Newsgroups: rec.games.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!demos!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!xfer13.netnews.com!netnews.com!news.voicenet.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!news-feeds.jump.net!world!buzzard
From: buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on the Comp...
Message-ID: <G48ttz.n0q@world.std.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:13:11 GMT
References: <3A16D265.CC3470B@efortress.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 38
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.games.int-fiction:58684

Mike Sousa  <msousa@efortress.com> wrote:
>One of the things that I've learned is that reviews are mostly opinions
>and as we all know, opinions vary widely.
[snip]
>As an *author*, the reviews are not useful.  Yeah, I got enjoyment on
>how people responded to the game, but it didn't help me focus in on what
>I need to work on.
>
>Was it worth the time to code Led Zeppelin blasting on the radio?
>Was it worth ...
[snip]
>Feedback on that level will affect the next attempt -- either keep some
>of that detail or don't bother, it's not being looked at.

Feedback literally on that level isn't very feasible, since it's
too detailed for a review, it's more at a betatesting level that
you'd get enough breadth.  It seems to me it isn't beyond normal
reviewing styles for somebody to say "I loved all the little details--the
radio, the X, the Y, the Z, none of which had anything to do with the
game".  On the other hand, if nobody notices it, nobody is going to
mention it; so you have to wonder: did nobody notice it, or is
nobody willing to mention that sort of thing in their reviews?
(I didn't notice it, and I think partly that reflects going to
the help/walkthrough too quickly and not experimenting enough.)

Last year I tried to offer some positives about every game, and then
three criticisms that were the three most important things for
improving the game experience for me.  Anticipating the concern
"it's easy to destroy, but hard to build", I forced myself to
describe them in terms of what steps could be taken to improve
the game.  I found this (a) way too hard, (b) to sound horribly
condescending, like I was telling people how to write their
games, and (c) no authors that I can recall indicated getting
any value from those suggestions.  So I'm not doing it in my
reviews this year.  But my reviews will still I hope be more
authorship-oriented.

SeanB
