Reply to Re: The good, the bad, and the ugly
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
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?
