70 replies to this topic

[Kulyok]

And that is why I would like to see more objective reviews of mods, one that gives general information, pros, and cons, preferably in a standard format, with open discussion to follow. It is difficult to be completely objective about something that is, by definition, subjective, but I think a quality review would be another weapon in the arsenal of Sue elimination. Point the modder or player in the right direction and let him decide for himself.

If Jo Rowling(whose books I enjoy greatly, and whose opinion I rather value) says that Cunningham is a great writer and/or Greenwood's Elminster first novel is an admirable example of characterization and overcoming realistic obstacles, I don't think I'll change my opinion all of a sudden - I'll still think that "Elves of Evermeet" is worse than Athans' official BG series.

So, I don't think that brainwashing of players with a few well-placed threads of rave reviews is really going to sway opinions, either.

Was it really necessary to dig up this topic again...?

Yes, it's so much more horrible than paladins with lightsabers.


Again, I do not think that Mary Sue is a bad thing in itself, if the execution is entertaining. Imoen is loved by many BG players; I read Max Frei's books deep into the night, and I do adore the guy; countless other examples, including the generic BG protagonist, who is loved by all eligible ladies and is doomed to win every fight.

But "My character is not a Mary Sue, because I (or those very respectable people) said so!" only raises awareness to the fact, I'm afraid.

[berelinde]

And that is why I would like to see more objective reviews of mods, one that gives general information, pros, and cons, preferably in a standard format, with open discussion to follow. It is difficult to be completely objective about something that is, by definition, subjective, but I think a quality review would be another weapon in the arsenal of Sue elimination. Point the modder or player in the right direction and let him decide for himself.

If Jo Rowling(whose books I enjoy greatly, and whose opinion I rather value) says that Cunningham is a great writer and/or Greenwood's Elminster first novel is an admirable example of characterization and overcoming realistic obstacles, I don't think I'll change my opinion all of a sudden - I'll still think that "Elves of Evermeet" is worse than Athans' official BG series.

So, I don't think that brainwashing of players with a few well-placed threads of rave reviews is really going to sway opinions, either.

You said "brainwashing the players with... rave reviews," I didn't. The phrase I used was "objective reviews... that gives general infomation, pros and cons." My own hideous grammar mistake aside (no agreement between the subject and the verb), I want to see a review that frankly and openly discusses the good and bad parts of a mod from a more neutral perspective, one that gives the player some clue what to expect, but one that leaves either glowing praise or scathing criticism up to the player.

Edited by berelinde, 12 June 2007 - 04:34 AM.

[Kulyok]

You won't get an objective review from anyone - that's a part of being a BG2 player, a part of being human. Quoting the old myth, only Odin, the god-scald, is the one and only "objective listener", but sources vary on whether He truly exists.

And if one is looking for "this mod introduces this, this and that" in the most neutral and explicit manner possible, I'd suggest taking a look at the mod's readme.

[berelinde]

There are some mods that I could never review objectively, true, so I'd leave them to someone else.

And there are always those that don't read reviews, which is fine, too. But for those that want them, they should be available.

And the discussion afterward might prove a benefit as well. But this might be a job for "show, don't tell." I'll put together an example later.

[Alatariel]

There are some mods that I could never review objectively, true, so I'd leave them to someone else.

And there are always those that don't read reviews, which is fine, too. But for those that want them, they should be available.

There is also the problem with spoilers. If one is voicing a criticism concerning this or that element of the mod he must justify it with an example. And the example (and the whole argument itself, I guess) is just one big spoiler. Some players may want to check out the reviews before playing the mod, but then most of things won't surprise them as they should. And if the review is spoiler free it can't be objective, because then it is basically just a voiced opinion of a different player. "I have played, it has a romance, quest, etc, it is great!/it sucks!"

[berelinde]

Just wait until you see a sample one, before condemning the idea.

[Alatariel]

Just wait until you see a sample one, before condemning the idea.

I do not condemn it -- actually I do write mod NPC reviews for Polish players. It is just an argument that hasn't been said yet -- I like the idea of reviews. I will just read them *after* playing the mod in question... But I will. And I am sure they will prove helpful to some people. Just everything has 'pros and cons' and it would be a shame if you were to work on something that would be less popular because of the spoiler problem. I wish you good luck with it, however.

[berelinde]

Thanks, but I don't know how much time I, personally, will be spending on the project. I'm trying to get a template set up, and possibly do one of them, but I only actually play for about an hour every other week, so it would take me a very long time to get far enough along in a mod I've never played before to offer an opinion.

I'm hoping that others find the idea good enough to want to participate.

[Kulyok]

I find it more beneficial to slip "I like IWD2 NPCs/Gavin might be interesting for you/I'd try PPG and G3/all my mods rock/ToD and In Candelight might be worth a try" now and then, rather than spend an hour explaining why and how this particular mod sucks. Unless I really want to play an improved version, but then, hey, I'd just check whether the author accepts/reads/ignores suggestions for improvement and contact them.

[Mayro]

To have a review of a mod, as objective as possible, and a place to look for that review would be very beneficial to most players. Imagine someone who has never played a mod and just starts lurking all the communities and see all the amount of mods (finished, not-finished...) and don't know anything from them, but what the readme says, in some cases the readme is not enough because you don't know if that version has bugs, incompatibilities, is a finished version, the romance continues through ToB, ...

It would be great to have the option of reading a review of mod, but not a spoilerish one of course.

[Kulyok]

, in some cases the readme is not enough because you don't know if that version has bugs, incompatibilities, is a finished version, the romance continues through ToB, ...

If the readme doesn't have such vital information("known issues", "compatible?", "ToB content"), to me it seems like a valid reason not to install it in the first place.

[berelinde]

Never thought I'd see a review of reviews.

Anyway, some people like them, some people don't. Those that don't can always avert their gaze.

As a player, I like reading them before an installation. I'm probably going to install the mod, anyway, and play it, but the features highlighted in the review were the kind of thing I like, I'm more likely to start the mod content earlier in the game. For example, if I've just read the review of an NPC that promises additional Shadow Thieves content, and that's the kind of thing I'm looking for, I'm going to go recruit them as soon as possible.

Yeah, I'd get that from a readme, too, but not every mod allows you to preview the readme, and you still have to go to the host site to go look at the readme. Since I've got a several mods each from G3, PPG, and SHS, and one each from TBG, BWL, and RPG, that's a heck of a lot of jumping from website to website, and for most of those, I have to open the individual mod pages to get to the readmes (G3 being the exception - they're all available from the downloads page). Mind you, not all of those mods are NPC mods, but you get the idea.

I could go from page to page to page for a good long time, or I could check a single board with all the info I need right there. I'd be more likely to read the review.

Edited by berelinde, 14 June 2007 - 10:43 AM.

[berelinde]

Now discussing the relative merits of mod reviews.

[Kulyok]

Not that I mind having my "topics started" count raised, but you've started the review spin-off, not me.

[berelinde]

I did, but the first part of my post was about the usefulness of Sue illustrations, and that clearly belongs with the other thread. Only the last bit starts talking about reviews. Yours was the first post that was entirely about mod reviews and had nothing to do with Sues. So, it was either strand a post completely out of context, or send one to another thread that had at least a complete quote from the post referenced in the title.

But getting back to mod reviews, so this doesn't split the topic again, I'm going to see if I can put together a template this evening. Although I might have another project on the agenda...

[berelinde]

Yeah, actually, that is a very thoughtful, constructive idea. I appreciate that.

I've still got to think about what it's all going to contain, but I can see the usefulness of what you suggest. For example, I like Ironworks reviews, as a rule, but I do disagree about a few significant points. It's probably a playing style thing. I also realize that I couldn't possibly review any tactics-enhancing mod personally, just because I'm hopelessly lame. I'd be the one writing that "The AI enhancements of Sim DingO's Quest Pack make the game *too hard*! Wah!" Well, maybe not quite that bad, but not far from it.

[the bigg]

Unless we somehow get modding gods like Ding0, Domi, Kulyok or CamDawg to write the reviews, we'll just end up with lots of fluff by newbie Kool-Aid drinkers anyway.

Ideally, we should come up with a neighborhood voting system (think StumbleUpon) where you pick from mod types (NPCs, small quests, big quests, tactical enhancements, etc.) and other parameters (maturity rating, quality of writing, difficulty, max acceptable bugginess), vote on various mods, and then the system tries to match mods from people who have similar tastes as yours. Rome wasn't built coded in a day, though.

[berelinde]

Yeah, true. If only we didn't have to work or sleep...