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
Cirrocumulus-Cloud
View playlists
CloseCritizising a game does not equal trolling. I -and I am sure a lot of others- just wanted to get their point(s) across. (My own point was the lack of plot, for example.) The game isn't bad by any means, but it needs improvement. We fell on deaf ears and got trolled instead.
Crystalgate
694
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)?
CashmereCat meant the former when he admitted to reviewing prematurely while Nouin (and Laber) meant the latter. Even after CashmereCat explained himself (at least twice), Nouin stuck to his own interpretation.
author=CashmereCat
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.
You handled the situation in the way you thought best, which is all anyone can do. You know the saying "Hindsight is 20/20"? The point of that saying isn't to underline the fact that we can't go back in time to fix our mistakes; it's to point out the fact that there is no way to know whether or not a choice is right until a choice is made.
author=pianotm
You handled the situation in the way you thought best, which is all anyone can do. You know the saying "Hindsight is 20/20"? The point of that saying isn't to underline the fact that we can't go back in time to fix our mistakes; it's to point out the fact that there is no way to know whether or not a choice is right until a choice is made.
That's an interesting philosophy. I admit that sometimes I feel that way. But at the same time, I feel like sometimes I know a choice is wrong even before I make it. That's the kind of choice that I usually feel guilty for afterwards. But it's weird. Sometimes I even feel guilty for the things that I do that I'm not sure why they're wrong. It's strange.
author=CashmereCat
That's an interesting philosophy. I admit that sometimes I feel that way. But at the same time, I feel like sometimes I know a choice is wrong even before I make it. That's the kind of choice that I usually feel guilty for afterwards. But it's weird. Sometimes I even feel guilty for the things that I do that I'm not sure why they're wrong. It's strange.
Because the future is never clear. We know from experience that occasionally, choices that seem to be the wrong ones often turn out to be the right ones, and vice versa. Perhaps a conversation with Abraham Lincoln would put things into perspective. Is taking a trip to the theatre the wrong choice?
Edit: It seems so simple doesn't, but we all know how that choice turned out. Clearly it was the wrong one, but how could he know that?
Desertopa
775
I think the only way to meaningfully judge a decision as "right" or not is on the basis of the information that was available at the time. Nobody can be an oracle, but they can exercise good judgment given what they know at the time, so we might as well evaluate people in terms of what's actually achievable.
A person's judgment is not invalidated by bad consequences that could not realistically have been predicted, nor is it vindicated by good consequences that they did not have the information to legitimately anticipate.
In a sense, hindsight can be even less reliable than our perspective at the time of our decision, because we tend to see the events that actually occurred as having been more predictable than they actually were.
A person's judgment is not invalidated by bad consequences that could not realistically have been predicted, nor is it vindicated by good consequences that they did not have the information to legitimately anticipate.
In a sense, hindsight can be even less reliable than our perspective at the time of our decision, because we tend to see the events that actually occurred as having been more predictable than they actually were.
Crystalgate
694
Personally, I think that posting about the review here was a bad idea. Nevertheless, I don't think that doing otherwise would have prevented the drama, it would just have delayed it. A negative headline + a lot of replies will draw the attention of other people. Then the review gets more replies due to the extra attention which in turn draws even more attention. However, coming from a topic where most posts are discussing the importance off accepting criticism right too a situation where the author is not accepting criticism may have made people react more strongly than they would have done otherwise.
Edit: Post, pest, whatever.
Edit: Post, pest, whatever.
author=Crystalgate
However, coming from a topic where most pestsare discussing the importance off accepting criticism right too a situation where the author is not accepting criticism may have made people react more strongly than they would have done otherwise.
Is there something you are trying to tell us? O.o
