Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Kallekins · 01-19-2004, 02:59 PM

I do enjoy reading reviews sometimes, and have in the past tried out muds on the basis of reviews. Obviously biased reviews often give more information about what actually playing the game is like than the website or info sheet, even if it is a flame. For example, a review that reads something like, "The imms forced me to change my char's name and wouldn't let me roleplay it the way I wanted," is a negative comment from the reviewer, but a player who enjoys RP-mandatory would see it in a positive light. You can even read reviews with no real content just to estimate the maturity level of the players.
I expect that there are other players like me who read reviews and go to the muds accordingly, so I don't think you could say that there is zero benefit to allowing reviews.
Owners decide to allow or not allow reviews based on the net benefit. If they don't allow reviews, then it makes me surmise that they don't expect enough well-written balanced reviews to counteract the poorly-written or obviously biased reviews, and that would indicate a generally immature playerbase. But that's just my opinion.
The main problem with the lack of balanced reviews is that if a player has spent enough time on a mud to be able to review it in depth, he must really like the game. I've written one review for the mud I play regularly, and tried to make it balanced, and have thought about reviewing muds I tried and only played for a day or a week, but then didn't think it would be fair to review based only on a newbie's perspective. Nobody is going to spend enough time playing a game that they don't really enjoy to write a fair review of it unless they are getting paid to do so.
But I still like the reviews and think they should stay.

01-19-2004, 02:59 PM	#30
Kallekins Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 48	I do enjoy reading reviews sometimes, and have in the past tried out muds on the basis of reviews. Obviously biased reviews often give more information about what actually playing the game is like than the website or info sheet, even if it is a flame. For example, a review that reads something like, "The imms forced me to change my char's name and wouldn't let me roleplay it the way I wanted," is a negative comment from the reviewer, but a player who enjoys RP-mandatory would see it in a positive light. You can even read reviews with no real content just to estimate the maturity level of the players. I expect that there are other players like me who read reviews and go to the muds accordingly, so I don't think you could say that there is zero benefit to allowing reviews. Owners decide to allow or not allow reviews based on the net benefit. If they don't allow reviews, then it makes me surmise that they don't expect enough well-written balanced reviews to counteract the poorly-written or obviously biased reviews, and that would indicate a generally immature playerbase. But that's just my opinion. The main problem with the lack of balanced reviews is that if a player has spent enough time on a mud to be able to review it in depth, he must really like the game. I've written one review for the mud I play regularly, and tried to make it balanced, and have thought about reviewing muds I tried and only played for a day or a week, but then didn't think it would be fair to review based only on a newbie's perspective. Nobody is going to spend enough time playing a game that they don't really enjoy to write a fair review of it unless they are getting paid to do so. But I still like the reviews and think they should stay.