from the players point of view.
All authors probable wants to know what they have failed and what they done well, so both good and bad comments are appreciated. And if one finds bugs it's also appreciated to email a bug report to the author.
Only the author can be responsible for his/hers DMOD, who else could?
They know if it's worth to download before downloading it.
I don't think you have to play many DMOD's nor create any yourself before writing a review, after all the score should only show the entertainment -value of the game, from the players point of view.
All authors probable wants to know what they have failed and what they done well, so both good and bad comments are appreciated. And if one finds bugs it's also appreciated to email a bug report to the author.
Only the author can be responsible for his/hers DMOD, who else could?
I think Safmoor is responsible for the bugs in CC2...
It's good because if the score is true the players that downloads the DMOD can't really be dissapointed.
That's an interesting point that you and redink1 made. But sometimes a game's rating is so widely spread between the reviewers that it's up to the player to decide for himself.
after all the score should only show the entertainment -value of the game, from the players point of view.
That is also my point of view. And by entertainment-value, that should include all aspects of the game that is being rated..which is what I think you're saying.
Only the author can be responsible for his/hers DMOD, who else could?
Yes they are and as Sabre and Redink point out, the reviewer is responsible for writing a well balanced review. However, unfortunately, constructive criticism is in the eye of the reviewer/beholder. Many times a review has upset someone and it's probably hard to find that thin line between justified critique and 'over the edge' smashing.
Basically, imho, Christiian is right. The reviewer just writes about the dmod how he feels that review should be, nothing less, nothing more. But he writes with care not to be too biased.
I think a review is something to use to help an author and to give the player an idea of the game and whether they will download it.
I have written with an eye to constuctive criticism and can only hope it is taken that way.
That's an interesting point that you and redink1 made. But sometimes a game's rating is so widely spread between the reviewers that it's up to the player to decide for himself.
after all the score should only show the entertainment -value of the game, from the players point of view.
That is also my point of view. And by entertainment-value, that should include all aspects of the game that is being rated..which is what I think you're saying.
Only the author can be responsible for his/hers DMOD, who else could?
Yes they are and as Sabre and Redink point out, the reviewer is responsible for writing a well balanced review. However, unfortunately, constructive criticism is in the eye of the reviewer/beholder. Many times a review has upset someone and it's probably hard to find that thin line between justified critique and 'over the edge' smashing.
Basically, imho, Christiian is right. The reviewer just writes about the dmod how he feels that review should be, nothing less, nothing more. But he writes with care not to be too biased.
I think a review is something to use to help an author and to give the player an idea of the game and whether they will download it.
I have written with an eye to constuctive criticism and can only hope it is taken that way.
I don't remember ever critizing your dmods except for your promises and the (much)delayed deliver. And I don't have enough time for placing curses on your dmods, I reserve that for WC.
hmmm, most of these questions have been answered, but I feel like adding 2 cents worth. 
Reasons behind writing a review
You like telling the world about the DMOD, and the fact that you've got nothing better to do with your time.
Spur creativity/rein in the awful
I doubt any reviewer thought... hey I'll reviews this DMOD and maybe the author will make another one. Better just send an email.
Good, Bad, and the Ugly
Great movie, one of my favourites, I give it a 10 out of 10 - opps, back to real reviews... yeah a good review should point out what is good and bad, what the review liked and disliked.
One, two skip a few...
How far should a reviewer go in critising
As far is is objectively needed.
Author responisble
Ummm, I can't think of anyone else who is.
Final words
Be consistent. Inconsistency is my pet peeve - but the majory infringer of this crime has since left in a puff of smoke... anyways... Be open to change. I have sent emails to people who review my files (as an author I feel I have the right to respond to reviews) and have received emails about my reviews, and then changed them accordingly if the author has pointed out something I've missed or been incorrect about. If a file is updated and your review needs updating and you are requested to do so, it is only common courtesy to do so.
Reasons behind writing a review
You like telling the world about the DMOD, and the fact that you've got nothing better to do with your time.
Spur creativity/rein in the awful
I doubt any reviewer thought... hey I'll reviews this DMOD and maybe the author will make another one. Better just send an email.
Good, Bad, and the Ugly
Great movie, one of my favourites, I give it a 10 out of 10 - opps, back to real reviews... yeah a good review should point out what is good and bad, what the review liked and disliked.
One, two skip a few...
How far should a reviewer go in critising
As far is is objectively needed.
Author responisble
Ummm, I can't think of anyone else who is.
Final words
Be consistent. Inconsistency is my pet peeve - but the majory infringer of this crime has since left in a puff of smoke... anyways... Be open to change. I have sent emails to people who review my files (as an author I feel I have the right to respond to reviews) and have received emails about my reviews, and then changed them accordingly if the author has pointed out something I've missed or been incorrect about. If a file is updated and your review needs updating and you are requested to do so, it is only common courtesy to do so.
Some misunderstood the "spur creativity or rein in the awful" bit so I thought to make that question a little clearer.
The question was posed not as a reviewer but as the reciever of the review, ie, the author/readers. The author will look at the good review of his dmod and feel gratified to have accomplished a well-done dmod. He will naturally not be hesitant if he wants to create another. He is, in effect, encouraged. The reader will see a review of a good dmod, download, play, and, if he has the ability, try his own hand at making one. This is what is meant by spur creativity. For the author who has a bad dmod, the review will certainly make him think of ways to improve his dmod or just give it up untill he has learned more about the craft. And the reader of the review will not waste their time with the game.
Now a lot of pro's and con's have already been stated on these idea's under other questions.
I just wanted to clear up that particular question.
The question was posed not as a reviewer but as the reciever of the review, ie, the author/readers. The author will look at the good review of his dmod and feel gratified to have accomplished a well-done dmod. He will naturally not be hesitant if he wants to create another. He is, in effect, encouraged. The reader will see a review of a good dmod, download, play, and, if he has the ability, try his own hand at making one. This is what is meant by spur creativity. For the author who has a bad dmod, the review will certainly make him think of ways to improve his dmod or just give it up untill he has learned more about the craft. And the reader of the review will not waste their time with the game.
Now a lot of pro's and con's have already been stated on these idea's under other questions.
I just wanted to clear up that particular question.
"I don't remember ever critizing your dmods except for your promises and the (much)delayed deliver. And I don't have enough time for placing curses on your dmods, I reserve that for WC"
Never said you did criticize my d-mods...and not THAT many of my d-mods have been delayed at all...CC2 is still on time (according to the trailor in the original).
But then again, their are quite a few projects that have ground to a standstill...ho hum.
Never said you did criticize my d-mods...and not THAT many of my d-mods have been delayed at all...CC2 is still on time (according to the trailor in the original).
But then again, their are quite a few projects that have ground to a standstill...ho hum.
