/newstuff rant

[Julian]

Got something to say. It's here.

[DooMBoy]

I think that the /newstuff reviews should be short and to the point, review-style. Oh, and a rating system, 1 to 10 style. Otherwise, no complaints here.

[læmænt]

I think deathz0r should be the permanent reviewer.

[Amaster]

More nudity...
Also a rating system might be nice. Maybe people who play the wad can cast votes?

[AndrewB]

The reviews just aren't as good as they used to be. I can't figure out why. They're just not fair and balanced. Every WAD has some use, and instead of blathering about how YOU liked it or hated it, the reviewer should examine WHO might like and WHO wouldn't. Just state the facts of the WAD. If you feel compelled to ever say anything remotely opinionated, you suck at reviewing.

Who was that reviewer that was around for the longest time? That was the freaking best.

[Fredrik]

AndrewB said:

Who was that reviewer that was around for the longest time? That was the freaking best.

Damn right.

[Julian]

AndrewB said:
Who was that reviewer that was around for the longest time? That was the freaking best.

too bad he quit.

[myk]

I've heard before from people posting and from reviewers that reviews are supposed to make downloading the WADs easier for people checking out /newstuff, that they serve the players and not the authors. That's the typical stance in a commercial environment and only produces friction in a freer system.

The point behind the presentations should be to let people know about the new stuff, not to make their minds up about it. As AndrewB states it's best to just state the basic facts about a WAD. Not charge up the presentation with emotional energy, either negative or positive. No one is cool cause they can say whacky things about how a WAD sucks.... people just want to see what WADs are new, not what some dude has to say about them and how he says it.

Also, in general, the more a reviewer says, the less people posting will, and if they do say something, it'll be a reply to the main post usually, or some addition... for this reason it isn't even necessary to get the full scope of the WAD when presenting it, just the necessary essentials that someone might need to get an idea. Plus, from my point of view, it's impossible for a single person to give much info on a WAD in so short a time, much less when many WADs are presented.

Also, instead of passing the ball from one reviewer to another, it might be better to have a number of reviewers that specialize on different things, and in a reviewer's forum they each choose WADs to present from newstuff according to what they know best.

[Linguica]

AndrewB said:

Just state the facts of the WAD. If you feel compelled to ever say anything remotely opinionated, you suck at reviewing.

In the universe of stupid AndrewB quotes, this is king.

[EllipsusD]

Assmaster said:
Also a rating system might be nice. Maybe people who play the wad can cast votes?

I second that.

[Linguica]

myk said:

people just want to see what WADs are new, not what some dude has to say about them and how he says it.

There's this thing on 3darchives.in-span.net called /idgames/newstuff, legend has it that when people wanted to know what WADs were new, they would go look at this so-called "directory" and lo and behold, there would be a list of all the newest things!

[fraggle]

lament said:

I think deathz0r should be the permanent reviewer.

I agree. More deathz0r. The whiners can go fuck themselves.

[NiGHTMARE]

AndrewB said:

Just state the facts of the WAD. If you feel compelled to ever say anything remotely opinionated, you suck at reviewing.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary says:
Review, v. t.

2. To go over and examine critically or deliberately. Specifically: (a) To reconsider; to revise, as a manuscript before printing it, or a book for a new edition. (b) To go over with critical examination, in order to discover exellences or defects; hence, to write a critical notice of; as, to review a new novel. (c) To make a formal or official examination of the state of, as troops, and the like; as, to review a regiment. (d) (Law) To re-examine judically; as, a higher court may review the proceedings and judgments of a lower one.

[Use]

Never had a problem with Newstuff. If I want a second opinion I can simply read the responses in the Newstuff thread. I didn't even mind Ling's recent 'review' of TVR. I played the wad I know it's good. With as few new Doom levels as there are today I just play 'em all and make up my own mind. Is that so hard? Sure miss Liam tho.

[myk]

Exactly my point, NiGHTMARE, and I've mentioned this many times. You cannot do reviews in a situation like this. Proper reviews should be reserved for sites dedicated to them, taking more time for each WAD that has been specifically chosen because it is worthy of a review according to the reviewer (the reasons why are up to him.) Also, proper reviews generally apply best on WADs that have been out for some time; this gives the reviewer more time, more perspective, and an audience capable of reading a review.

The newstuff chronicles can't work unless we note only presentations are possible. There is no time for more, and it only causes confusion and frustration to attempt actual reviews.

[Julian]

Linguica said:

There's this thing on 3darchives.in-span.net called /idgames/newstuff, legend has it that when people wanted to know what WADs were new, they would go look at this so-called "directory" and lo and behold, there would be a list of all the newest things!

Heh. With text files too I've heard.

[Alientank]

For the love of god rate the wad out of 10.

[zark]

Alientank said:

For the love of god rate the wad out of 10.

No. It should be done in hex. 0 for a crap wad, F for a perfect wad.

[Lüt]

myk said:

Exactly my point, NiGHTMARE, and I've mentioned this many times. You cannot do reviews in a situation like this.

It's quite simple really. Reviews don't need to be extensive, however in this situation the reviews need a mix of both factual and opinionated information presented. A map description (theme, location, detail level, amount of inhabitants) being the factual information, and description of the fun factor being the opinionated information. When giving opinionated information, it's necessary to bear in mind that enjoyment is arbitrary and must be presented in a manner such as "I found this map enjoyable because..." so that a reader can judge whether or not they would find the same enjoyment in the map as the reviewer did. If you are to append a rating system to the reviews, the system would have to be based on a set of predefined constants (such as grand design & overall layout, architecture, lighting, monster/ammo/health balance), not on the reviewer's opinion of how enjoyable the map was for them individually.

[Fredrik]

No, binary:

0 Awful piece of shit
1 Perfect, best WAD ever

[myk]

Linguica said:

There's this thing on 3darchives.in-span.net called /idgames/newstuff, legend has it that when people wanted to know what WADs were new, they would go look at this so-called "directory" and lo and behold, there would be a list of all the newest things!

The point being? Remotely decent reviews aren't possible in such a situation... A HTML presentation with a brief 3rd party description, and screenshots is helpful. Much easier than browsing TXT files in an FTP directory, you get the full condensed info in one well-presented page.

[NiGHTMARE]

Myk: if all most people want (and I don't think it is) is a brief description and a couple of screenshots, then level designers really should be more willing to have their own website and put that stuff on there.

[myk]

NiGHTMARE, I guess they can do that, and many do. I'm just mentioning what I think would work here. After all this discussion was started because most newstuff chronicles often lead to arguing about the reviews. The same thing I replied to Liguica applies to what you said; the presentation of all that info in one well-made webpage is in itself an achievement and is helpful for anyone wanting to find out quickly what is new.

[Erik]

Imo the newstuff chronicles should consist of some comments on who might like this wad and why. It should also contain a couple of screenshots. If it's exceptionally good, praise it. If it's shit, mention some quality it has and mention some flaws as well, don't just say that it is shit. Try to see things through different perspectives than your own, if you only like zdoom maps, don't say that everything else sucks etc.

[gatewatcher]

Er, the only thing that is wrong with /newstuff is the fact that flames/trolls find a good home there. My suggestion; enlist the services of two rating systems. One would be the reviewers opinion and score, the seccond would be the average member rating (like a poll...). This should keep the tone friendly, while at the same still allowing people to express their dislikes (only without flaming). If it doesn't, then it's up to the mods to keep the "THIS WAD SUX SO DO U IM BETTAR AT REVIEWING" at bay.

And that's all I have to say about that. Thxbye.

[Grazza]

Lüt said:

It's quite simple really. Reviews don't need to be extensive, however in this situation the reviews need a mix of both factual and opinionated information presented.

I agree with that (and the rest of your post) 100%. And Erik's post too.

[myk]

Grazza, that quote is misleading in relation to my post. Given the description of the term "review" and the fact that here we're talking about completely new productions people have barely had time to check out: Most people download the WADs then and there and few have the time to play more than one more or less thoroughly, it's clear that a review as such cannot be given. Neither from the reviewer's nor the players' perspective. If the "facts" or description given have any opinions these are inevitable due to the reviewer's context, otherwise they are out of place, just adding to the text uselessly and producing unrelated discussions.

[Chopkinsca]

I don't know.

maybe a screenshot option that shows all screenshots from that particular wad.


bah

[AndrewB]

Erik's example is the, um, example of unbiased reviewing.

[myk]

I think the main question that has arisen here is the role of opinions in the newstuff chronicles. Are they inevitable, should they be pursued?

An opinion is simply a person's condensed view of something, it shows up inevitably. But I think that the aim here is to give the player an idea of what the WAD is, not an idea of the idea the reviewer has about the WAD. The latter is probably easier to transmit, just rant, praise or troll and you'll get it through, while the former is what the person trying to download WADs is interested in. Rest assured that opinions will be transmitted, but do we really give a fuck what X thinks about the WADs, or why are we there browsing the newstuff chronicles? I go there usually to download new WADs and I can hardly think that anyone has anything definitive to say about them, but I don't mind some info in order to see what's up and what might suit me.

I don't mind up to the point info about what the WAD is about (themes, stories, etc.) if it's neat or crappy (texture alignment, "detail", architectual designs, etc.) if it plays well (tricks, bugs, monster placement, amount of monsters, ammo placement, map layout, etc.) The point of the presentation would be to transmit those characteristics... inevitably we all like different things, and we'll disagree on how to describe things, but there's a big difference between simply stating opinions on something and trying to give an idea of what it is.

Even though I agree with what Erik said about keeping an open mind when giving a presentation, I also think that a reviewer should not present anything he or she is not really willing to play, or anything he or she isn't familar with. Otherwise it's either not fun, or (and) will produce negative results.

But anyway, to change anything here, if that is something desired, the procedure of how things are done should be changed. Simply telling people what "should be" but otherwise keeping things functioning as before doesn't work. We can pretend we are quite conscious beings, but in the overall scheme we are generally quite automated in the way we do things. That's why I proposed actually changing the way the chronicles are done, in addition to differentiating between an actual review and what I think can be done with a bunch of new WADs that came right out of the oven. so if any of this helps, take it.