I like this idea. I'm starved for feedback on my arc, but am too shy to put my arc up for review when I'm not sure whether the reviewer shares the same idea of 'fun' or 'quality' that I do.
QR
Weatherby_Goode - "Heck, Carrion Creepers negates the knockdown from Carrion Creepers."
Excellent idea, Bubbawheat. Forewarned is forearmed. Although, (and I may live to regret saying this) even those reviewers that might tend to grind your particular arc into mincemeat can catch things and give you ideas you hadn't thought of.
Getting a 2 star may be painful, but if the arc still sees even some improvement as a result (as, I think, mine did after one rather gut-wrenching review), it may be worth it to "Man up" and submit anyway. Which reminds me, there's one reviewer I've yet to submit to...
The SOLUS Foundation - a Liberty and Pinnacle SG
"The Consequences of War" - Arcs # 227331 and 241496
Posted mostly in current thread listing order, most recent post first.
Anachrodragon and Londerwost: Two reviewers for the price of one. They are looking for lowbie friendly arcs as they are both admitted altaholics. Their reviews tend to be mostly on how well they enjoyed the story and how much fun they had playing the arc. They have their nitpicks, but so far seem to be pretty easygoing and friendly, as well as offering some advice on things they think are problematic.
Citizen Razor: He has a running commentary style of reviews with a touch of humor to them. Which for some people is harder to take being the butt of a joke about their bad arc rather than having a hard nosed criticism aimed at their bad arc. And for some, it's the other way around. He does offer help and suggestions inbetween the humor though and has a pretty friendly demeanor.
Mirror Man: He has a quid pro quo, so play his arc before submitting your arc for review. He seems to have a pretty thourough review style, giving a synopsis of each mission and final thoughts at the end. Seems pretty constructive and helpful.
Wrong Number: She has a quid pro quo review system based on the number of missions and focuses on humor oriented arcs, read her first post for more details. As a humor focused reviewer, her reviews are also fairly humorous and short. She gives a short paragraph of summary, and rates the arc on the humor value and the fun value, gives a brief bit of suggestion for improvement, and her final overall judgement of the arc.
GlaziusF: He is another detailed reviewer who is currently only reviewing arcs that are also posted on CoH Mission Review. His reviews are written very much as he plays, so they can occasionally be a bit vague if you don't realize what he's specifically responding to. Most authors shouldn't have problems when reading their own reviews though. He also throws in some humor in between comments and suggestions.
MrCaptainMan: Yet another reviewer who goes into a good amount of detail, "written as I go" as he calls it. Also throws in a good amount of humor, occasionally at the arc's expense when he finds something he doesn't like. But the review also tends to have a good amount of suggestions in there as well.
LaserJesus: He started off squatting in Venture's original reviews thread which wasn't specifically listed as Venture's review thread, but merely a generic review thread that Venture started. His reviews can be detailed depending on how much he has to say on the topic. He also divides his reviews into Story, Mechanics, and Final Thoughts giving a general summary of his thoughts in each part, though he will occasionally go into great detail on the story section.
Airhead: This is a fairly unique reviewer in that for quite a while he didn't have his own review thread, he would offer his reviews in other's individual threads. He has a detail oriented format, and color codes typos as well as adding in times to show how long the arc is actually taking to play. Very useful for those wanting constructive criticism for improving their arcs.
I think that's all of the active ones. Let me know if there's any that I skipped.
Thanks for putting this together. I think your description of us is pretty right on:
(except you misspelled "Londerwost") 
[ QUOTE ]
Anachrodragon and Londerwost: Two reviewers for the price of one. They are looking for lowbie friendly arcs as they are both admitted altaholics. Their reviews tend to be mostly on how well they enjoyed the story and how much fun they had playing the arc. They have their nitpicks, but so far seem to be pretty easygoing and friendly, as well as offering some advice on things they think are problematic.
[/ QUOTE ]
We do tend to be pretty easygoing, because ultimately folks are putting their sweat and tears into their arcs and we want to give people appreciation for the work they do. Arcs that look like effort was put into them will generally get at least a 3 from me. Arcs that are polished and fun with decent story, will likely get a 4 at least. The fine line between 4 and 5 is highly subjective but often comes down to "how entertaining was it?" and "how engaging was the story?"
I have to say that we've already played a lot of arcs that we've found more entertaining than the dev created arcs, so we want to thank people for that. 
Actually, the whole "limiting my queue to 5" was only supposed to apply to the first 5 review requests when I first opened my thread, and in hindsight it was completely unecessary.
When I first started my review thread, I was concerned about being flooded with review requests that I'd never be able to keep up with, thus I instatated the "quid pro quo" and "5 reviews to start out with" rules to stem the amount of requests I received. The original plan was to see how well I handled reviewing 5 arcs at a time, and then increasing or lowering my next "queue limit" accordingly.
I probably overdid it, though, as I only received 3 review requests before I was finished with my queue, so now my thread is "completely open"; that is, any and all review requests are welcome (the "quid pro quo" rule is still in effect, however) until I feel "overwhelmed", in which case I'd make a post in my thread asking people to stop requesting reviews until I'm finished with my current queue.
I'd change my original post to reflect this, but it's too late for me to modify it
Supplemental Galactic Protectorate Fanfic
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for putting this together. I think your description of us is pretty right on:
(except you misspelled "Londerwost")
[/ QUOTE ]
Whoops, was going mostly from memory and always think of it as "Wanderlust" with the L and W swapped. Fixed now.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for putting this together. I think your description of us is pretty right on:
(except you misspelled "Londerwost")
[/ QUOTE ]
Whoops, was going mostly from memory and always think of it as "Wanderlust" with the L and W swapped. Fixed now.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I really am just "lost."
I got my handle from a dyslexic guy on crack reading poetry on open mic night at a frat house in San Diego. He spits out "LONdeeer... WAAAAAST!" and I'm like brilliant, londer wost... londerwost. and it stuck. That was like in 1993 or 1994, I can't remember.
How do you get a thread "stickied?" This one could really use that treatment.
The SOLUS Foundation - a Liberty and Pinnacle SG
"The Consequences of War" - Arcs # 227331 and 241496
You PM Niviene, I personally don't think it deserves a sticky by itself, I just put a link in the already stickied Reviewer List.
Thanks for taking the time to research the reviewers and compile this list. Personally, I didn't know who was being consistent with their desire to do reviews and what everyone may have been looking for.
I went with, who I presumed, was the most active reviewer at the time and took the risk of finding the common ground between how they tended to review and what I was trying to accomplish with my arc. (Phailed 
).
This list should be very helpful for matching my arcs with intended reviewer/audience a tad bit better.
Thanks again.
Apparently, I play "City of Shakespeare"
*Arc #95278-Gathering the Four Winds -3 step arc; challenging - 5 Ratings/3 Stars (still working out the kinks)
*Arc #177826-Lights, Camera, Scream! - 3 step arc, camp horror; try out in 1st person POV - 35 Ratings/4 Stars
[ QUOTE ]
How do you get a thread "stickied?" This one could really use that treatment.
[/ QUOTE ]
PM one of the moderators.
[ QUOTE ]
You PM Niviene, I personally don't think it deserves a sticky by itself, I just put a link in the already stickied Reviewer List.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except with the spastic monkey that seems to be in charge of the giant red "PURGE!" button lately, it'll be gone in a few weeks.
Blue: ~Knockback Squad on Guardian~
Red: ~Undoing of Virtue on [3 guesses]~
Having a thread marked to be Stickied does not automatically mark it as Do Not Purge.
Those are two separate settings in UBB.
If the game spit out 20 dollar bills people would complain that they weren't sequentially numbered. If they were sequentially numbered people would complain that they weren't random enough.
Black Pebble is my new hero.
[ QUOTE ]
Venture: His reviews tend to look at an arc as a piece of literature. Story is first and foremost the important feature of his reviews. He looks for things like theme, structure, and character to be strong points in the arcs he likes. Also, he knows canon quite well, either that or does research with canon he's not familiar with, and has problems with things written too far off canon. He's not looking for a challenge, and humor is hit or miss: he either likes it or he doesn't. He is often viewed as a very harsh critic, and doesn't often offer up suggestions for improvements, he simply states the arc as it is. But he does know what he's talking about and he is one of the most popular reviewers in this forum with over 100 reviews to his name. However, he is currently not accepting new submissions until his current queue thins out.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I was going to list Venture's biggest sin as a reviewer, it's that he doesn't review anything based on it's technical merits or on whether the author achieved their intent, but on how he feels about it. This means that if your arc includes time travel, Nemesis, or in any way intimates that his character might feel a certain way about something, he's likely to absolutely hate it despite anything else it might have going for it.
To be fair, it's a common failing with amateur reviewers. If you look at Roger Ebert (one of the most respected movie reviewers out there), he has given tons of positive reviews to films he's absolutely hated. Why? Because the creators of the film achieved what they were going for. His personal feelings about the subject matter are (as much as is possible of course) thrown to the side since while he's not, say, a huge horror movie fan, someone else might be. If a slasher flick is the best slasher flick it can be, he'll tell you so. His personal feelings on the genre be damned, if it's a good xmovie, then it's a good x movie.
Venture is not alone in his complete inability to do this, but I think it's important to understand it when you're reading anything he has to say about an arc.
If I was going to list Venture's biggest sin as a reviewer, it's that he doesn't review anything based on it's technical merits or on whether the author achieved their intent,
That's about the only thing I do grade them on.
This means that if your arc includes time travel, Nemesis, or in any way intimates that his character might feel a certain way about something, he's likely to absolutely hate it despite anything else it might have going for it.
False, and I don't nearly have the time to list all the counter-examples.
Current Blog Post: "Why I am an Atheist..."
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days when Victoria reigned!" -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
To be blunt: You're fooling yourself if you think you don't do this.
Can you two just take it out back already?
He liked my arc and it had Nemesis in it.
Together we entered a city of strangers, we made it a city of friends, and we leave it a City of Heroes. - Sweet_Sarah
BOYCOTT NCSoft (on Facebook)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/517513781597443/
Governments have fallen to the power of social media. Gaming companies can too.
[ QUOTE ]
Can you two just take it out back already?
[/ QUOTE ]
You kidding? Forum drama is like a free show.
My review style has changed rather since the first mention of it in this thread. I'm pretty liberal, review IC a lot, and i still try to be humnourous when it's appropriate.
Eco.
MArcs:
The Echo, Arc ID 1688 (5mish, easy, drama)
The Audition, Arc ID 221240 (6 mish, complex mech, comedy)
Storming Citadel, Arc ID 379488 (lowbie, 1mish, 10-min timed)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
[The Incarnate System is] Jack Emmert all over again, only this time it's not "1 hero = 3 white minions" it's "1 hero = 3 white rocks."
|
I had it in my mind to do this a while back, but never got around to it. I think I finally found a way to do this that doesn't seem too odd. The purpose of this thread is to comment on a reviewer's style, what they might be looking for, how active they are, how long they've been around, and how useful their feedback can be for improvements. If looked at first, this will hopefully be a good resource on choosing the reviewer that will be a good fit for the writer to get the best possible feedback. If you're wondering about my qualifications, I spend way too much time on this forum, I have been reviewing many arcs myself for quite a while, and I am a review [censored] as this is the best way to improve your arc, and I have had one of my arcs reviewed by many of the reviewers in this forum. Some have been more helpful than others, and some I wish I would have submitted a different arc that would have been a better fit for them. I'll start with the ones that have been around the longest.
Venture: His reviews tend to look at an arc as a piece of literature. Story is first and foremost the important feature of his reviews. He looks for things like theme, structure, and character to be strong points in the arcs he likes. Also, he knows canon quite well, either that or does research with canon he's not familiar with, and has problems with things written too far off canon. He's not looking for a challenge, and humor is hit or miss: he either likes it or he doesn't. He is often viewed as a very harsh critic, and doesn't often offer up suggestions for improvements, he simply states the arc as it is. But he does know what he's talking about and he is one of the most popular reviewers in this forum with over 100 reviews to his name. However, he is currently not accepting new submissions until his current queue thins out.
PoliceWoman: Her reviews are the most detail oriented and longest reviews on the forums. She tends to find most typos and grammatical errors, as well as logic and story problems. Not only that, but she offers well thought out suggestions to help fix these errors. Even if you don't use her suggestions, they will definately offer a good perspective that there is a problem and give you a good direction to fix it yourself. She gives a strong critique, but usually has a friendly demeanor about it. She is also very thourough, giving a play by play throughout your entire arc. She has a "review mine, I'll review yours" policy, so be sure to check one of her great arcs first before asking for a review.
Bubbawheat: My reviews tend to be shorter than some of the other reviewers, sticking with the overall feel of the arc and sending typo/grammar/minor issues through the feedback /tell. I tend to be persistant against difficult bosses, but I do have my limits and will quit an arc if I can't complete it. I'll offer suggestions for improvement if I can think of a useful one, but I don't always see an easy solution. I enjoy a lot of variety and try to review an arc based on what it's trying to accomplish. Like I won't judge a humor arc harshly because of story issues. Also, I don't post my star ratings in my regular review thread. I prefer to let the review speak for itself, though "enjoyed it" tends to mean 4 stars, and I also tend to mention my occasional 5 star ratings. I do post star ratings in my in-character review thread because that tends to be less critically focused, and more story focused.
Talen Lee: Quote from his thread: "the main reason I write these reviews is to get an authors' attention, to try and make sure that the content being produced in the AE is up to my personal standards for play experience and writing, and then the author gets some promotion into the bargain." Talen is also fond of keeping with the canon feel, although he does appreciate deviating greatly from standard CoX storytelling. Especially in the form of placing character on the player's character. Also, a reviewer with a picky sense of humor so be wary if submitting a humor arc. He also tends to be critical on things he doesn't like and doesn't tiptoe around it.
Lazarus: He's got two options for you: freebie quick reviews, and quid pro quo critical reviews. He lists his likes and dislikes on post one of his thread so check it out before you submit. Quick reviews are just that, a couple sentences for a summary and a star rating. His critical reviews are more detailed, going through each mission with his notes and suggestions. He can be critical, but at least to me, seems to have a generally friendly demeanor to his reviews.