What makes the most interesting review?

I'm not here to pick on anyone, or call anyone out for having uninteresting reviews, but I would like to try and add a bit more discussion in this forum, as Dalghryn has pointed out this forum is lacking.

Anyway, what does make the most interesting review? A harsh and sarcastic breakdown of everything done wrong, whether done in a serious tone or a humorous tone? An in-character review, where the story is looked at from the perspective of an actual hero/villain doing the arc? Screenshots, whether posed, or just to showcase other's customs.

If you want to call out names, feel free, but mention why their reviews are the most interesting and why you keep reading them.

Since you did mention me by name, I feel almost obligated to reply.

It's kind of apples, oranges, cherries and bananas, Bubbawheat. I really loved MCM's in-character review of "Consequences of War," so much so, in fact, that I'm editing it for posting on the SOLUS website. Reviews with the screeen caps, like yours, are a lot of fun, too. That said, friendly reviews, such as Airheads and PW's, tend to be far easier to swallow than some others, but some of the best actual arc-changing feedback came from one of the two more difficult reviews to read - that being LJ's. From a creator's perspective, each was interesting in its own way for different reasons. The only one that left a really sour taste was Talen Lee's extremely difficult review - and even that appeared to be entertaining to some people.

From a third-party perspective, I've enjoyed the in-character reviews the best. They add a bit more impetus to read through the review for entertainment's sake, thus providing something for everyone, not just for the reviewee and reviewer.

That's my take, anyway.

My ideal review to read would be a friendly or good naturedly critical review with some in character stuff and some screencaps. I also prefer longer reviews over shorter ones. I dont like reviews that dont meet the arcs on their own terms or that follow tge party line too much re defeat alls, more than 5 missions in 1 arc, 'excessive' customs etc.

Eco

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."

Well, first of all "interesting" doesn't always mean "good."

I will freely admit that I have read a lot of reviews simply to rip them up one side and down the other for my own private entertainment. Did I find them interesting? Yes. Did I enjoy reading them? Only in the way I enjoy looking through stacks of 90's Marvel comics with foil covers.

I'm a big fan of Roger Ebert and have mentioned him many times in discussions about the quality of reviews around here. He believes that a review should judge a work based on how well it accomplishes the goals its creators set (obviously there are technical considerations too, but that's the big one). He's given a lot of movies he didn't personally enjoy good reviews because he knew they deserved them, no matter his personal biases. Basing a review on a narrow opinion of what is good or bad with your own personal checklist of no-no's is not helpful to the author or the potential consumer and really just serves to stroke the "reviewer's" ego.

Not everyone who is opinionated is cut out to write good reviews. Its the difference between working for a prestigious newspaper or magazine and having a crappy blog no one reads.

Unnecessarily harsh criticism does not make you serious or your opinion important. Its all right to be picky. Its all right to be honest. Its even all right to be blunt. Insulting the creator of the piece you're looking at, no matter the medium or genre, just makes you a jerk.

While not everyone enjoys everything, there are folks here who get that you can discuss what you did or didn't enjoy about something while tipping potential consumers off on whether they might enjoy it or not and giving the creator some tips on what they did well and what they might do better. There are folks that are completely incapable of doing any of those things. There are folks somewhere in between. We've got reviews that go all the way from one end of the spectrum to the other, but I'd rather see more Roger Ebert-style reviews than, say, Perez Hilton-style snarky egotistical drivel.

In the long run, well good reviews (as in: well balanced, well written, fair ones) are going to be more interesting than even the most entertainingly bad ones. I think if we can raise the level of quality, there might be more interest in this forum. I like the mix of in-character reviews and purely out of character ones here. I wouldn't put one over the other and just view them as "different."

Then again, you could have a whole group of creators that just don't care whether the chosen few here like their work or not. There are hundreds of thousands of arcs out there and maybe a thousand reviews or so (and I'm being really generous since I'm too lazy to look up the thread where the guy is actually compiling them) on this forum. Obviously a lot of people just don't care what the reviewers here think.

Heck, I love this forum and don't care what about half of them think.

I used to write DVD reviews for a web site, and the approach I always took was thus:

1) Put personal biases aside. I don't like romantic comedies, for example, so that doesn't mean I should bash a romantic comedy on the basis of it being a romantic comedy. (And some romantic comedies ARE ACTUALLY GOOD MOVIES.) I think one of the things I could do well (as Geek Boy points out with Ebert) is I can say, "This isn't my cup of tea, but it's well done and other people will probably really enjoy it." Likewise, I can take something I personally liked and say, "I really enjoyed this, but I don't think it's going to be for everyone."

2) I always tried to figure out what the creator intended and judge based on how well he or she succeeded in achieving those goals. Granted, I'm not a mind reader, so I don't always KNOW what was intended, but it does tend to be easier with MA arcs. You can tell a comedy arc early on from a straight ahead sci-fi story. (Then there's people like me who will sprinkle in a couple of odd bits of humor amongst a horror story.) If an arc is a comedy arc, I'm not going to bash it because it's not serious. Now, if a comedy arc really just isn't funny, then there's a problem.

3) When looking at reviews for arcs, I don't want someone to be overly critical, nor should they complain about problems with the game engine (i.e. some villain spawned in the wrong order, the one ambush that's supposed to come accidentally went nuts and spawned 30 minions). And I'm not going to 3-star a 5-star story because of one typo here and there (though I'll send a tell in the feedback with the typo and location so they can fix it). Nitpicking about small, tiny details is really petty.

What am I looking for for feedback?
--Was the story arc fun?
--Did the story progression make sense?
--Did any custom character designs work properly in the context of the story?
--Was there anything that was tremendously out of whack? (An unkillable Elite Boss, for example...yes, I've run into those in a few arcs).
--Would you recommend the arc to other people?

Reviews regardless of anything else should do at least 2 things. Let the author know if there are things that should or could be done to improve their story arc. However without making suggestions that would drastically effect the story. 2nd, they should help give the reader an idea of whether or not the arc is worth giving a shot.

Stuff done with the review for entertainment value and what not aren't bad but if they are done in a way that ignores the first two things I mentioned, you gotta ask what's the point of the review? To try and be an internet superstar? Not gonna happen through these forums.

I've been fairly satisfied with most reviews I have gotten and especially made a lot of changes to my lowbie arc in response to reviews I've gotten.