Reply to Re: dmod reviews
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
As I see it, each file should be judged based on what it is, rather than comparing them too much to everything else on the site. For example, I might think that Lost Forest Romp is the perfect romp, and give it a 9.9. (This is a completely hypothetical example. I don't actually think that. 
) Then, I might play a huge epic, like Cloud Castle 2, and give it an 8.0 because I think there were some serious problems, like too many bugs, and the fights were too difficult.
Does this mean I think Lost Forest Romp is better than Cloud Castle 2? No, of course not, because I was never comparing Lost Forest Romp directly against Cloud Castle 2. They're in completely different weight classes.
Same thing with something like the Quest for Meaning. It's a random little interactive movie thing, so it should be judged as such, rather than held against sprawling epics and the like, and given a 0 because it just can't compare. I think judging like that is both unfair and unhelpful; when you download the file, it clearly says it's a movie and not a normal dmod. The only thing a review giving it a 0 accomplishes, then, is restating that 'Indeed, this is only an interactive movie'. It doesn't say anything about the quality of the movie itself.
The scores, overall, just aren't mutually intelligible. At best, I think they're a convenience that lets you see which stuff is decent at a glance. If you sort dmods by score, there are plenty of disrepancies. No way is the one screen dmod compilation on par with the epics, for example, or Crosslink in its unfinished state better than Stone of Balance. (Were it complete, it just might be the best dmod ever.)
The unfortunate consequence is that sometimes something like Sour Gummy Worms is given an 8.5, and Solstice a 6.7, making it seem like SGW is much better than your dmod. But those reviews weren't even written by the same person, so I don't think there's too much cause for offense... (although I can certainly see why you'd be pissed) The scores just don't work well that way.
And I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, Skurn. I'll choose my words more carefully in the future. If it's any consolation, I might not write any more reviews. The board doesn't seem to care for my reviews any ways.
I wouldn't say that, your reviews are quite well-written, and there are so few people reviewing anything these days that it's actually incredibly welcome. One of the most useful things anyone could do, besides creating more dmods, of course. =) The only reason any of your reviews have been rejected, is just because of the way you've approached individual dmods... Generally, we're pretty harsh towards extremely low scores and extremely high scores, while anything mediocre has an easy time passing through. Sour Gummy Worms is definitely one of the wilder cases, with scores ranging from 8.5 to 0.7. But it's a pretty unusual dmod, all around. Personally, I can totally see where DaVince is coming from in his review, while at the same time, thinking that the dmod is complete trash seems quite reasonable.
) Then, I might play a huge epic, like Cloud Castle 2, and give it an 8.0 because I think there were some serious problems, like too many bugs, and the fights were too difficult.Does this mean I think Lost Forest Romp is better than Cloud Castle 2? No, of course not, because I was never comparing Lost Forest Romp directly against Cloud Castle 2. They're in completely different weight classes.
Same thing with something like the Quest for Meaning. It's a random little interactive movie thing, so it should be judged as such, rather than held against sprawling epics and the like, and given a 0 because it just can't compare. I think judging like that is both unfair and unhelpful; when you download the file, it clearly says it's a movie and not a normal dmod. The only thing a review giving it a 0 accomplishes, then, is restating that 'Indeed, this is only an interactive movie'. It doesn't say anything about the quality of the movie itself.
The scores, overall, just aren't mutually intelligible. At best, I think they're a convenience that lets you see which stuff is decent at a glance. If you sort dmods by score, there are plenty of disrepancies. No way is the one screen dmod compilation on par with the epics, for example, or Crosslink in its unfinished state better than Stone of Balance. (Were it complete, it just might be the best dmod ever.)
The unfortunate consequence is that sometimes something like Sour Gummy Worms is given an 8.5, and Solstice a 6.7, making it seem like SGW is much better than your dmod. But those reviews weren't even written by the same person, so I don't think there's too much cause for offense... (although I can certainly see why you'd be pissed) The scores just don't work well that way.
And I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, Skurn. I'll choose my words more carefully in the future. If it's any consolation, I might not write any more reviews. The board doesn't seem to care for my reviews any ways.
I wouldn't say that, your reviews are quite well-written, and there are so few people reviewing anything these days that it's actually incredibly welcome. One of the most useful things anyone could do, besides creating more dmods, of course. =) The only reason any of your reviews have been rejected, is just because of the way you've approached individual dmods... Generally, we're pretty harsh towards extremely low scores and extremely high scores, while anything mediocre has an easy time passing through. Sour Gummy Worms is definitely one of the wilder cases, with scores ranging from 8.5 to 0.7. But it's a pretty unusual dmod, all around. Personally, I can totally see where DaVince is coming from in his review, while at the same time, thinking that the dmod is complete trash seems quite reasonable.
