Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.ruhr-uni-bochum.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.belwue.de!swidir.switch.ch!surfnet.nl!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!kjfair
From: kjfair@midway.uchicago.edu (Kenneth Fair)
Subject: Review of Russ Bryan's Review of Andrew Pontious's Capsule Reviews of Contest Games
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ntcs-ip39.uchicago.edu
X-Kook-Number-2: 16
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Message-ID: <kjfair-ya023280000412960050500001@uchinews.uchicago.edu>
X-Kook-Code-2: (Grubor+++)*2 (Boursy+)*2 Palmer++++++++
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Organization: University of Chicago School of Law
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.3.2
References: <5826jv$1h8@news.thorn.net> <cleofax-0412960720040001@noho-us252.javanet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 06:50:50 GMT
Lines: 89


(Russ, please take this with a grain of salt.  I just couldn't resist.)


>In article <5826jv$1h8@news.thorn.net>, Andrew D. Pontious
><byzantium@tuna.net> wrote:
>
>> IN THE END
>> My score: 3
>> It's interesting that the authors who are trying to do the most "unusual"
>> things are often the ones who come across as the most pompous *and* the
>> most concerned about their games winning. I can imagine being scornful of
>> the huddled masses who just want good, solid puzzles and writings, but
>> then if you're so elitist, why care if you win?
>> 
>> Much of "In the End"'s writing is good, and it has a "realistic" feel to
>> it that most games lack. But I was quite stymied by what I "should" do,
>> and the author's grudging inclusion of a walk-through with the injunction
>> never to use it didn't endear me to him. This game was very close to
>> "Delusions" in that the author was incredibly fixating on this new idea
>> the game was supposed to embody, yet the player, supposedly the
>> beneficiary of the idea, was given little help in finding it. Oh well.
>> 
>> Well, having just finished the game, now I know why the idea wasn't
>> obvious; in fact, there doesn't seem to be much point to it at all. I've
>> seen some criticism that this game was too much like a static story, but
>> I disagree--no good static story would have such little conflict, such a
>> preachy ending, indeed nothing to draw the reader in. I'm very
>> disappointed.


In article <cleofax-0412960720040001@noho-us252.javanet.com>,
cleofax@javanet.com (Russ Bryan) wrote:

>ANDREW PONTONIOUS'S CAPSULE REVIEWS OF CONTEST GAMES
>My Score: 1
>
>It's interesting that the reviewers who are trying to be the most
>"objective" are often the ones who come across as the most pompous *and*
>the most concerned about what DOESN'T work.  I can imagine being scornful
>of the elite few who want more than good, solid puzzles and writings, but
>then if you're so happy with the status quo, why should anyone care if you
>liked it?
>
>Much of Andrew Pontonius's writing is good, and it has a "critical" feel
>to it that most reviews lack.  But I was quite stymied by what the
>reviewer "seemed" to enjoy, and the reviewer's grudging inclusion of
>writing ability in his scores didn't endear me to him.  The review was
>very close to unintelligible in that the reviewer was incredibly fixated
>on the authors' motivations, yet the reader, supposedly the beneficiary of
>the review, was given little help in understanding what the games were
>about.  Oh well.
>
>Well, having just finished the review, now I know why the reviewer wasn't
>fair; in fact, there doesn't seem to be much fair judgement to it at all. 
>I've seen some criticisms that I haven't agreed with ...


It's interesting that the review reviewers who are trying to be the most
encouraging of participation on the newsgroup are often the ones who come
across as the most pompous *and* the most elitist in their acceptance of
the views of others.  I can imagine being scornful of the reviewers who
don't present more than just their opinions about particular games, but
then if you're so elitist, why try to encourage participation by newcomers
on the newsgroup?

Much of Russ Bryan's writing is good, and it has a "humorous" feel to it
that most review reviews lack.  But I was quite stymied by what the review
reviewer "seemed" to dislike, and the review reviewer's grudging inclusion
of the reviewer's post in his review review didn't endear me to him.  The
review of the review was very close to unintelligible in that the review
reviewer was incredibly fixated on the reviewer's lack of game
descriptions, yet the reviewer, supposedly the beneficiary of the review
review, was given little help in understanding better ways of reviewing
interactive fiction.  Oh well.

Well, having just finished the review review, now I know why many people
feel intimidated in participating on rec.arts.int-fiction; in fact, there
doesn't seem to be much point in anyone new adding their views.  I've seen
some statements that rec.arts.int-fiction welcomes new voices, even
inexperienced ones, but I disagree--no good newsgroup would have such
draconian standards, such a preachy crowd, indeed nothing to draw the
lurker in.  I'm very disappointed.

-- 
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law  | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"Our Mother Goose who art in the henhouse, hallowed be thy name. Thy roast-
 ing come. Thy meat be done in earth as it is in heaven." - Riley Sinder
