[Maggie]

I've been noticing a trend recently, and I'm wondering if it's just me or if things are changing.  The reviews are starting to look like forums; is it normal to respond to other reviews when you write your own?  

I was also under the impression that you could only review a game you had actually tried, and it's pretty obvious from at least one that it's only an attempt to discredit the game rather than an actual review of what it's like.  I see nothing wrong with writing an unflattering review about a game you play, but I'd hate to see this turn into a McDonalds/Burger King type advertisement campaign with nothing but insults about each other.

I don't expect people to really care about what I want, but I'd still like to ask:  please stick to writing about your experiences in your game and forget about what others have written, and try to show what's good about your own instead of just trying to make someone else's look bad.

[Seraphina]

I agree with you Maggie. I think reviews that respond to other reviews should be pulled. Perhaps a moderator could "review" the reviews to ensure that they aren't turning into threads?

This could also apply to reviews both for and against a mud that offer no actual information other than "I love/hate this mud so try/don't try it out".

When prospective players read reviews of a mud it is useless unless the person indicates what about their personal experience of it was good or bad. The reviews as a tool will become useless if too many of them aren't actually reviews.

[the_logos]

I also agree with you, and have no plans to allow reviews of our MUDs unless/until the review system gains some credibility.

--matt

[Jazuela]

In defense of Bardon..

First Maggie, I'm only guessing Bardon's "review" in the GS review section is what prompted your post in this thread. If I'm wrong, that's okay - since it still applies to his comments.

Now to the defense thingie.

Bardon is the CEO of Simutronics, Inc. He's not a contributing member of this forum, however for whatever reason, he read the review.

Being someone ignorant of the "ways" of things on this website, I think perhaps it might be easier to just cut the guy some slack this time around, and perhaps send him an e-mail (it's on his review) to let him know that in the future, the "boards" section would be a more appropriate place to comment on reviews.

I was highly tempted to do pretty much what Bardon did (his name is David Whatley, by the way), and the *only* reason I didn't, is because I've been a member of this forum long enough to know better.

Now this next thing isn't in his defense, but just an added comment.

The previous review that he wrote about was extremely slanted and totally misrepresented facts. It was done in such a way that readers who might otherwise consider playing, might not.

I don't play GemStoneIII anymore, though I did for several years and have met David and many of his staff members. Everything David said was 100% true, and further, it was in defense of intentional misrepresentations in a previous review.

At the present time, the Mudconnector staff does not check each negative review to make sure it's truthful (though they reserve the right to do so). At the present time, there exists no way for a person woh is *only* interested in reading reviews, to read rebuttals to those reviews, or clarifications of them.

I would suggest that such a thing be implemented..in the review section.

Maybe..in the page with the list of reviews for MyMUD, there'd be a link to a Discussion about MyMUD reviews.

This way, there'd be less clutter here on the boards from people griping about reviews that aren't really reviews. but there'd also be a way for people who WANT to see reviews about reviews..or people who feel the need to write reviews about reviews, to do so.

[the_logos]

But isn't that the point of giving something a negative review? I make most of my game-buying decisions based on reviews, and any negative review by my favorite reviewers on IGN or in EGM guarantees I won't buy the game. If reviews are meant to just be advertisements, they're pretty useless.

(Note that I don't have a problem with the original review, or with Bardon's response to it. The review system is crap to begin with, and his response contained a lot more useful info than many of the reviews written in what apparently passes for English in the minds of the reviewers.)
--matt

[Maggie]

I hadn't really been talking about the Gemstone III reviews, I was referring to all the cutting and pasting in the DragonRealms reviews - and the last one posted there.

The person who wrote the final review was obviously not a player since he (or she) had been pretty adamant about never playing a p2p game.  I know that most of the players there are fairly new here, and I just wanted to make sure they were aware that there is a difference between writing a review and posting on the boards.

As a former player and staff member of one of the Simutronics games, I am aware of who David is;  I had no desire to put down him or the overzealous players, just to give a heads up.

[Jazuela]

Ah okay Maggie. Like I said, I wasn't really sure, but the point that Bardon's comments weren't an actual review, but instead an informational correction of someone else's review still applied to your concern.

(edited to add: Also keep in mind that many people who write reviews don't read these forums at all. They post the reviews because their buddies tell them to, or because it's the first thing they see when their vote takes them to this website. Telling them here about the ettiquette involved in review writing is likely to be completely overlooked.)

Logos, if you don't buy a game based on a negative review, and later on that reviewer is "outted" as a disgruntled player who *intentionally misled you* then doesn't that make you rather gullible?

Personally, I'd rather see these clarifications and corrections, but I'd *also* like for reviews to be checked for accuracy before they're "sent" onto the review list.

Forgive me for using a real-world correlation here, but an editor of a reputable newspaper will always check, or have his people check, the accuracy of anything that gets written in his publication. Papers that don't do that are those nasty weeklies like National Enquirer and Weekly World Globe that are for pure entertainment value and taken seriously only by the easily deluded.

[CSmith_Fan]

[Lovelorn]

[Realedazed]

I don't post that much on the boards. But I have a suggestion. When a person sumbits a review, it is sent to in to be looked over, rather than instantly posted.

There should be a volunteer group of unbias or pretty close to neutral people to look over the reviews to make sure there are actual reviews with meat to them, just not the usual "I've played for 8 years and I LOVE this game. Come check it out" type of reveiw.

I really think those short and reviews just take up space that could be used for anything else. They have no type of substance to them, whatsoever.

Also, to the_logos, (I think thats the name) I was wondering why Achea (and Threshold) didn't have any reviews. I was looking forward to reading a few. I asked that question on the boards a while ago and absolutely no one answered.

[Ike]

I agree with Realedazed, and have already suggested this before.

The response then was that this method would need several hard working volunteers who would be willing to give up some of their time for free.

Then it was kinda dropped, I think everyone started arguing about Achaea then... then they started on this stupid $ stuff...