Review Policies

[dmakatra]

Recently I've noticed a change in the policies on how to write a review. This has been going on for a while now, but it hasn't really caught my attention up until recently due to me being inactive. I'm not talking about a lack in quality here, the reviews are very professionally written. I'm just saying that while looking in the change of how the reviews are written today, the entire mission depot staff seems to have missunderstood the meaning of the word 'review'.

A review is an evaluation of a publication, such as a movie, video game, musical composition, or book or a piece of hardware like a car, appliance, or computer. - Wikipedia

This is not how reviews look today. Instead we see something more of a battle report or a war story. If I'm going to download a mission and play it, I'd very much like a review. But I want a review that says if the mission is anything for me. I do not want to read about a run-down in how the mission reviewer played the mission. It's not a story, it's a review - an evaluation. It's like reviewing a film and just going through the plot in five minutes and that's it. No, analyze the mission instead. Tell us if it's good or bad, if it'll suit the tactician or the rambonist. If it's worth spending time on.

If I download a mission nowadays, all I do is read the special and summary headers. The others are completely uninteresting for everybody except the reviewer and the author. At least that's how I see it. And that's another one of my points, the length of the reviews. The point with reviews are to explain if this mission is worth my time, and if the review almost takes longer time to read than to actually play the mission, what's the point in having a review in the first place?

The bottom line now then. What I want is for the mission depot staff to go through their policies internally. Basically cut the war stories and make the special/summary-headers the review itself. And the reviewer doesn't have to write half an essay, two paragraphs will do just fine if you ask me.

Don't get me wrong now, I'm not yelling at the people involved. They put down their time and effort into making these reviews, which are written very professionally. I admire the dedication put into this, all for free. We've all been fed by the macguba-propaganda of By The Community, For The Community and I really appriciate the work you guys do for the community. I'm just saying that your policy on what a review should look like is way wrong. I'd very much like to hear other OFPEC members and of course the staffers viewpoint on this.

/Armsty

(Bloody hell, I've been active lately haven't I? )

[rhysduk]

Armsty,

In a way I totally agree with you. I myself try to take the approach that you mentioned above, and avoid giving a "battle report". Although this is not always the case with new reviewers that are being brought onboard within the Missions Depot. In this case, we MDepot staff try our best to steer new reviewers in the right direction towards how they structure their reviews.

If you are reffering to the Missions Depot : Reviewed Missions reviews, then those are some of the oldest reviews that OFPEC has in its databases. hence some of the newer staff, had no control over how they are written. Rest asured, that new reviews that will be written, will be more of the evaluation type the you mentioned.

You seem to be questioning the length of such reviews, personally i like to keep the lenght of the review long enough for the reader to gain a good undersstanding of what the mission is about (whilst not trying to give a battle report) by short enough to make it readable and not get boring towards the end.

Me and Mikero, are working closely together to help bring the Missions Depot a new lease of life in the terms of how reviews are written. I hope you will be satisfied in future reviews.

PS: Keep up the good work in the OMBT! You and the other's are doing a fine job  :thumbsup:

Rhys

[dmakatra]

Hey rhys,

While I appreciate that you are looking into this, I can't see how you can say that the new reviews are not "battle reports". Every mission reviewed (at least that I could find, it's a bit tricky since they are combined with old reviews) since the re-opening of the Mission Depot have been "battle report". Including "Radio Tower", reviewed by you. I hope you realize that this problem isn't just occuring in a few reviews, reviewed by inexperienced staffers. This way you can correct it before Mission Depot turns into War Story Depot.

As for the length of the review. Well, I disagree, but I don't think there's any point arguing about that as we've both told our thoughts on this.

EDIT: Cheers for the encourangement of the OMBT! I think it's about time I repayed my debt to the community.

[rhysduk]

Armsty,

So know i know that you are refferring to reviews in the newly opened Missions Depot (You're not on about the reviews in the BETA boards are you?)? All of the missions in this are old missions that OFPEC had before the crash. The reviews have been pulled from the old database. With the exception of the two newly reviewed missions, The Forest and Volatile Border. These two missions could be considered as new reviews.
This in mind, we are trying to get all reviews that will be published in the mentioned board, non "battle report" like.

The BETA board: The reviews in this, as far as im aware, need to be battle reports. This is so the author can improve the mission. And fix any bugs that may occur 

I doubt very much that the MDepot will turn into anything apart from what it is. While I and all the other staff im sure, appreciate your views on this, we do have this covered and are taking actions towards it Its just taking some time thats all.

As for the length of the review. Well, I disagree, but I don't think there's any point arguing about that as we've both told our thoughts on this.

Of course, theres no point in arguing about anything, we both want whats best for OFPEC.

Rhys :wave:

EDIT: Just noticed that my Radio Tower review does seem a bit like a battle report, ill be sure to avoid that next time Although I do try to avoid battle reports in my reviews, obviously forgot on that one

[Artak]

a run-down in how the mission reviewer played the mission.

Agreed.
It's not the reviewers intention to tell how he played the mission, where he ducked and fired at a Russian patrol, when he found that secret weapons crate or when he made the 3km journey with broken legs 1 meter at a time watching out those patrols on left and right and without any ammo except 2 hand grenades which one of them he used to oh so nicely blow up a chatting team of 3 Russian tank crew members and so he could steal that bmp and how that acted out for him was a completely other story which he then goes through.

the length of the reviews.

Agreed.
At some point it was found as a certain proof of quality and thoroughness that the review was long. With cutting down these "then I jumped into the bush and.." stories many reviews will cut in half. However, some missions are just so full of stuff that it's almost impossible to write a short to-the-point review - you feel like you're leaving out some important things that affect to the score. All in all I think that the reviews could be shorter though.
No point in writing long reviews if they scare away the ones who should be reading them. It'll save some time for the reviewer too and maybe help him write more relaxed reviews. 

[Mikero]

Your opinion is noted dmakatra and we are grateful to have it.  All feedback is good feedback. Rhysduk has spelt it out clearly in his first reply to this post.

What you call battle reports, we call walk-thrus. It is not our intention to do that despite evidence to the contrary. So fear not. By and large, your comments are, as we see it too.

However, we all have to start somewhere, and I took the decision to publish early, publish often, in order to get this depot up and running, get reviewers reviewing. Hence, blame me, for any shortcomings, I have large shoulders.

As for your comment on who the review is for, understand that there is a balancing act here. We have to satisfy two customers, you, and the author. An achievable mix, but it can slant too far the wrong way.

Thank you for the heads up.

[dmakatra]

Good to see you are working on it. Keep 'em coming.