Reply to dmod reviews
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
I've been noticing a lot of inconsistencies with reviews of dmods on the DN lately. In the older days it seems that dmods would get several reviews that would average out to something usually fairly reasonable. Please keep in mind that there are many high quality (and several very low quality) dmods on the DN.
I would expect that for a dmod to receive a very high score (8.0 and up) to be consistently good across several categories. It should have nice mapping, a very good story-line/plot, good dialogue, etc... To merit a 9.0 or above, the dmod should truly stand out. It should be outstanding in multiple categories.
Giving very high scores to really bad dmods diminishes the score for really good dmods that truly deserve such a high score. Remember that great dmods are usually great because their authors have slaved away putting all that they have into it. Some of these dmods take sereral months or even years to make.
Think of all the effort it must have taken to create something as good as "Cloud Castle 2: Scarab" for example. It was a great dmod because of all the time and effort that went into making it. And it was fun, and interesting, and memorable. But if another dmod author doesn't even bother with proper hardness, matching tiles up, etc... get a score that is barely one point lower -- well that is just wrong!
I understand that there will be people on the DN you like, but this shouldn't affect one's judgement. I like Skurn. I often like Skurn's comments on this forum. I think that skurn can be extremely helpful and knowledgeable. I would even go so far as to say that I don't think the DN would be the same without Skurn. But I would never give a high score to what is very obviously a really, really bad dmod because of that.
So try to keep some perspective when writing a review. Keep in mind the quality of the really, really good dmods out there and all that they entail. Because, to give a high score to a poorly made dmod (because it's quirky or whatever) diminishes all other dmods on the DN.
Thank you.
I would expect that for a dmod to receive a very high score (8.0 and up) to be consistently good across several categories. It should have nice mapping, a very good story-line/plot, good dialogue, etc... To merit a 9.0 or above, the dmod should truly stand out. It should be outstanding in multiple categories.
Giving very high scores to really bad dmods diminishes the score for really good dmods that truly deserve such a high score. Remember that great dmods are usually great because their authors have slaved away putting all that they have into it. Some of these dmods take sereral months or even years to make.
Think of all the effort it must have taken to create something as good as "Cloud Castle 2: Scarab" for example. It was a great dmod because of all the time and effort that went into making it. And it was fun, and interesting, and memorable. But if another dmod author doesn't even bother with proper hardness, matching tiles up, etc... get a score that is barely one point lower -- well that is just wrong!
I understand that there will be people on the DN you like, but this shouldn't affect one's judgement. I like Skurn. I often like Skurn's comments on this forum. I think that skurn can be extremely helpful and knowledgeable. I would even go so far as to say that I don't think the DN would be the same without Skurn. But I would never give a high score to what is very obviously a really, really bad dmod because of that.
So try to keep some perspective when writing a review. Keep in mind the quality of the really, really good dmods out there and all that they entail. Because, to give a high score to a poorly made dmod (because it's quirky or whatever) diminishes all other dmods on the DN.
Thank you.
