Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Megamur

Your Doomworld Review Preferences?

Recommended Posts

It seems like every time a /newstuff Chronicles is released, it's beset by people talking less about the actual WADs and more about how much the reviews suck. While I'm not a hardcore, long-time /newstuff Chronicles reviewer, I have contributed in the past, and hope to do so in the future, but...it kind of feels pointless if people are just going to complain about the articles and not even bother to read them.

So, I'd just like to know, what exactly does everyone want from the /newstuff reviews, anyway? Do you want long reviews? Short reviews? Lots of pictures, or few of them? Serious articles, or goofy, funny ones? Or something else entirely?

Help me to help you get the reviews you want to read. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I think drama and faulty reviews is exactly what we want. It's boring and forgettable if it's all peaceful.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mind long, if there is actual content. I don't mind funny, if you actually have some wit. Most people who think they do don't, and walls of text filled with weak jokes simply aren't worth reading.

As for what I want from a review : tell me what kind of wad is this, how it plays (as for looks, I shouldn't need you to tell me that in words, this is what screenshots are for), if there is any errors/compatibility issues with the intended engine/bugs, what kind of doomer would you recommend it to. Not interested in knowing what you ate today, even in a "witty" way - that's blog material. A full walkthrough isn't what I'm looking for either.

Alternatively, just look up any good video game review site. Obviously I don't expect quality on par with what professional writers do for a living, but it's a good example of what works.

Yet another option is to just accept different people have different tastes and you'll never please everyone with a given piece of writing. If your goal is to annoy as few people as possible, brevity is of the essence, and being objective doesn't hurt.

Share this post


Link to post

A couple of sentences would be a good minimum, but I wouldn't mind a short paragraph (maybe even two or three) for each review. More interesting releases deserve more space, of course, so long as the space is used to good effect and helps a player decide whether to check the wad out or not.

I like a bit of wit and wordplay now and then, but for the most part I prefer straightforward reviews without any retarded acting or silly gimmicks. I've got nothing at all against St. Alfonso or Major Rawne, for example, but personally, I can't stand their review styles.

Not that I want to be sergeant buzz-kill here or anything. If people have fun writing their reviews, then I think they should do so in whatever manner they please. I'd just prefer less fluff in my /newstuff.

Share this post


Link to post

I kind of wish Megadoomer still contributed to /newstuff. His reviews may have been a bit plain, but they were easy to understand. Liam's reviews have been quite nice as well.

That's not to say that a bit of color doesn't add to /newstuff, but it has been a bit over-the-top of late. Sometimes there may be some overreacting, but bitching about reviews seems to be a long-standing doomworld tradition. I've noticed it ever since I first started venturing on to this site.

Share this post


Link to post

Write dem revioos jooself if yo don't like 'em, esse.

Share this post


Link to post
Megamur said:

It seems like every time a /newstuff Chronicles is released, it's beset by people talking less about the actual WADs and more about how much the reviews suck. While I'm not a hardcore, long-time /newstuff Chronicles reviewer, I have contributed in the past, and hope to do so in the future, but...it kind of feels pointless if people are just going to complain about the articles and not even bother to read them.

So, I'd just like to know, what exactly does everyone want from the /newstuff reviews, anyway? Do you want long reviews? Short reviews? Lots of pictures, or few of them? Serious articles, or goofy, funny ones? Or something else entirely?

Help me to help you get the reviews you want to read. :)


dohoho you should have seen what it was like when Deathz0r was handling the reviews. KDiZD anyone?

Share this post


Link to post

I just wonder if it's possible to achieve any kind of consensus as to how the reviews should be handled, or if everyone just wants something different.

Share this post


Link to post

You people in such a big hurry you don't like to read? Slow down and relax! Jeez. Skim through, look at acouple screenies, and you'll know if you wanna play it or not.

I don't see where any of it needs changed. Complaints included. I've even learned a new word (the F word) and I like it. :D

Maes said:

Write dem revioos jooself if yo don't like 'em, esse.

Share this post


Link to post

Seems people take things to heart a lot more easily these days on the internet.

I want the review that the .WAD merits. If it's crap, I want to know that, if it's good likewise. Most of all though, I'd like the reviews to be indicative of what you're getting, without being a full-on walk through. A review should basically be a retrospective look over a work which passes judgement (i.e. gives an opinion) on quality. The key quality I'm after in a Doom .WAD is how enjoyable it is, followed by if it looks nice. Quantity is important to be aware of, and the reviews ideally should scale to that. If you've got a megawad - even a crap one - it deserves a bit more writing time than a single map release does (even if that single map is Deus Vult sized) because there is more there to look at, and more to pass opinion on.

Basically:
-What is it? (Screenshots, the standard information, a brief description)
-Did you, the reviewer, enjoy it? (A conclusion or a covering note at the start would suffice)
-Qualify that opinion. (Go into things a bit, give me some high/lowlights and points of interest)

I don't care about style - a short and to the point review is just as nice as a st.alfonzo style essay if it conveys all of the necessary information, and may actually be better if being concise gets the point across more clearly. Like I've said in the comments section for the latest /tnc, a quick paragraph on a one or two map .WAD would be plenty, and a megawad could devolve into a simple bullet point for each map, with a covering paragraph or two. If I were writing the reviews, thats how I'd do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Craigs said:

dohoho you should have seen what it was like when Deathz0r was handling the reviews. KDiZD anyone?

Got link? Seriously, I've even tried googling for that Newstuff edition. :P

Share this post


Link to post
bgraybr said:

The only things I don't like are map-by-map reviews.


This. I want a review that just states the opinion of the mod as a whole. I would rather hear "there are a few good levels, and some bad ones" than hearing details about each individual map.

Share this post


Link to post

The old review style was more subjective and funny.

I only read st.alfonzo's reviews.

Share this post


Link to post
DuckReconMajor said:

what is it?
would most doom players like it?
why?

There you go, 3 sentences, 5 screenshots.


That sounds about right. Half of the wads that are on the newstuffs are short single player maps or other gimmicky stuff that is easily forgettable. They don't merit a 9 paragraph essay no matter how good of a writer you think you are.

The only times I can really truly appreciate a long review is for things that are either really really REALLY good, or things that were highly anticipated to be really good but turned out to be really really REALLY bad.

What I'm seeing is mostly a bunch of either good, decent, average, or mildly below average type stuff so in these cases exactly what DuckReconMajor suggested is exactly what should be applied.

Share this post


Link to post

Reviews should be concise and informative. They should convey both the reviewer's assessment of the wad and enough objective information for the reader to determine whether the wad might appeal (even in cases where the reviewer openly hates the wad).

The main thing to remember is that the most important person in a review is the reader. It's not to show how clever or witty the reviewer is, or to insult the author or stroke his ego.

The length of a review should bear some relation to the merits of the wad. If it really truly is not at all worth playing, the review should be short.

I wrote more on this subject in these posts:
http://www.doomworld.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=166347#post166347
http://www.doomworld.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=381422#post381422
http://www.doomworld.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=198011#post198011
http://www.doomworld.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=295856#post295856

Share this post


Link to post

I always liked the reviews at Doom Underground:
http://games.moria.org.uk/doom/du/wads.html

They have a mix of styles, but generally tend to be informative, and give relatively fair/impartial reviews. I don't always agree with them, but always valued their input.

They tended to break down episodes or megawads into separate mini-reviews, for each distinct section (or even individual map), and enough screenshots to get a good view of the set. Single-map PWADs usually only got one or two screenshots, unless there was some special need to display more.

Of course everyone should have their own style, otherwise it would get boring quick. So yeah, keep the colorful prose, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

I like the review system, funny antics and all, but something i read from the newest chronicles annoyed me. From the review for Camp or Underground:

"So, isn't a bad level at all, but isn't a masterpiece like KDiZD or Megaman DM..."

I'm fine with opinions as much as the next level headed individual, but i see this as a bad form of reviewing. I don't think newstuff should have comparisons for a wad that isn't even similiar.

Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
bgraybr said:

The only things I don't like are map-by-map reviews.

Mostly this. Reviews aren't walkthroughs, and shouldn't be treated as such.

For the most part, things go fine as long as the review isn't bloated, uninformed, or the reviewer has an agenda (a super-rare case anyway). Grazza's thoughts are most certainly worth a read, though.

Share this post


Link to post

My two cents worth...

Walls of text tend to make my eyes glaze over so I tend to skim through the more verbose reviews. Walkthrough type reviews are too informative and probably belong in the "Wads & Mods" forum to assist players who are stuck. Humour and/or sarcasm - if used in moderation - can help make a review easier to read. I don't know what the happy medium is for the number of screenshots - but - keep the gamma level down unless there's something in particular you want the reader to see, avoid thumbnail/poster sizes images and (pretty please) no 48bit or uncompressed PNG images.

Share this post


Link to post

"Your Doomworld Review Preferences?"

I like reviews that are approximately the length of Laim's single review this go-around (#388). I like them to be a simple summary of the authors observations while playing the .wad

I also like witty prose liken to the type St.Alfonzo can write, while again weaving in his own observations about the .wad

Simply put I like hearing about the persons observations in a short and/or entertaining form. To me it is like advertising, what one notices is what is worth paying attention to... no?

What I don't like are lengthy reviews that read as if they are having a conversation with an individual.

Where I believe a problem lies is with many reviewers failing to grasp the intended audience, here are a few ideas I came up to address this issue.

First off, as a review, the writing could be written in a style that addresses to more one person, being that the end product is being read by the general public. Rather than talking to some one over msn, reviews should be informal and use less first person narration.

Secondly, the reviews could be less personalized by the writer, leaving out their personal opinions on "difficulty" and "aesthetics"; but instead pointing out how wonderfully orchestrated, or intrusively designed battles are. How mashed potatoes compare to the general theme of the .wads looks, or a wonderfully painted vista compares. In short, I believe proper grounding and comparison could be useful. How this relates to audience is that they are again writing for more than one person and personal taste has nothing to do with the matter, grounded comparisons need to be made to have a more impacting review.

In addition, reviews could follow some sort of guideline on how to write an article with pictures. Pictures are better off illustrating the overall point of the review, not supplying ammo for the writers personal opinions on the .wad.

Finally, I think a review is a comparison of something on whether its good or bad. To compare something, first one needs other things to compare to, and I don't think that this should be limited to only doom wads... be creative, use mashed potatoes or Beethoven. I suggest this because that can speak more about what something is like if its univerally accepted to be good or bad. (chocolate + doom = chocolate doom... this is a good thing right?)

With these suggestions, hopefully i'm not stepping on any nerves here. :)

Share this post


Link to post

So much TL;DR and weirdness (WTF is that MajorRawne dude on about?!) that it is mildly entertaining. Kind of like a car crash. lol

Share this post


Link to post

Short reviews. No map-by-map breakdown unless you can make them very short (a sentence or two each, and no Proust-like run-on sentences) and there's less than five maps total.

This is especially important for collaborative projects with a lot of maps of varying qualities, don't give a detailed review of each even if the individual map authors might like. Single out a couple you liked and why, a couple you disliked and why, and sum up the whole.

No roleplaying. I guess it's okay if you only go as far as a quirky writing style like st.alfonzo's purple prose; but don't go around pretending to be a Jedi writing a report for the Galactic Republic or a Drow scout from Menzoguronsan or whatever. In particular, don't fill up your review with fictional slang, especially if it's a single word that comes up twice in every sentence.

Don't be clinical as it's boring; but don't go to review something with a chip on your shoulder. Don't review something just to bash it if you know in advance you'll hate it. For example, I personally don't care about weapon mods and never play them, so I'm not going to review one just to say it sucks and the modder should instead have catered to my tastes.

Okay, that's getting TL;DR so I'll stop here. Don't make a review longer than this post.

Share this post


Link to post

I have no major problems with the reviews. Sure, some are good, some are bad and the rest are somewhere in the middle. I personally like a fairly succinct review that tells me enough about the WAD to find out if I will enjoy it or to compare my opinion of the WAD to.

What I do have a problem with is the fact that the newstuff thread is rarely about the WADs and mostly about the perceived quality of the reviews (and the subsequent arguments that result from those comments). That seems a bit circular and self perpetuating. I've got to the point where I no longer read the thread because it contains little to do with what I'm actually interested in - ie what people think of the WADs.

How about there being a permanent/sticky thread in the forum general area for review critiques and discussion in the newstuff thread be restricted to discussion of the WADs?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×