My awesome critique of this guide. Spell Aweosme right. 
131430 Starfare: First Contact
178774 Tales of Croatoa: A Rose By Any Other Name ( 2009 MA Best In-Canon Arc ) ( 2009 Player Awards - Best Serious Arc )
Hrmm...
Overall I'd say this is a solid guide, but I'm not sure I'd call it a guide to criticism so much as a guide on "How to be reviewed/give reviews"; as it doesn't deal with audience criticism; which is vital - and can be every bit as difficult to deal with <@_@>
That said, now that I'm in the mood, I'ma go ahead and write a post on exactly that.
Good post other than that minor addendum <^_^>b
A Warrior's Friend: ID 335212 - Help Infernal save Valkyrie from Battle Maiden.
Above Mars Part 1: The Wellington: ID 159769 - Save Mars by destroying a monstrous battleship from the inside!
>.> My DA page, where I attempt to art.
Thank ou for the time to review my guide. Actually that would be a nice addition.
This reminds me of when I was a fine arts major. Just about every class had a time when we'd turn in project X and the whole class would post their stuff up and go through them one by one, tossing out whatever opinion they had, offering advice perhaps, asking questions, and so on.
One of the big differences there was you'd get a good idea how people thought based on how they reacted to your work and as the class went on, you'd be able to start judging how "valid" (I know, I know...) their opinion on your work was. That we don't always get here, unless we've been following people who review like Venture. Pretty much it just helps you to develop a thick skin and to not take it personally.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, a good metric is if the audience didnt get it, you didnt say it right. This is not always true, but good to keep in mind. I once wrote a play about quantum mechanics, the math professors who came with the head of the philosophy department of the local community college on opening night loved it, but everyone else thought it needed work. It didnt, it was for them. I said Thank you for your review. I never explained myself to anyone.
[/ QUOTE ]
Something like that. What you say about "you didn't say it right" has some real validity too. I've gotten some hard criticism on my second arc that did show me I didn't express my ideas clear enough for some other people to understand, so I'm making changes.
Anyways, good post. 
[ QUOTE ]
My awesome critique of this guide. Spell Aweosme right.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the time-honored tradition of catching a grammatical mistake in a post that makes a grammatical correction: put a verb in every sentence by using a colon rather than a full stop and put a word to which you are making reference in italics or single quotes to set it apart from the syntax of the sentence itself.
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My awesome critique of this guide. Spell Aweosme right.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the time-honored tradition of catching a grammatical mistake in a post that makes a grammatical correction: put a verb in every sentence by using a colon rather than a full stop and put a word to which you are making reference in italics or single quotes to set it apart from the syntax of the sentence itself.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair nuff. Thot I was makin a spelling correction, not a grammer correction.
131430 Starfare: First Contact
178774 Tales of Croatoa: A Rose By Any Other Name ( 2009 MA Best In-Canon Arc ) ( 2009 Player Awards - Best Serious Arc )
Cheesus! I hope that was deliberate.
Winner of Players' Choice Best Villainous Arc 2010: Fear and Loathing on Striga; ID #350522
Excellent post. I agree that people should be very careful about asking for a review, especially if they are not willing to take the criticism that comes with it in stride. I realize that most people that ask for one are just hoping for the reviewer to gush all over it and find it to be the most wonderful thing that has ever come out of the MA, so they have a better chance to make it to DC or HoF. When they end up being criticized for a minor or major flaw (in the opinion of the reviewer), they sometimes tend to overreact and start trying to defend themselves by criticizing the critic.
If they would take a step back and think about what the reviewer said, they might just find that they are correct. In that case, it gives them the opportunity to go back and do a little adjusting to fix those flaws so the arc will have a much better chance to get the rewards that they are looking for in the end.
However, there are just 2 minor problems that I found in this very well done post.
[ QUOTE ]
Youre decision whether or not to retract should be made by yourself, not through public debate. Public debate weakens your position with your reader, as invariably you will be drawn into personal conflict.
[/ QUOTE ]
Should be 'Your'.
[ QUOTE ]
Whether they enjoyed it or not, someone has taken the time to publicize your efforts, and at the very least disserves to be thanked for that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Should be 'deserves'.
No AV/EBs Deal with The Devil's Pawn-207266 Slash DeMento and the Stolen Weapons-100045 Meet the Demon Spawn-151099 Feedback
[ QUOTE ]
Cheesus! I hope that was deliberate.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, the irony!
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides
Extra thoughts:
The target audience of a Critical Review should be a potential future audience member. As such a Critical Review should take pains to not spoil the first time experience of said people.
With a system that allows "easy" republishing, a review can wear elements of both hats. Other than complete flubs, a theatre review isn't going to get a play rewritten or even a director to rework the staging. Maybe in a rare occassion that the audience feels something drags, the director may give a "pick up the energy" feedback to their cast. So, in this venue, both things can happen, but stylistically the "for the future audience" part should be where the flame and invective dance merrily; the critique part should be sincere feedback and not be presented as spectator sport.
Wait, I'm Paula Abdul? I think I rate lower on average than Venture does, actually. I just usually have nicer things to say.
I should start reviewing things again, but I got distracted with other things.
You'll be Paula if I say your Paula. Also I'm going to start reviewing. I'm the Dog guy, Randy? Yeah I'm randy. that's right I didn't capitalize.
[ QUOTE ]
You'll be Paula if I say your Paula. Also I'm going to start reviewing. I'm the Dog guy, Randy? Yeah I'm randy. that's right I didn't capitalize.
[/ QUOTE ]
I will fight you.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'll be Paula if I say your Paula. Also I'm going to start reviewing. I'm the Dog guy, Randy? Yeah I'm randy. that's right I didn't capitalize.
[/ QUOTE ]
I will fight you.
[/ QUOTE ]
And you will fail.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'll be Paula if I say your Paula. Also I'm going to start reviewing. I'm the Dog guy, Randy? Yeah I'm randy. that's right I didn't capitalize.
[/ QUOTE ]
I will fight you.
[/ QUOTE ]
And you will fail.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not if I use my superpower... A GUN!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'll be Paula if I say your Paula. Also I'm going to start reviewing. I'm the Dog guy, Randy? Yeah I'm randy. that's right I didn't capitalize.
[/ QUOTE ]
I will fight you.
[/ QUOTE ]
And you will fail.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not if I use my superpower... A GUN!
[/ QUOTE ]
Bullets! My one true weakness!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'll be Paula if I say your Paula. Also I'm going to start reviewing. I'm the Dog guy, Randy? Yeah I'm randy. that's right I didn't capitalize.
[/ QUOTE ]
I will fight you.
[/ QUOTE ]
And you will fail.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not if I use my superpower... A GUN!
[/ QUOTE ]
Bullets! My one true weakness!
[/ QUOTE ]
VICTORY IS MINE!
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe in a rare occasion that the audience feels something drags, the director may give a "pick up the energy" feedback to their cast.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's exactly what I got. On my second arc, someone pointed out to me that the second mission was pretty slow because the map was too big. I loved the map for that, but went in and tinkered by switching out maps and found a smaller was much better. The fact that we can go back in an edit, unlike say with a published book, is I think is one of the really strong points of this system.
The system really is an interesting example of new media. That's why I love to watch this board, as the community for this new facet of the game grows and develops.
A Guide to Reading, Writing, and Responding to Criticism.
So, my fellow posters, I have lurked hardly noticed here under three different names for 5 years and now I shall contribute something hopefully both memorable and helpful. I give you my guide. Please enjoy responsibly.
The purpose of this guide
I have read the review threads floating around for the last month or so in an effort to gleam what it is my audience is looking for, and in doing so Ive noticed something. People in this community, as a general rule, arent accustomed to criticism personally affecting them in their daily lives, and being a part of critical review is not as natural as one may think.
I want this guide to explain a little of the theory behind the kinds of criticism, and the most productive ways that the criticized can react to criticism.
My experience in this area is as a playwright. I am trained; I have a bachelors degree in English, with specialization in dramatic literature and a certificate in theatre arts. I also have a BUS certificate in Secondary Education and teach drama and creative writing as a substitute currently. I say this not to brag, but rather to make evident that I have background in the theatre, Ive written and produced eight short plays, and had my work criticized professionally on more than several occasions. I provide this advice as nothing more than advice and information from someone in the field of entertainment (as sideline as theatre has become in this last decade) and as always ymmv.
You may have noticed my grammar is not flawless, among other flaws in style etc. I never said I was good at what I did, only that I had experience in how it was done. I like to think Im good, but Im not pompous enough to believe Im great. You know what they say about those who teach.
Types of Criticism
In terms of theatre there are two main types of criticism that one sees regularly. I believe this model of criticism works with the MA because it is very relatable to a sort of interactive theatre. Those types are Dramaturgy or Editorial Criticism and Reviews or Journalistic Criticism.
Hopefully the names are self explanatory, but heres an overview. Dramaturgy is intended as a method whereby the author can improve his/her work. Often the author will seek out a peer, or preferably someone the author considers more successful, more accomplished then themselves, and ask them to review the work. The results will hopefully be largely style and choice based, and more often than not is composed of more questions than suggestions. These questions are not intended to be responded to, although some dramaturges (this type of reviewer) welcome open discussions. Its a choice of the author and the dramaturge together whether or not to enter into a discussion and it should always be more comparable to therapy than to debate. The author should not be trying to defend his choice, but rather be trying to examine whether or not he/she has actually made a choice, and not taken an action without cause.
This type of criticism is not something that is occurring here, although I have seen one such post and have made one myself the majority fall into the review category. I would like to see this happening, but proper dramaturgy should precede the publication of a work, and this milieu does not encourage such.
The second and more prevalent type of criticism found on these boards is review criticism. This type of criticism is often provided for entertainment purposes, purports to be objective in a way, and comes after the publication of a work. It is often unsolicited, although it can be argued that the very publication of a work solicits review. Review criticism, in many media, can be critical for a works success.
Writing a Critical Review
For the most part Im seeing good things on the board here. People generally conduct themselves professionally as reviewers. There are a few points Im keen to expound on however.
.: Reviews are subjective. They are. As a reviewer you are being subjective, and thats ok. There is a reason critical reviews are in the entertainment and editorial sections. You cannot objectively give an opinion; to do so is to suggest that everyone holds the same opinion which is patently false. I see a lot of reviewers claim objectivity, or an effort to maintain objectivity, who are then accused of not being objective enough, when in truth they should not even be trying to be objective.
What you should try to be is subjectively objective. Take a position that you feel represents a demographic and be subjective from that objective point of view. Many people are successfully doing this while pretending they are not, so as not to offend. Offend, its ok, youre expected to, unless you are a dramaturge. See above.
.: Reviews should be well thought out, final words on the subject they are reviewing. As a reviewer you should stand by the opinion you have made, and doing so is to not let yourself be drawn into debates. The proper response to a disagreement with one of your reviews is to simply state Im sorry you disagree, I stand by my opinion.
That said; dont be afraid to admit when youre wrong. If you made a heavy handed comment, or overlooked something simple, make a retraction. Youd ask the same of someone else.
Youre decision whether or not to retract should be made by yourself, not through public debate. Public debate weakens your position with your reader, as invariably you will be drawn into personal conflict.
.: Some people are [censored]. Its ok. Personally Im an [censored]. The only [censored] I dont respect, is the one who pretends he doesnt know hes an [censored], that [censored] is more likely to screw up your day.
If you want to be harsh, be harsh. But dont pretend you arent harsh. If someone calls you out for being harsh, and you were harsh, admit it and stand by it. You chose to be harsh, so own it, theres no shame in it. If someone doesnt want to be reviewed by you theyll tell you, and there are thousands of other arcs to be reviewed.
If you didnt intend to be harsh see above.
Responding to Critical Review
There is only one way to respond to critical review. This will raise hairs, people will disagree, but from a theatre perspective if you dont play this way you wont be reviewed again which is worse than a bad review.
The only way to respond to a critical review is Thank you for taking the time to review my work.
No more, feel free to say less.
Now before you say Im wrong listen to, or rather read, why. Reviews are subjective, (see above) they have to be. Arguing with a reviewer who didnt enjoy your work isnt going to change his/her mind, but it may change the mind of someone thinking about playing your work. What is more, it is impolite. Whether they enjoyed it or not, someone has taken the time to publicize your efforts, and at the very least disserves to be thanked for that.
Now if that person flies in the face of the above, and is clearly not showing respect as a reviewer, (ie being a jerk and pretending their objective, or claiming youve presented malicious content when you havent) then you are morally obliged to engage them and have a flame war should you desire, that is the subject of a whole other guide.
You may feel free to respond to comments by readers on the review, as my reviewers, but keep these guidelines in mind when doing so.
Remember, as many people will play your arc because a Simon Cowel-ish reviewer they hate (Venture) rated it down, as will those who play your arc because a Paula Abdoul-ish reviewer ( LaserJesus?) rated it up, so dont let every bad review get you down, or feel you have to defend your position.
Also, a good metric is if the audience didnt get it, you didnt say it right. This is not always true, but good to keep in mind. I once wrote a play about quantum mechanics, the math professors who came with the head of the philosophy department of the local community college on opening night loved it, but everyone else thought it needed work. It didnt, it was for them. I said Thank you for your review. I never explained myself to anyone.
Reading Criticism
Feel free to comment; dont expect people to violate the above. Debate is more fun when someone isnt popping in providing concrete answers, then we can start deconstructing the social meaning behind MA Arcs.
Hey, I said this guide would also be about reading, and I really had so little to say on the topic, sue me.
Finally, enjoy. Enjoy or Ill kill you in your sleep. Jokes.
Conclusion
Everything in this guide is a suggestion, but I hope they are suggestions that are taken with some thought. This review community is starting to sprout some wings, and with a little civility and decorum, it could be an amazing thing.
I look forward to reading and participating in many more reviews, even if they do devolve into debate once in a while.