Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
ACCEPTING CRITICISM
Posts
kentona
View playlists
Close
No, but it helps; that's all I'm sayin'. It's a push in the right direction and helps define the nature of the problem as the reviewer sees it.
amerk
2539
It helps, but if somebody already stated the problem and why (ie., the battles felt way too long), then the door for communication is already open and the developer can inquire what specificis or ideas for solutions to fix it, if they perceive it as a problem. Communication works both ways.
Also, keep in mind, offering solutions may have the opposite effect of what's intended, and goes back to what Liberty said about suggesting changes. Solutions should be provided for actual flaws, but for personal bias, solutions may not be welcomed.
If the battle system lagged, or had a tendency to freeze, that is an actual problem that needs a solution. If it felt slow and drawn out, but otherwise smooth, that becomes a personal preference and subjective. The developer may have had a reason for this, and they're free to point it out, or other players may welcome it and not think it's very long; or perhaps it's a game where strategy is required, and a player that's expecting a quick hash and slash may be disappointed.
The 80/20 rule should apply in games as well. In my job working with clients and IVR's, we focus on what 80% of the people are doing when they call in. If 80% aren't having problems with something, but 20% are, we don't make changes to accomodate the 20% and risk hurting the majority. There has to be a margin for user error. Likewise, if 80% of players are handling a game okay, why would a developer take the solutions of the other 20% and make drastic changes that would impact the experience of the majority?
Edit: Adding to this - It's fine to state in your review that you felt the battle system was slow, and it's understandable that this may impact the overall score. That's why it's encouraged to have multiple reviews, to average the score out. But to expect the developer will apply every single idea from every single reviewer would be chaos.
Likewise, the developer can choose to accept or deny suggestions, but recognize if the majority have a problem with a feature that they are willing to fix or adjust, this could make it so nobody wants to play their games.
Once again, communication works both ways.
Also, keep in mind, offering solutions may have the opposite effect of what's intended, and goes back to what Liberty said about suggesting changes. Solutions should be provided for actual flaws, but for personal bias, solutions may not be welcomed.
If the battle system lagged, or had a tendency to freeze, that is an actual problem that needs a solution. If it felt slow and drawn out, but otherwise smooth, that becomes a personal preference and subjective. The developer may have had a reason for this, and they're free to point it out, or other players may welcome it and not think it's very long; or perhaps it's a game where strategy is required, and a player that's expecting a quick hash and slash may be disappointed.
The 80/20 rule should apply in games as well. In my job working with clients and IVR's, we focus on what 80% of the people are doing when they call in. If 80% aren't having problems with something, but 20% are, we don't make changes to accomodate the 20% and risk hurting the majority. There has to be a margin for user error. Likewise, if 80% of players are handling a game okay, why would a developer take the solutions of the other 20% and make drastic changes that would impact the experience of the majority?
Edit: Adding to this - It's fine to state in your review that you felt the battle system was slow, and it's understandable that this may impact the overall score. That's why it's encouraged to have multiple reviews, to average the score out. But to expect the developer will apply every single idea from every single reviewer would be chaos.
Likewise, the developer can choose to accept or deny suggestions, but recognize if the majority have a problem with a feature that they are willing to fix or adjust, this could make it so nobody wants to play their games.
Once again, communication works both ways.
Where matters of personal taste are concerned, it's the burden of the critics to fight their personal bias. If they're unable to, it's up to the creators to tell the difference between an actual problem and the reviewer's preference.
This is all quickly circumvented by people's feelings. If the reviewer is rude or the creator has a big ego or other inhibiting factors are present, the whole thing can fall apart in an instant. Thus, the best advice I can give to both creators and reviewers is: wait a day. Don't write your reviews or responses in the heat of the moment. Give it time to sink in and come back when you're not all worked up. You can choose your words more carefully, and it'll save a lot of trouble for everyone involved.
from amerkBut of course, and that's important to keep in mind as well. There's no single way the feedback process should always work. It depends on far too many things. A solution the reviewer proposed might not be feasible depending on the creator's intentions, but it can still help define the reviewer's issue, and the creator may be able to find an alternative fix. The key is being perceptive enough to see the root of the problem and how best to alleviate it. The more information the reviewer can provide, the easier it gets for the creator to see what they mean.
Once again, communication works both ways.
This is all quickly circumvented by people's feelings. If the reviewer is rude or the creator has a big ego or other inhibiting factors are present, the whole thing can fall apart in an instant. Thus, the best advice I can give to both creators and reviewers is: wait a day. Don't write your reviews or responses in the heat of the moment. Give it time to sink in and come back when you're not all worked up. You can choose your words more carefully, and it'll save a lot of trouble for everyone involved.
GoatBoy
706
author=halibabica
Thus, the best advice I can give to both creators and reviewers is: wait a day. Don't write your reviews or responses in the heat of the moment. Give it time to sink in and come back when you're not all worked up. You can choose your words more carefully, and it'll save a lot of trouble for everyone involved.
This. I agree with this wholeheartedly. I've seen plenty of reviews and replies from developers that were clearly written as immediate emotional responses, and they never turn out pretty. People have a tendency to be unnecessarily harsh and even childish when they're upset. If you're feeling heated over a game, a critique, or a response to said critique--the first thing you should do is walk away. Cool your head. Take your mind off of it. Then, if you still feel like you have something valid to say, go back and make your case.
Yeah, the emotions of the Dark Side - anger, fear, aggression - are peoples' undoing, especially on the internet.
(That's my token one-line forum post of the week.)
(That's my token one-line forum post of the week.)
RyaReisender
200
@amerk
Wait, does 80/20 mean that at least 21% need to have a problem with something for it to be considered or 81%?
Wait, does 80/20 mean that at least 21% need to have a problem with something for it to be considered or 81%?
author=amerk
It helps, but if somebody already stated the problem and why (ie., the battles felt way too long), then the door for communication is already open and the developer can inquire what specificis or ideas for solutions to fix it, if they perceive it as a problem. Communication works both ways.
Also, keep in mind, offering solutions may have the opposite effect of what's intended, and goes back to what Liberty said about suggesting changes. Solutions should be provided for actual flaws, but for personal bias, solutions may not be welcomed.
If the battle system lagged, or had a tendency to freeze, that is an actual problem that needs a solution. If it felt slow and drawn out, but otherwise smooth, that becomes a personal preference and subjective. The developer may have had a reason for this, and they're free to point it out, or other players may welcome it and not think it's very long; or perhaps it's a game where strategy is required, and a player that's expecting a quick hash and slash may be disappointed.
The 80/20 rule should apply in games as well. In my job working with clients and IVR's, we focus on what 80% of the people are doing when they call in. If 80% aren't having problems with something, but 20% are, we don't make changes to accomodate the 20% and risk hurting the majority. There has to be a margin for user error. Likewise, if 80% of players are handling a game okay, why would a developer take the solutions of the other 20% and make drastic changes that would impact the experience of the majority?
Edit: Adding to this - It's fine to state in your review that you felt the battle system was slow, and it's understandable that this may impact the overall score. That's why it's encouraged to have multiple reviews, to average the score out. But to expect the developer will apply every single idea from every single reviewer would be chaos.
Likewise, the developer can choose to accept or deny suggestions, but recognize if the majority have a problem with a feature that they are willing to fix or adjust, this could make it so nobody wants to play their games.
Once again, communication works both ways.
Unfortunately, sometimes the 20% are the most vocal "majority" to the point where you can't actually tell that they arent in fact the 80% that like it. As in, there is really no way of knowing what the majority feels without polling them individually.
http://www.amazon.com/Rework-Jason-Fried/dp/0307463745
Read this book. It's about stuffing conventional business wisdom, figuring out what you want from the product, and going with it. It also discusses issues like overwork burnout and feature creep, by keeping the idea simple, and doable within a short timeframe. It also talks about moving away from super-corporation model and more toward making a small business that makes massive-corporation scale money but has more to share.
RyaReisender
200
Usually there's not just a "right or wrong", so I doubt there is a need of really knowing how many % want a change.
For example people telling you that they didn't like your game because the battles took to long. That doesn't mean you should double all damage if 80% are telling you that the battles are slow. It rather means that you should try to figure out why they think so while you don't. Maybe your game has a feature like a combo system that increases damage a lot and they didn't even know about because it isn't explained well enough. So the solution might be to explain it better instead of increasing damage. It's always case-by-case. But requirement is that you take criticism serious and are willing to talk about it (and your game).
For example people telling you that they didn't like your game because the battles took to long. That doesn't mean you should double all damage if 80% are telling you that the battles are slow. It rather means that you should try to figure out why they think so while you don't. Maybe your game has a feature like a combo system that increases damage a lot and they didn't even know about because it isn't explained well enough. So the solution might be to explain it better instead of increasing damage. It's always case-by-case. But requirement is that you take criticism serious and are willing to talk about it (and your game).
Rya, what you are describing is the "creator bias". The maker knows the puzzle solution, the monster weakness, etc. They've done it so many times, and it seems easy to them. However, the viewer doesn't get their logic, doesn't realize the battle is actually a puzzle battle, and so on.
RyaReisender
200
Yep, and that's why feedback from someone who didn't know the game prior to playing is important.
So Nouin was banned for unfairly editing the CSS of Konstandin's page. That's really a shame. I wish he would have just heeded my advice and used it to create a better game. I really thought it had promise if he changed things up.
Edit: BTW this is relevant to the thread because I don't think that hiding the score of your reviews is a good way of dealing with criticism. Also saying that the person was "premature" in reviewing your game when they worked really hard on it was a little immature. So what I think I've learned from this, is to try to provide accurate feedback to the developer as well as generally talking to your audience. And if controversy happens, don't add fuel to the fire by replying or drawing attention to the topic. Mind you, that's what made him reveal his true colours in the end, anyway. I'm a little worried I didn't handle it completely correctly but I tried my best.
Edit: BTW this is relevant to the thread because I don't think that hiding the score of your reviews is a good way of dealing with criticism. Also saying that the person was "premature" in reviewing your game when they worked really hard on it was a little immature. So what I think I've learned from this, is to try to provide accurate feedback to the developer as well as generally talking to your audience. And if controversy happens, don't add fuel to the fire by replying or drawing attention to the topic. Mind you, that's what made him reveal his true colours in the end, anyway. I'm a little worried I didn't handle it completely correctly but I tried my best.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
author=CashmereCat
Edit: BTW this is relevant to the thread because I don't think that hiding the score of your reviews is a good way of dealing with criticism.
That wasn't dealing with criticism. That was spitting in the faces of those that took the time to critique his game. But I already posted my thoughts there about the whole mess and don't want to bring all that here. I'll just say this:
author=CashmereCat
I'm a little worried I didn't handle it completely correctly but I tried my best.
To be honest, you handled that a lot better than I would have. I can take someone bashing my game. What I can't take is if my honest critique is dismissed simply because it wasn't full-blown praise. I don't think I would have made it past your second post. I would have just left the entire demo and wouldn't even bother putting any more effort to editing the review. So, for me, the next question to ask be "How do I accept criticism of my criticism"?
author=CashmereCat
So what I think I've learned from this, is to try to provide accurate feedback to the developer as well as generally talking to your audience. And if controversy happens, don't add fuel to the fire by replying or drawing attention to the topic. Mind you, that's what made him reveal his true colours in the end, anyway.
... Nevermind. You already answered it.
RyaReisender
200
I think you handled it well. Doesn't help to be all nice, then the people won't learn anything from it.
GoatBoy
706
You did fine. Honestly, better than most. You managed to keep a cool head, which in itself is admirable. He should have counted himself lucky to have someone so ready and willing to help him out, but not everyone can appreciate that I guess. Such is life. It's no skin off your back, he only hurt himself by acting this way, so don't let it get to you.
Laber
300
I don't really think that Nouin cared for the ban. He didn't actually hide the score, he was trolling with some smiley faced rating icons as if he wanted to get banned in purpose. He was warned three times from kentona but he did it again and again.
@Cashmere, I don't think they stopped working on the game since they are posting updates on tumblr. That would be really stupid if they would stop the development just because of being banned on rmn.
Also your first review was really a bit premature, have to agree with the developer. But you did a good job on the second one, even though it seemed forced since the comment war started.
@Cashmere, I don't think they stopped working on the game since they are posting updates on tumblr. That would be really stupid if they would stop the development just because of being banned on rmn.
Also your first review was really a bit premature, have to agree with the developer. But you did a good job on the second one, even though it seemed forced since the comment war started.
amerk
2539
What exactly are people meaning when they say "premature"? Do they mean reviewing a game as a demo before it's finished, or not getting through the entire game (how ever long that game may be)?
In my opinion, a forum is open to the public for discussion and opinions, and you're not going to like what everybody says. If you can't accept what people may say about your game, then you probably shouldn't post it until you feel more confident in the game or can learn to accept criticism.
For reviewing a game somebody didn't play all the way through, for me it depends. I've gone through many games I felt I didn't play through enough to offer a full review, and so I commented in the post instead. However, I've also gone through many games that I didn't bother finishing, but felt I invested enough time that a review is warranted. I don't have a fixed time setting in my mind for when a game should qualify for a review or not. I just take each game as it comes.
It also depends on my mood and whether I can be bothered to write a review or not, so even writing an unfavorable review should at least indicate it impacted me a good deal enough for me to care.
As for reviewing incomplete games (demos, cancelled games) - that's pretty much the way a lot of RM forums run. I can't see why somebody would be against this, though. After all, a review of a demo gives them the necessary feedback they may need to ensure their final version is up to par, and the reviewer might even revise their assessment once they see the final version.
All in all, I just feel this a much to do about nothing. I mean, game designers can choose to accept or decline the feedback, but they can't expect it to go away. If they have a problem with criticism, then don't post the game.
In my opinion, a forum is open to the public for discussion and opinions, and you're not going to like what everybody says. If you can't accept what people may say about your game, then you probably shouldn't post it until you feel more confident in the game or can learn to accept criticism.
For reviewing a game somebody didn't play all the way through, for me it depends. I've gone through many games I felt I didn't play through enough to offer a full review, and so I commented in the post instead. However, I've also gone through many games that I didn't bother finishing, but felt I invested enough time that a review is warranted. I don't have a fixed time setting in my mind for when a game should qualify for a review or not. I just take each game as it comes.
It also depends on my mood and whether I can be bothered to write a review or not, so even writing an unfavorable review should at least indicate it impacted me a good deal enough for me to care.
As for reviewing incomplete games (demos, cancelled games) - that's pretty much the way a lot of RM forums run. I can't see why somebody would be against this, though. After all, a review of a demo gives them the necessary feedback they may need to ensure their final version is up to par, and the reviewer might even revise their assessment once they see the final version.
All in all, I just feel this a much to do about nothing. I mean, game designers can choose to accept or decline the feedback, but they can't expect it to go away. If they have a problem with criticism, then don't post the game.
Laber
300
author=amerk
What exactly are people meaning when they say "premature"? Do they mean reviewing a game as a demo before it's finished, or not getting through the entire game (how ever long that game may be)?Premature means if you don't check out the whole game and rush into reviewing it which then may lead to false conclusions. However, I think Cash's decision on not giving the game a rating was fair since he admitted it himself it was premature. Nouin shouldn't have acted on the review since it didn't get a negative rating in my opinion. He just lured trolls towards his game and the situation escalated. It's a pity...
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=Laberauthor=amerkPremature means if you don't check out the whole game and rush into reviewing it which then may lead to false conclusions. However, I think Cash's decision on not giving the game a rating was fair since he admitted it himself it was premature. Nouin shouldn't have acted on the review since it didn't get a negative rating in my opinion. He just lured trolls towards his game and the situation escalated. It's a pity...
What exactly are people meaning when they say "premature"? Do they mean reviewing a game as a demo before it's finished, or not getting through the entire game (how ever long that game may be)?
He gained the attention of honest people and behaved in a manner unbefitting of a development-centric community. Don't baby him.
author=NouinLook guys, don't want to start a comment war here. It looks like cashmere took my words personally and called support. If you don't like my game it's ok, you might not be the right audience, though I expected cashmere to be honest that's all. Because as a maker of the game I happen to know how long the demo is, and it certainly isn't 10-15 min long. By feeding the people false info, they can prejudice. And also as a reviewer, he should have reviewed the demo only, because that's what we released. Not the full game, and how the mysteries will be solved, because that would be on us developers. Besides, cashmere admitted it himself that this review was premature. I respect his opinion, but I do not agree with a premature review. You can kill it with bad critique and that would be ok if only it was a correct review. People put a lot of effort in their games, and they expect them to be played correctly and reviewed correctly. If you review how the mysteries will be later solved or if they will exist, that's not your area, that's our area. That was the main point I wanted to make clear...unless you have fortune telling powers (it's a nice skill to have).
However, let's rest it here please, since arrogance started getting on the way. Again cashmere, you do not need to call friends to comment here, we totally respect your review, we got disappointed that you rushed it a bit, but still we're ok don't take anything personally and thank you for the time you spent reviewing it. And to those who do not want to play it, then don't. It's not like it's doing us any harm. We totally understand that the audience we targeted is a different audience so we don't expect more.
Have a nice day! ^^
Regards,
Nouin
author=Nouinauthor=Laberauthor=Schwer-von-BegriffWhy does the protagonist care so much for his wife?
Really? This question? Your name suits you. (for those who don't know, her name means "retarded")
This is just hilarious...I couldn't help but comment on this.
