Positive arc threads should be allowed!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a somewhat softer touch would actually further your own cause in some cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny thing is that people say this and yet, like Simon Cowell, Venture's reviews are still insanely popular in comparison to everyone else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

The way car accidents or house fires are popular.

Really the trick is if you are going to post reviews - post them. And move on, I rarely see profession critics engaging in any discussion of their comments. Also, once recognized as a 'critic' I rarely see them offering their opinion outside their established venue. We are getting extended back-and-forth discussion and opinions offered outside 'defined' review threads by reviewers regarding AE arcs. I think (perhaps reading too much into the OP) these activities generate the flak.

(edited to substitute 'venue' for 'forum' to avoid any confusion within a forum discussion.)

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP, despite what your title erroneously (or dishonestly) implies, "positive threads" are indeed allowed. They simply aren't entitled to be free of dissenting opinion. Nor should they be.

Negative =/= non-constructive

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but needlessly sarcastic, rude, insulting vitriol (such as, for example "I wish it could be erased from the database") is.

Eco.

[/ QUOTE ]
You know, ignoring someone is more than just pushing a button. You actually have to ignore the person. Continuing to argue with someone while you can't see their posts is frankly childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not arguing with Venture anymore, am I? Your 'ignoring venture is a good idea, do it' post was in response to a post of mine not directed at Venture but giving some advice to other people arguing with him. I was infact trying to get people to follow my example. I can't respond to anything he says unless I see it quoted by other folks, can I? I don't see many people quoting venture to add 'Yes, i agree'. it's usually people responding against his ...well, you call it opinion. My advice to everyone who dislikes his style of expression is to ignore him.

Now I appear to be arguing with you. Which is ludicrous. I bet he's sat back laughing at the both of us.

I'll stop now. You've browbeaten me into submission. Gratz.

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 ]
75% of the time I suggest someone else's arc instead of mine on Arc Night since I like to show people arcs I've enjoyed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arc Night? This sounds cool. What's Arc Night?

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)

Arguing perhaps isn't the best term, but my point is that you're still making stabs at him, while making yourself blind to anything he says that isn't quoted.

---

[ QUOTE ]
Arguing perhaps isn't the best term, but my point is that you're still making stabs at him, while making yourself blind to anything he says that isn't quoted.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, you make a valid point there. I'll try to bite my tongue whenever I see him quoted. it is, I guess, possible that he's being taken out of context.

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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
75% of the time I suggest someone else's arc instead of mine on Arc Night since I like to show people arcs I've enjoyed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arc Night? This sounds cool. What's Arc Night?

Eco.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the Victory server there's a group, Victory United, that does nightly events. Monday evenings they have an MA event that alternates factions (tomorrow is redside). Whatever people suggest gets run. Regardless if it is a farm *scowl* or a story. The earlier you show up, usually the better your chances of your selection getting picked. I've missed/been late to a few but it's generally good fun. Even if it is a farm, no one is picky about what you bring.

---

Real criticism is hard to come by a lot of the time. People often feel that if they criticise someone's work that they may upset or offend them.

I think this latest "problem" kinda proves that. A lot of artists, for whatever reason, cannot accept criticism on any level. Worse still are their fans who seem to be infinitely more rabid when it comes to defending what they like.

And that isn't just AE, or CoH or anything. That's with every single thing out there.

---

[ QUOTE ]
Real criticism is hard to come by a lot of the time. People often feel that if they criticise someone's work that they may upset or offend them.

[/ QUOTE ]

True enough. Yet, it still comes down to context and method of the criticism in many cases. The same message can be delivered more than one way and the reaction varies accordingly.

---

<QR>

I think there should be more threads to talk about threads that talk about Architect arcs.

Maybe we can start a thread to talk about them.

---

Character index

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of artists, for whatever reason, cannot accept criticism on any level. Worse still are their fans who seem to be infinitely more rabid when it comes to defending what they like.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, but it goes both ways. Some critics cannot accept criticism of their style of criticism, as it were, and they too have their fans who will rush to their defense.

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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of artists, for whatever reason, cannot accept criticism on any level. Worse still are their fans who seem to be infinitely more rabid when it comes to defending what they like.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, but it goes both ways. Some critics cannot accept criticism of their style of criticism, as it were, and they too have their fans who will rush to their defense.

Eco.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, but at the end of the day, a critique is a personal opinion and doesn't actually NEED defending, unless the critic has done something fundamentally wrong, like not playing/reading/watching said thing they are critiquing.

Additionally, it wasn't a criticism of the style of reviewing, it was more of a criticism of the opinion. It pretty much came down to "You only dislike it because you have no idea what you're talking about.".

That's pretty much setting yourself up to be infallible.

---

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, it wasn't a criticism of the style of reviewing, it was more of a criticism of the opinion. It pretty much came down to "You only dislike it because you have no idea what you're talking about.".

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sorry, i didn't reralise you were referemcing a specific thing.

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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of artists, for whatever reason, cannot accept criticism on any level. Worse still are their fans who seem to be infinitely more rabid when it comes to defending what they like.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, but it goes both ways. Some critics cannot accept criticism of their style of criticism, as it were, and they too have their fans who will rush to their defense.

Eco.

[/ QUOTE ]

Upon further reflection (while staining the fence) I think it fundamentally comes down the to difference between being critical versus criticizing .

---

Really the trick is if you are going to post reviews - post them. And move on, I rarely see profession critics engaging in any discussion of their comments.

In my most recent review thread, I posted at the start that I would no longer respond to or even read responses to my reviews posted to my own thread, that if people wanted to follow up on a review they were to direct discussion to their own threads.

Almost every review in that thread has a reply in the thread posted by its author, most of them a wall of text offering a point by point reply to the review.

---

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"

[ QUOTE ]
Really the trick is if you are going to post reviews - post them. And move on, I rarely see profession critics engaging in any discussion of their comments.

In my most recent review thread, I posted at the start that I would no longer respond to or even read responses to my reviews posted to my own thread, that if people wanted to follow up on a review they were to direct discussion to their own threads.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admit that I quit reading your reviews some time ago. But I applaud this step on your part. Well done.

[ QUOTE ]

Almost every review in that thread has a reply in the thread posted by its author, most of them a wall of text offering a point by point reply to the review.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which, if that is contrary to your request, is unfortunate, but I hope it sits there unanswered.

---

[ QUOTE ]
There has to be a balance in all these things. Giving an arc 4 or 5 stars and saying "its cool" is just as worthless as giving it 1 or 2 and saying "it sucks".

Well thought out criticism can be very helpful to improving the work overall. But when giving reasons, if it's done in a very negative "this is pure crap" sort of way it will simply invalidate any advice given. If advice and criticism are done in a constructive, respectful way (even if it points out a hundred flaws) it is far more likely to be taken seriously and to have an impact on the work in question. This is true of critiques in any media.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidently there's some backstory on this OP that I'm not aware of. But - IMHO - there are definitely examples of positivism and negativism in arc reviews that prevent those reviews from being as helpful as they could be, to both players and arc makers.

Personally, I tend to find the overly positive reviews more difficult to deal with. With an overly negative review I feel I can parse out more easily which things are personal dislikes and which things are truly technically bad. An overly positive review, on the other hand, glosses over the problems so when you play the arc you find yourself cheated by the misrepresentation.

I think reviewers should be free to declare their opinions based upon their tastes and preferences. But I would ask that they also help everyone out by laying out the technicals of an arc (spelling, rational storyline, how challenging is it really, etc.), and say a few things in each review that shows you appreciate other viewpoints and tastes. I mean ... if you're spending the reader's time talking about your own preferences, it seems diplomatic to tip your hat to what may be other people's - including the reader's - preferences. Clearly there is a wide range of tastes out there regarding AE arcs.

I think if *I* was giving reviews, I'd have to avoid rating them with stars. Frankly, I don't like much that I've seen in the AE so far, so my star ratings would be low and it would just serve to make people feel bad. However, I could talk about what I thought worked and didn't work in the arc, and I think I could do it in a useful and respectful manner.

If I came across an arc that I did not like at all, I would not publish a review of it. Some people may feel it is their responsibility to do so, but I feel like I need to be able to say maybe one positive thing for each negative thing in order to be polite, so if I can't find enough positive things to say I just wouldn't say anything.

After all, this is just a game. We're not reviewing someone's competency for a life and death situation, or even just for money. I don't see a need to "protect" the public (from things that don't appeal to me) by humiliating someone.

---

[ QUOTE ]
Real criticism is hard to come by a lot of the time. People often feel that if they criticise someone's work that they may upset or offend them.

I think this latest "problem" kinda proves that. A lot of artists, for whatever reason, cannot accept criticism on any level. Worse still are their fans who seem to be infinitely more rabid when it comes to defending what they like.

And that isn't just AE, or CoH or anything. That's with every single thing out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many people aren't looking for criticism, they're looking for approval.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really the trick is if you are going to post reviews - post them. And move on, I rarely see profession critics engaging in any discussion of their comments.

In my most recent review thread, I posted at the start that I would no longer respond to or even read responses to my reviews posted to my own thread, that if people wanted to follow up on a review they were to direct discussion to their own threads.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admit that I quit reading your reviews some time ago. But I applaud this step on your part. Well done.

[ QUOTE ]

Almost every review in that thread has a reply in the thread posted by its author, most of them a wall of text offering a point by point reply to the review.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which, if that is contrary to your request, is unfortunate, but I hope it sits there unanswered.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isnt intended as any kind if riposte to Ventures point, but i think a lot of folks like their arxs reviewed because of the exposure a review gives to other players-responding to points raised in a review can be aimed at giving the audience more info or explanations or what have you, rather than intended solely for the reviewer. I dont refer to any specifics of any of the replies venture is referring to, but as a general thing.

Eco



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 ]
Many people aren't looking for criticism, they're looking for approval.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is absolutely spot-on. There are other reasons for writing arcs too, but those are probably the most common reasons for posting your own arc in the forum. Then there's arcs posted about by someone else.

It takes empathy (and sometimes, just plain logic - Blight was not posted by the author) to figure out which it is. People are complex. Some are probably NOT playing City of Heroes to simulate a "contact sport life". Life is not only like that, at least, not for me. Clearly, as I can afford to play a game on the internet. Learning how to deal with harsh reality can be done somewhere else.

Of course, CoH can also be a contact sport. PVP is an example, that can easily be avoided if it' not your cup of tea. Unfortunately the forum doesn't have such boundaries, and relying on empathy isn't working. But it can't be that bad, I still come here every day.

And while I disagree with Venture above, I can easily live with his perspective. It's far less ugly than putting your fingers in your ears and shouting over someone else.

---

I personally haven't had a Venture review. But I don't shy away from criticism. I can't really improve if everyone is kissing my butt and I get that enough from SG members.

But then I'm used to criticism from when I used to make Anime Music Videos all the time. However in this case, it's much easier to go back and fix things.

---

I like feedback of all sorts. However, and I think this is part of the problem, I'm not willing to compromise on anything and everything in order to please someone. I cherry pick feedback for suggestions I like and pass up on suggestions I don't like. People have their own idea of a fun arc, a good storyline, a believable NPC. If the one reviewing doesn't share this vision, the author can either make that compromise (which very rarely happens), try to defend their choices (which leads to this percieved "you don't like anything"/"stop being a carebear" dilemma), or they can take the feedback for what it is, subjective feedback, and simply ignore it.

---

QR

Weatherby_Goode - "Heck, Carrion Creepers negates the knockdown from Carrion Creepers."

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, sorry, i didn't reralise you were referemcing a specific thing.

Eco.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was tired and all over the place with what I was referencing

---

Critics need to learn to give MA authors the benefit of the doubt, like they would with dev created stuff. (Or at the very least, are more likely too)

Some of the reviews I've read are very quick to make assumptions that the author is incorrect. If they didn't make these assumptions, they would then go on to think about the situation more logically and in a lot of cases, discover the author was actually right. This is my biggest gripe really.

If there is a small hole in the story and you insist on driving a train through it to destroy your own fun, then one could argue that is a fault of the player and not the author. Of course it depends on the hole, but people seem to get preoccupied by little things despite the fact that overall, it is most often a good well written story and a lot of fun. Shame.

---

[ QUOTE ]
If there is a small hole in the story and you insist on driving a train through it to destroy your own fun

[/ QUOTE ]

This perfectly describes what I realised was wrong with my attitude before I changed my reviewing (and arc-playing) approach. Honestly, I'm having a blast now. Obviously, different people have different ideas of what's fun, but I believe that a more forgiving attitude to an arc's shortcomings pays off in spades in terms of enjoyment gained. I pay my sub to have fun. One way I guess of quantifying that fun is to look at the star-to-play ratio of the arcs I play. I think that someone with an average of 2-stars (out of the stars they award, I mean), for example, is doing something wrong lol.

Which makes me wonder what the average ratings of the various reviewers are... Has anyone done any datamining of that?

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)

Frankly, I don't see the need to create or quash Negative or Positive review threads.

The way I learned to use reviewers was to read a review of things I wanted to see/read/play anyway ... go and see/read/or play it ... and then see if the reviewer and I had similar tastes. (You can play first then see the review, as well.)

After a few times, you will discover if the reviewer has similar tastes to yours. If he or she does, you can count on that reviewer (most of the time) to direct you to things you may enjoy ... or warn you off of things that you won't.

It's really that easy.

Otherwise, just read reviews for the guilty pleasure of seeing people lambasted ... or in ignorance of whether the review has any relevance to what you might think.

---