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)
Locker
Play ListsSTATUS
First and foremost, a review is written for the benefit of the audience and not the creator. Thinking that the criticism within a review isn't valid because it isn't sympathetic towards the creator is remarkably silly.
bahlete442456234996- 11/08/2017 06:10 PM
Posts 
Pages:
1
CloseI'd argue it can be beneficial for both creator and audience. It can let the audience know if the game, movie, etc is any good and can give the creator pointers to improve on to create something better.
Dyhalto
7536
Fake good reviews hurt purchases. You're threatening the consumer's savings.
I'm with Sated. Reviews are meant for the audience. If you just want to offer some advice or coach the dev, there's nothing wrong with a PM or a little blurb on their gamepage.
But if you've already determined that your review is going to be "bad", then it wouldn't hurt to point out what's off kilter and not just write everything off with meaningless blanket statements like "shitty" or "amateur-level".
I'm with Sated. Reviews are meant for the audience. If you just want to offer some advice or coach the dev, there's nothing wrong with a PM or a little blurb on their gamepage.
But if you've already determined that your review is going to be "bad", then it wouldn't hurt to point out what's off kilter and not just write everything off with meaningless blanket statements like "shitty" or "amateur-level".
I also agree. Reviews are for the audience, but it's equally ridiculous to think that the game dev shouldn't be among the review's audience. If a review goes too far, any good points can be lost in the showboating. At this point, the review is useless to both the dev and the audience since the review is simply trying to be a piece of art in its right and is merely using the subject to try and prop itself up. The review becomes biased and unreliable since you cannot know if the reviewer is giving an honest opinion or simply playing to the masses.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
What sparked this?
Blind
2262
Eh, I reluctantly agree, but I think we should be writing reviews with the understanding that we're not the IGN or RottenTomatoes of RPGMaker/Indie games. First and foremost, RMN is a site for developers and those who follow them. Writing a review that's intentionally mean-spirited, needlessly aggressive/pointed, and so on, is counterintuitive to that goal.
The difference between one of us writing a review of, say, Breath of the Wild, and something that was designed from the ground up on RPGMaker.net is that the developer WILL inevitably see the review. I don't think there should be any ban-worthy rules in place, necessarily, but simply a sense of respect and common sense.
The difference between one of us writing a review of, say, Breath of the Wild, and something that was designed from the ground up on RPGMaker.net is that the developer WILL inevitably see the review. I don't think there should be any ban-worthy rules in place, necessarily, but simply a sense of respect and common sense.
I both disagree and agree. On another site for rating and reviewing games that the developers aren't going to see, sure. On a site like this where developers are a large part of the audience and what reviews are partly aimed at (or should be, considering they're going to get notifications of them being added to their game profile which is made both to share the game with an audience AND to see what people think about your game) then sorry, but I disagree.
The site itself is set up not only for an audience but for the developers to get feedback and thoughts on their game. A big part of that is reviews - so much so that we hold review events just so that games that don't get love (and thus, the developers of) can get something in the way of feedback on their games.
We're a community. We know each other. We help each other and discuss our games with each other and share them with each other. A lot of the time we're each others' audiences so acting like reviews here aren't for the benefit of the people around you - the developers of the games we're sharing here - is pretty dumb.
Be aware of your surroundings. :/
The site itself is set up not only for an audience but for the developers to get feedback and thoughts on their game. A big part of that is reviews - so much so that we hold review events just so that games that don't get love (and thus, the developers of) can get something in the way of feedback on their games.
We're a community. We know each other. We help each other and discuss our games with each other and share them with each other. A lot of the time we're each others' audiences so acting like reviews here aren't for the benefit of the people around you - the developers of the games we're sharing here - is pretty dumb.
Be aware of your surroundings. :/
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Man, I finally articulate my position on this enough to post it and Libby beat me to the punch!
This is like joining an amateur cooking group and then reacting to the food like Gordon Ramsay, then defending yourself by saying that it's "for the customers." Like, yeah, bad things are bad and need to be improved, but at the same time if you're in a community like this, you should have some fukken tact!
This is like joining an amateur cooking group and then reacting to the food like Gordon Ramsay, then defending yourself by saying that it's "for the customers." Like, yeah, bad things are bad and need to be improved, but at the same time if you're in a community like this, you should have some fukken tact!
I think a big part of the cultural divide here is that RMN can't/won't firmly to commit to whether it's intended for developers or for players. If it's for developers, then features like reviews and scores serve no purpose but creating drama and cliques. If it's for players, then reviews should be written for outsiders and not rank games by metrics that are only informative to other RM devs (like giving a minimum 3/5 for any game that is complete and doesn't crash).
As a result, I think there has been a long-standing gulf between people who approach the community differently depending on which audience they think it's supposed to serve. Reviews are a good example of that, where the nature of the review you write is going to be completely different depending on who you think the intended audience of the site is supposed to be.
If RMN was really supposed to be primarily geared toward developers, then I'd expect reviews to be replaced by something like "critiques," which are posted addressed to the developer(s) with a list of feedback items. Feedback that would be action items, like "I think the sewer dungeon would be better if it was shorter," or "I think cutscene XYZ should be broken up with some gameplay in the middle." Think like Github issues. It would be about constructive feedback.
The problem with reviews is that they're intended to be informative to would-be players, which isn't necessarily useful to the developer. But when people write reviews that solely address the merits of the game in the context of whether or not it's worth playing (to end users), it can come across as hostile or negative because clearly the creator is going to read it. So as long as that identity crisis is there, I don't see this kind of drama going away.
As a result, I think there has been a long-standing gulf between people who approach the community differently depending on which audience they think it's supposed to serve. Reviews are a good example of that, where the nature of the review you write is going to be completely different depending on who you think the intended audience of the site is supposed to be.
If RMN was really supposed to be primarily geared toward developers, then I'd expect reviews to be replaced by something like "critiques," which are posted addressed to the developer(s) with a list of feedback items. Feedback that would be action items, like "I think the sewer dungeon would be better if it was shorter," or "I think cutscene XYZ should be broken up with some gameplay in the middle." Think like Github issues. It would be about constructive feedback.
The problem with reviews is that they're intended to be informative to would-be players, which isn't necessarily useful to the developer. But when people write reviews that solely address the merits of the game in the context of whether or not it's worth playing (to end users), it can come across as hostile or negative because clearly the creator is going to read it. So as long as that identity crisis is there, I don't see this kind of drama going away.
bicfarmer
3601
While combing the site for games I noticed this site has some trend of disapproving users who give brutal criticism. Is this a good thing or not? I am reminded of the theme of dreaming mary.
That's because it is generally a good thing to be respectful to the USERBASE in a forum community like RM ones while catering to the PLAYERBASE. Those who come to play the games.
For RMN both need to be considered. And that goes for most RM or indie game sites that have the developer base alongside the intended audience.
Reviews should be for both in a place like this if possible. If you can help two groups at once then why not?
For RMN both need to be considered. And that goes for most RM or indie game sites that have the developer base alongside the intended audience.
Reviews should be for both in a place like this if possible. If you can help two groups at once then why not?
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
I mean I'm just saying don't be a dick about it because you're presumably gonna be interacting with the recipient of your review. Like you can warn players away from a bad game without savaging it.
You can, I can't, which is why I don't do reviews anymore :V
You can, I can't, which is why I don't do reviews anymore :V
Irog
4858
The audience of RMN reviews is composed of both the players and the developer(s). So they should address the needs of both. To identify those needs we have to answer two questions:
1) What are you interested in reviews of your own game?
2) What are you interested in reviews of other developers' game?
For me:
1) I look for player feedback to identify the weak/strong parts of my games. I like to read detail explanations as why my game failed to create an engaging experience for the player. Anything that helps to improve my game is worth reading.
2) I look at the game average score and usually read the conclusion of a review in the middle of the list (to avoid overenthusiastic and overpessimistic conclusions). I don't spend a lot of time reading the reviews because I prefer to spend that time trying the game myself.
Reviews outside hobbyist communities have a totally different audience: customers! So they answer the question: Is this product (game) worth buying?
1) What are you interested in reviews of your own game?
2) What are you interested in reviews of other developers' game?
For me:
1) I look for player feedback to identify the weak/strong parts of my games. I like to read detail explanations as why my game failed to create an engaging experience for the player. Anything that helps to improve my game is worth reading.
2) I look at the game average score and usually read the conclusion of a review in the middle of the list (to avoid overenthusiastic and overpessimistic conclusions). I don't spend a lot of time reading the reviews because I prefer to spend that time trying the game myself.
Reviews outside hobbyist communities have a totally different audience: customers! So they answer the question: Is this product (game) worth buying?
author=SoozYou are aware of how to write good reviews so you're fully qualified to write them.
I mean I'm just saying don't be a dick about it because you're presumably gonna be interacting with the recipient of your review. Like you can warn players away from a bad game without savaging it.
You can, I can't, which is why I don't do reviews anymore :V
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Irog
You are aware of how to write good reviews so you're fully qualified to write them.
I'm aware of how to be a good debater, too. That doesn't mean I won't turn into a horrible feral animal in practice.
SoozIrogI'm aware of how to be a good debater, too. That doesn't mean I won't turn into a horrible feral animal in practice.
You are aware of how to write good reviews so you're fully qualified to write them.
I'm picturing a hyperactive guinea pig with bloodshot eyes.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Given how dickish guinea pigs are, that's not too off the mark! :V
Pages:
1
