IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Cain
post Jan 7 2009, 12:33 AM
Post #151


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



QUOTE
I noticed in your review that you and I pointed out many of the same things, but you chose to do it with a much more aggressive, negative tone. Now, if you are posting a review simply to have the opportunity to blast away, and have a platform for you opinions, fine. However, if you are really wanted to attempt to affect change in the way the Shadowrun products are done, this might be better achieved by using a more "constructive" tone.

"Constructive" criticism on a purchased product is a laughable concept. As a consumer, I should not be expected to solve the company's problems for them. It's up to me to say what I liked and didn't like; it's up to them to translate that into usable information. Customer feedback is a valuable commodity, and usually the level of detail we put into our reviews costs money. In short, I am not paid to tell them what to do; they are paid to take our feedback and do it right.

That being said, you'll note that the overall rating was a 4/2, and not a 1/1. I actually had quite a few positive things to say about Ghost Cartels, I just didn't think there was enough of it. As far as being "aggressive" goes, I do have a different style than you do. That's perfectly all right, people should sound different. Also, Synner has made it abundantly clear that he'd rather jump naked on a huge pile of thumbtacks ( (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif) ) than accept anything I've had a part in, so there's no reason for me to take a "diplomatic" tone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Jake
post Jan 7 2009, 12:40 AM
Post #152


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,849
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 872



QUOTE (Cain @ Jan 7 2009, 01:33 AM) *
"Constructive" criticism on a purchased product is a laughable concept. As a consumer, I should not be expected to solve the company's problems for them. It's up to me to say what I liked and didn't like; it's up to them to translate that into usable information. Customer feedback is a valuable commodity, and usually the level of detail we put into our reviews costs money. In short, I am not paid to tell them what to do; they are paid to take our feedback and do it right.


No offense mate but I think you and I have very different perspectives on what a review really means.

I have to agree with Malachi. If you are giving a review, the post should clearly articulate what is done right, what is done wrong and provide opinions on what could have been done to improve the product. That way if the review is read (and taken seriously) the authors can take those criticisms on board and apply your suggestions to enhance their product and get a better result next time.

If you didn't like it, fair enough. But spare the melodrama in the review.

- J.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post Jan 7 2009, 01:09 AM
Post #153


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



QUOTE
I have to agree with Malachi. If you are giving a review, the post should clearly articulate what is done right, what is done wrong and provide opinions on what could have been done to improve the product. That way if the review is read (and taken seriously) the authors can take those criticisms on board and apply your suggestions to enhance their product and get a better result next time.
My question to you is, why should I be expected to provide opinions on how to improve their product? If you bought a bag of chips, and didn't like them, should you be required to write a four-page review to be taken seriously? With other products, you don't have to give detailed feedback; games should be no different. You just need to say: "These chips taste bad", and let the company figure it out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Jake
post Jan 7 2009, 01:19 AM
Post #154


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,849
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 872



QUOTE (Cain @ Jan 7 2009, 02:09 AM) *
My question to you is, why should I be expected to provide opinions on how to improve their product? If you bought a bag of chips, and didn't like them, should you be required to write a four-page review to be taken seriously? With other products, you don't have to give detailed feedback; games should be no different. You just need to say: "These chips taste bad", and let the company figure it out.


I would counter with "what is the purpose of your review then"?

If its wholly and solely to say that "your product is crap" then it is a rather useless review.

Granted reviews are always subjective but if you're not even providing constructive criticism then it is clearly not even worth reading.

- J.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Malachi
post Jan 7 2009, 01:31 AM
Post #155


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,228
Joined: 24-July 07
From: Canada
Member No.: 12,350



QUOTE (Cain @ Jan 6 2009, 08:33 PM) *
Also, Synner has made it abundantly clear that he'd rather jump naked on a huge pile of thumbtacks ( (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif) ) than accept anything I've had a part in, so there's no reason for me to take a "diplomatic" tone.

Perhaps if your tone was less antagonistic your reviews/suggestions/opinions would be taken with more merit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post Jan 7 2009, 01:52 AM
Post #156


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



QUOTE (The Jake @ Jan 6 2009, 05:19 PM) *
I would counter with "what is the purpose of your review then"?

To post my opinions. My opinions aren't required to be constructive, just justifiable.

QUOTE
If its wholly and solely to say that "your product is crap" then it is a rather useless review.

I'll sidestep just a bit here and say there's a difference between what I wrote and "Destructive criticism", which is what you're referring to here. There is a middle ground between all flames and all ass-kissing.

QUOTE
Granted reviews are always subjective but if you're not even providing constructive criticism then it is clearly not even worth reading.

Ebert and Roeper don't provide constructive criticism for filmmakers, yet their reviews are well worth reading. My target audience isn't the good folks at Catalyst, it's the gamer trying to decide what to buy.

QUOTE
Perhaps if your tone was less antagonistic your reviews/suggestions/opinions would be taken with more merit.

If a suggestion has merit, then it should be examined, antagonism or no antagonism. That little conflict is based on history, not tone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BlueMax
post Jan 7 2009, 01:59 AM
Post #157


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,336
Joined: 25-February 08
From: San Mateo CA
Member No.: 15,708



QUOTE (Malachi @ Jan 6 2009, 05:31 PM) *
Perhaps if your tone was less antagonistic your reviews/suggestions/opinions would be taken with more merit.


Less antagonistic? or less honest? The review should be exactly how the reviewer feels about the product. Nothing more, nothing less. And I thought it suggested improvements but I could have been reading things into the review that weren't there.

What I have seen on this board is when a negative review is given, there is a response of "Plenty of people liked XXX and they bought XXX." Which seems to be antagonistic to anyone who doesn't tow the line.

The merit should be based on the accuracy of the review. Are there errors or gross exaggerations in the review?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Jake
post Jan 7 2009, 03:20 AM
Post #158


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,849
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 872



QUOTE (Cain @ Jan 7 2009, 02:52 AM) *
To post my opinions. My opinions aren't required to be constructive, just justifiable.

<snip>

If a suggestion has merit, then it should be examined, antagonism or no antagonism. That little conflict is based on history, not tone.


More specifically, it should be based on substance. In other words, your arguments should be substantiated or otherwise qualified. Providing constructive criticism serves that purpose by providing a benchmark for comparison. Or at the very least, how you measure "good" vs "crap".

So, to reiterate my last post - without substance, your reviews are pointless.

Your argument effectively amounts to you have a right to say a product is crap without any substantiation. I'll defend your right to say what you will, but I'll then counter with your reviews are crap. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotate.gif)

QUOTE (BlueMax @ Jan 7 2009, 02:59 AM) *
Less antagonistic? or less honest? The review should be exactly how the reviewer feels about the product. Nothing more, nothing less. And I thought it suggested improvements but I could have been reading things into the review that weren't there.

What I have seen on this board is when a negative review is given, there is a response of "Plenty of people liked XXX and they bought XXX." Which seems to be antagonistic to anyone who doesn't tow the line.

The merit should be based on the accuracy of the review. Are there errors or gross exaggerations in the review?


I'm all in favor of a negative review if deserved.

On a side note, I agreed with a lot of the negative points that Cain made, I just wish the melodrama and hyperbole were toned down. I also felt it was harsh because even though I saw many of the same faults, I didn't feel it shamed the product to the same degree that he did. But to each his own I guess. *shrug*

Anyway, I think I've said all I want to say on this subject. I'm just interested in reading the blow-by-blow accounts from Fuchs and Prime Runner. I'll start contributing when I get my team onto GC.

- J.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post Jan 7 2009, 03:56 AM
Post #159


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



QUOTE
More specifically, it should be based on substance. In other words, your arguments should be substantiated or otherwise qualified. Providing constructive criticism serves that purpose by providing a benchmark for comparison. Or at the very least, how you measure "good" vs "crap".

So, to reiterate my last post - without substance, your reviews are pointless.

While I agree that a good review needs to be justifiable, it does not and should not be "constructive". Again, Ebert does a lot of film criticism that doesn't hand-hold the filmmakers and politely tell them how to make everything better. I think when you say "substance", you mean "justifiable"-- and there's no argument that all my reviews have clear reasons for the opinions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Malachi
post Jan 7 2009, 04:02 AM
Post #160


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,228
Joined: 24-July 07
From: Canada
Member No.: 12,350



QUOTE (The Jake @ Jan 6 2009, 11:20 PM) *
On a side note, I agreed with a lot of the negative points that Cain made, I just wish the melodrama and hyperbole were toned down. I also felt it was harsh because even though I saw many of the same faults, I didn't feel it shamed the product to the same degree that he did.

I completely agree with this assessment. Where I pointed out something to say, "This was a little confusing," Cain called it "a useless mess."

So, read the review, take 2 grains of salt, and call me in the morning.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post Jan 7 2009, 10:01 AM
Post #161


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



QUOTE (Malachi @ Jan 6 2009, 08:02 PM) *
So, read the review, take 2 grains of salt, and call me in the morning.

That could be said of any review you come across, not just mine.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wesley Street
post Jan 7 2009, 03:57 PM
Post #162


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,851
Joined: 15-February 08
From: Indianapolis
Member No.: 15,686



Cain's right, a reviewer is under no obligation to insert praise of a work in his critique if he feels it doesn't warrant it.

However, a critic is expected to be objective. Starting a review with the sentence Recently, the developers of Shadowrun have been trying new and exciting things with the line. I guess “Missing the point� could sum it up: They delivered an excellent GM aid masquerading as a mediocre module in On The Run; and in a book for detailed settings, they gave us instead a bunch of bland settings (admittedly, with one exciting one) in Runner Havens smacks of bias and sour grapes. A proper review of Ghost Cartels examines the module itself. And, yes, a reviewer can say that it stank to high heaven and leave it at that with no examination of the good or offer advice on what to change. It's the developer's job to figure out what to change. What a review doesn't provide is a forum to criticize other products unless the review itself is about the direction of Shadowrun as a whole. And unless I'm mistaken this was supposed to be a review of Ghost Cartels.

If I read an album review in Rolling Stone that starts something like, "Well, the first two Wu-Tang albums sucked and this one is no different..." I'm immediately going to stop reading as it's pretty obvious the reviewer has an axe to grind with the Clan.

Word.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Demonseed Elite
post Jan 7 2009, 04:02 PM
Post #163


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,078
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 67



You know, you guys are reviewing a review. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Whatever you think of Cain's review or Ghost Cartels, I think the best bet is to post your own review up next to his.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Malachi
post Jan 7 2009, 04:28 PM
Post #164


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,228
Joined: 24-July 07
From: Canada
Member No.: 12,350



Mine was there first. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wesley Street
post Jan 7 2009, 04:49 PM
Post #165


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,851
Joined: 15-February 08
From: Indianapolis
Member No.: 15,686



Eh, I already gave my thoughts on the module up-thread. Maybe I'll consider joining RPG.net... Maybe... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post Jan 7 2009, 06:24 PM
Post #166


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



QUOTE
However, a critic is expected to be objective.

How is that possible, with such subjective matter being discussed?

QUOTE (Demonseed Elite @ Jan 7 2009, 08:02 AM) *
You know, you guys are reviewing a review. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Whatever you think of Cain's review or Ghost Cartels, I think the best bet is to post your own review up next to his.


I agree with you. If they don't like my review, they can post their own. As for reviewing the review, I actually don't mind it: I welcome the opportunity to improve my writing skills.

QUOTE (Malachi @ Jan 7 2009, 08:28 AM) *
Mine was there first. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

The meta-review process isn't about who was first, it's about personality. Right or wrong, my personality is more controversial, and so it gets more notice. And I do tend to take more controversial stances on things. My review of Faery's Tale didn't spark a 10+ page thread, because it was less controversial.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BlueMax
post Jan 7 2009, 07:20 PM
Post #167


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,336
Joined: 25-February 08
From: San Mateo CA
Member No.: 15,708



QUOTE (Wesley Street @ Jan 7 2009, 07:57 AM) *
What a review doesn't provide is a forum to criticize other products unless the review itself is about the direction of Shadowrun as a whole. And unless I'm mistaken this was supposed to be a review of Ghost Cartels.


I am not certain the two entities, "direction of Shadowrun" and Ghost Cartels, are as different as implied. Certainly, Ghost Cartels is the direction that the developers have presented as where they would like to take campaign books for Shadowrun. Though, this may not apply at all to the meta review issue at hand.

And it would be silly for me to call Ghost Cartels a module. Even beyond a campaign, its more of a smuggling genre novelette with suggestions on how the party can be brought close enough to see the action.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Malachi
post Jan 7 2009, 07:43 PM
Post #168


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,228
Joined: 24-July 07
From: Canada
Member No.: 12,350



QUOTE (Cain @ Jan 7 2009, 02:24 PM) *
The meta-review process isn't about who was first, it's about personality. Right or wrong, my personality is more controversial, and so it gets more notice. And I do tend to take more controversial stances on things. My review of Faery's Tale didn't spark a 10+ page thread, because it was less controversial.

My post there was merely in response to Demonseed's comment about "posting your own review."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chrysalis
post Jan 7 2009, 07:56 PM
Post #169


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,141
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Neverwhere
Member No.: 2,048



I actually did write a review and can be found in the thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wesley Street
post Jan 7 2009, 08:38 PM
Post #170


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,851
Joined: 15-February 08
From: Indianapolis
Member No.: 15,686



QUOTE (Cain @ Jan 7 2009, 01:24 PM) *
How is that possible, with such subjective matter being discussed?

There's a difference between subjectivity and coming off sounding like one has a monster chip on one's shoulder.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post Jan 7 2009, 09:57 PM
Post #171


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



QUOTE (Wesley Street @ Jan 7 2009, 12:38 PM) *
There's a difference between subjectivity and coming off sounding like one has a monster chip on one's shoulder.

And where would you have drawn that line?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wesley Street
post Jan 8 2009, 03:44 PM
Post #172


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,851
Joined: 15-February 08
From: Indianapolis
Member No.: 15,686



By cutting the first two sentences.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post Jan 8 2009, 07:27 PM
Post #173


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



I'll keep that in mind for the next review. Thank you, no sarcasm intended.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fuchs
post Jan 12 2009, 01:19 PM
Post #174


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,328
Joined: 28-November 05
From: Zuerich
Member No.: 8,014



We continued the campaign last saturday with the second part of "The trouble with Tempo"
[ Spoiler ]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fuchs
post Jan 20 2009, 11:38 PM
Post #175


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,328
Joined: 28-November 05
From: Zuerich
Member No.: 8,014



Last Saturday we did the sequel of "The trouble with tempo", followed by "Flipside"

[ Spoiler ]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 6th June 2025 - 05:17 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.