70 replies to this topic

[Tassadar88]

I completely trust that objective reviews can be written here, as there will probably be staff and player feedback alike, so if something smells like being biased(which is unlikely to begin with)/not precise, it is likely that it will be adjusted. Therefore, I find the objectivity issue void. Furthermore, with reviews for individual mods, things like likely compatibility issues and other such stuff can be easily addressed. On the other hand, I think it could be nice if some of the more experienced people here could write a list of their mods of preference, preferrably with a short description of their playing style, as that would help for orientation for people, who are completely new in the mod scene. My idea was that a mod reviews forum could be set up (if the idea is found plausible) which would include subforums for individual reviewers/ reviews. Any opinions about this? Berelinde, what do you think?

[the bigg]

I completely trust that objective reviews can be written here, as there will probably be staff and player feedback alike, so if something smells like being biased(which is unlikely to begin with)/not precise, it is likely that it will be adjusted. Therefore, I find the objectivity issue void.

I haven't read anything more absurd since I last read a topic at BWL.

[Tassadar88]

I completely trust that objective reviews can be written here, as there will probably be staff and player feedback alike, so if something smells like being biased(which is unlikely to begin with)/not precise, it is likely that it will be adjusted. Therefore, I find the objectivity issue void.

I haven't read anything more absurd since I last read a topic at BWL.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. But Berelinde said that if she should not be able to write an objective review for something, she would rather leave it to someone else. And I, for another, have no bias for/againist any modder, so with the exception of the very few mods I somehow touched with during their creation, I can get as objective as anybody can. And I do believe that the reviewer would be hard pressed by other players, if they found the review to be biased. But let´s just wait for the first draft, won´t we?

[the bigg]

Read again what I quoted. In there. you assume that
- it is possible to have objective reviews. As an example to the contrary, there are people who like Tactics for the challenge, and people who hate it because they aren't interested in challenges. Which side of the review is the objective one? the one that says "too hard", the one that says "balanced" or the one that says "too easy"?
- there are people who are pretentious enough to edit/censor other people's reviews, and, despite their holier-than-thou-ness, are objective in their editing/censoring. The only place where I'm aware of active thought deletion is BWL, and I wouldn't call them balanced in the least (just think of the "IA goes last" issue).

[Kulyok]

I completely trust that objective reviews can be written here, as there will probably be staff and player feedback alike, so if something smells like being biased(which is unlikely to begin with)/not precise, it is likely that it will be adjusted. Therefore, I find the objectivity issue void.

This was funny.

(see bigg's post)

[berelinde]

Read again what I quoted. In there. you assume that
- it is possible to have objective reviews. As an example to the contrary, there are people who like Tactics for the challenge, and people who hate it because they aren't interested in challenges. Which side of the review is the objective one? the one that says "too hard", the one that says "balanced" or the one that says "too easy"?

Neither.

The "unbiased" review states that QXYZ mod enhances the challenge of combat encounters by refining the targeting of creature AI and broadcasting shouts across a wider area, while IABC mod enhances the challenge of combat encounters by doubling the number of opponents, adding additional enemy spellcasters, disabling PC spellcasting ability during combat, and introducing 20 HD creatures that can only be hit by highly enchanted weapons of a particular type. It is truthful, it is factual (even if these particular facts were invented just to prove a point), and while it might not actually say what said enhancements do to the challenge of the encounter, it is unaffected by player perception. Rather than "easy" or "hard," the question is "what gets changed." Likely far more useful than subjective challenge assessment, even if it does take a minute or two of thought.

- there are people who are pretentious enough to edit/censor other people's reviews, and, despite their holier-than-thou-ness, are objective in their editing/censoring. The only place where I'm aware of active thought deletion is BWL, and I wouldn't call them balanced in the least (just think of the "IA goes last" issue).

Sorry, the bigg, I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that reviewers would edit/censor each others' reviews without their knowledge, or are you saying that the moderator would do that, for watever reason? Or are you saying that a severely edited version of the review could appear elsewhere?

And yes, I know all about that one, but I'm having a hard time connecting the dots. Maybe you could provide a hypothetical example?

[Kulyok]

The "unbiased" review states that QXYZ mod enhances the challenge of combat encounters by refining the targeting of creature AI and broadcasting shouts across a wider area, while IABC mod enhances the challenge of combat encounters by doubling the number of opponents, adding additional enemy spellcasters, disabling PC spellcasting ability during combat, and introducing 20 HD creatures that can only be hit by highly enchanted weapons of a particular type. It is truthful, it is factual (even if these particular facts were invented just to prove a point), and while it might not actually say what said enhancements do to the challenge of the encounter, it is unaffected by player perception. Rather than "easy" or "hard," the question is "what gets changed." Likely far more useful than subjective challenge assessment, even if it does take a minute or two of thought.

Look at Tactics' full documentation and tell me what _else_ needs to be added.

Are you saying that reviewers would edit/censor each others' reviews without their knowledge, or are you saying that the moderator would do that, for watever reason?

I think it is more likely that the original author of the post said that - at least, it reads literally like this.

[Tassadar88]

Say you could test the usefullness/objectivity of the review with a poll - you find this review useful/precise/... whatever you like... now if the reviews got rated, either it would prove that they were inaccurate/biased/otherwise imperfect, or people should be more or less content if they were ok, no? And for my idea of obectivity, see the above post by Berelinde.

[Tassadar88]

Look at Tactics' full documentation and tell me what _else_ needs to be added.

Actually, far from all mods are documented this way.

[berelinde]

The "unbiased" review states that QXYZ mod enhances the challenge of combat encounters by refining the targeting of creature AI and broadcasting shouts across a wider area, while IABC mod enhances the challenge of combat encounters by doubling the number of opponents, adding additional enemy spellcasters, disabling PC spellcasting ability during combat, and introducing 20 HD creatures that can only be hit by highly enchanted weapons of a particular type. It is truthful, it is factual (even if these particular facts were invented just to prove a point), and while it might not actually say what said enhancements do to the challenge of the encounter, it is unaffected by player perception. Rather than "easy" or "hard," the question is "what gets changed." Likely far more useful than subjective challenge assessment, even if it does take a minute or two of thought.

Look at Tactics' full documentation and tell me what _else_ needs to be added.

No idea. I was making that up as I went along. I'd check the docs, play the mod, *and* check the code before committing myself to that statement.

Are you saying that reviewers would edit/censor each others' reviews without their knowledge, or are you saying that the moderator would do that, for watever reason?

I think it is more likely that the original author of the post said that - at least, it reads literally like this.

Sorry, not quite following you, either. Maybe if I just forget about it, it will all make more sense when I come back to it. My reading comprehension skills are sadly lacking, so sometimes, I have to turn the words in a sentence around a few times to get them to line up in a way that will fit into my brain. It's a familiar enough occurence that I just sit back and wait for the fit of denseness to pass. It usually does, sooner or later.

[Kulyok]

Well, if you prefer to write documentation for the mods where the author hasn't bothered to create it in the first place...

Editing somebody's posts aside, yes, the idea might have merit and auditory. But is it interesting? Sigh. I guess I'll just go and write another romantic encounter, or another quest or whatever. You're welcome to review it.

[the bigg]

Sorry, not quite following you, either. Maybe if I just forget about it, it will all make more sense when I come back to it. My reading comprehension skills are sadly lacking, so sometimes, I have to turn the words in a sentence around a few times to get them to line up in a way that will fit into my brain. It's a familiar enough occurence that I just sit back and wait for the fit of denseness to pass. It usually does, sooner or later.

I was replying to something that Tassadar said.

I completely trust that objective reviews can be written here, as there will probably be staff and player feedback alike, so if something smells like being biased(which is unlikely to begin with)/not precise, it is likely that it will be adjusted. Therefore, I find the objectivity issue void.

[you assume that] there are people who are pretentious enough to edit/censor other people's reviews, and, despite their holier-than-thou-ness, are objective in their editing/censoring. The only place where I'm aware of active thought deletion is BWL, and I wouldn't call them balanced in the least (just think of the "IA goes last" issue).

[Kulyok]

Sorry, not quite following you, either.

"if something smells like being biased(which is unlikely to begin with)/not precise, it is likely it will be adjusted" => "somebody will edit your review, if they(who? staff?) find it biased"

[Tassadar88]

Sorry, not quite following you, either.

"if something smells like being biased(which is unlikely to begin with)/not precise, it is likely it will be adjusted" => "somebody will edit your review, if they(who? staff?) find it biased"

Oh my, sorry - I got it wrong trying to explain - I thought about the people notifying the author to change it. I imagine that if the author is aware that his review is generally perceived as not objective, he might change it hmself. Or at least that is what I would do. And I think that if it were a forum with a poll, it would make it that much clearer to the author, whether he is being objective or not. Another way would be to have a forum, where the reviewer would write first, and other people could continue the thread. Not censoring and editing the review with the author knowing nothing, that for sure! Thanks for the clarification!

[berelinde]

Sorry, not quite following you, either.

"if something smells like being biased(which is unlikely to begin with)/not precise, it is likely it will be adjusted" => "somebody will edit your review, if they(who? staff?) find it biased"

*That* I understand. Sorry. Just having a dense moment.

No one is going to be editing anyone else's review, thanks. In my perfect world, all reviews would be followed by a discussion, much like this one, where any perceived bias or lack in precision could be explored to everyone's contentment.

[the bigg]

I thought about the people notifying the author to change it. I imagine that if the author is aware that his review is generally perceived as not objective, he might change it hmself.

Again, I doubt that'd work - if somebody posts a review that is perceived enough unobjective as to have people lament about that, chances are that he's willingly being unobjective and thus won't cooperate. Even if he has no ill intent, it would simply mean that he has a peculiar opinion of the mod, and thus gives a review that isn't viewed as objective. The forum idea is good, though.
And I don't want to be nitpicky, but "this mod adds 50HP and some spells to a creature" isn't an objective review, it's a description

I still feel that a Web 2.0 style database (trying to identify people with similar tastes than yours and give votes based on a neighborhood-style weighting of opinions) would be much more effective at helping people choose mods.

Edited by the bigg, 15 June 2007 - 10:43 AM.

[the bigg]

Being a mod author does not make a person objective.

Not necessarily, but by playing your mods and reading your posts, I know that when it comes to modding I can trust you with one of my nuts - something I wouldn't do with an unknown newbie or people I know and respect less.

Obviously, it might be that I'm just a fanboy of you - but then, 50% of the community is

Spoiler

Domi, you might now consider yourself the proud owner of one of the three parts of the holy Bigg-making rod.

Edited by the bigg, 15 June 2007 - 11:22 AM.

[Rabain]

I think I read somewhere that someone had played that

Spoiler

Bigg-making rod

mod and found it sadly lacking.

They where possibly being a little more subjunctive than objective though.

[the bigg]

Yes, the areas involved are too small, and the gameplay is boring and quick