REVIEW SUBMISSION

bahleted

bahleted

author=Sated
If you legitimately believe that any of my reviews are "below site standards" then you're not very smart.

author=Liberty
^ Do that.

Soli usually puts some sort of note to let people know why they've been denied or what they need to do to get accepted. So in this case he might have either forgotten to add a note or accidentally clicked deny instead of approve, so asking him about it would be best. ^.^

Now I'm very curious about what Sated said before he edited that XD

author=Sated
Substitute "not very smart" with a much more direct term.

Well, thanks then!

Statements like "If you legitimately believe that any of my reviews are 'below site standards' then you're not very smart" really demonstrate the weakness of that review, as it was also just hollow name-calling. You're telling people how to feel rather than actual game analysis.

author=unity

author=Sated
If you legitimately believe that any of my reviews are "below site standards" then you're not very smart.

author=Liberty
^ Do that.

Soli usually puts some sort of note to let people know why they've been denied or what they need to do to get accepted. So in this case he might have either forgotten to add a note or accidentally clicked deny instead of approve, so asking him about it would be best. ^.^

Now I'm very curious about what Sated said before he edited that XD

Oh, I hadn't refreshed the page so when I posted that post initially there was only Marrend's post. XD

Things kicked off between me posting first and then having to edit in to fit the conversation. >.<;


Sated, maybe we should be looking through some more of your reviews to see if they fit the site standards then. :shrug: That's not up to me, though. If Soli thinks it doesn't fit then it doesn't fit. Re-reading the review in question, it really is just a lot of hate on the game for no apparent reason than "I don't like memes and the popularity they get."

bahleted

author=Sated
Critics can't tell you what you should or should not enjoy, but they should be able to tell you something about what you should expect to enjoy. That's what makes them useful to potential audience members. If I'm thinking of checking out a movie, I'll usually look at the reviews first, not because I'm invested in the opinions of the reviewers as individuals, but because I want some information about how likely it is to be worth my time.

From the linked post that you quoted:

"Any review worth reading will ultimately be a product of how the reviewer's personal tastes clash with the subject at hand. The trick to writing a good review isn't listing what happens in an unbiased manner; the trick to writing a good review is making sure that people understand why you've come to a particular conclusion so that they are able to work out whether or not they agree with you."

I don't think that amounts to the same thing though, and I don't think reviews which are useful to readers necessarily follow from that.

Like, if you're writing a review of a movie, and the movie has Michael Cera in it, and you can't stand Michael Cera, you could write about how you hated it because you can't stand him and he poisons everything he's in in your opinion. It would tell your readers exactly why you felt the way you did about the movie, but if your readers don't share your hate for Michael Cera, it won't be very helpful for them in figuring out whether they're likely to enjoy it. The audience can decide for themselves whether they agree or disagree on the merits of Michael Cera, but you won't have given them enough information to decide how they're likely to feel about the movie as a whole.

I think that a good review will convey to the audience how you felt about the work, but it should also have enough information about the work that it can help readers make a judgment even if they have different priorities.

I love the pom wifi misao review as much as anyone else but it's definitely a review that wasn't made in good faith so to speak. I mean it reeks of "What?!! I wasn't doing a practical joke at allllll, not me, my activity is within the guidelines!" wink wink smirk. Of course that's a subjective evaluation in itself, but RMN doesn't really have an objective system in place to accept games or any form of content. So I guess deal with that.

Also I think you both are agreeing with each other so I don't know what the argument is for. Desertopa's Michael Cera example is literally the exact same as Sated's Football Manager review example except Sated came to the conclusion himself?? But if Desertopa's suggestion is just writing "Hey guys I never played this genre before, btw I hate apples" somewhere in the review then I really don't see where your differences lie. Unless you really want to argue in absolutes, I guess...