Yes, this is a concern I have as well. The only solution I have come up with is to edit the blog or review with placeholder text, which is not a very good solution and would take me weeks to complete.
Aberinkulas' forum posts
No, it doesn't. The name "Take Four" is actually a reference to how I've been developing four stories that tell more or less the same general arc but with different settings and different things happening along the way. So, if anything, it was inspired by Take One, Two, and Three the most. I'd have to finish writing those before it made sense to anybody though. I'm so terrible at picking names for characters that I've made a bad habit of not naming them at all, which is why Catherine is the only name that is only a proper noun in the story. I just pick a name that doesn't belong to anybody I know.
I read it after cereal if that's okay.
Anyway, really enjoyed The Wizard of Oz styIings present at times. Did this have anything to do with Catherine the game?Foolz3h
I've been reading and keeping up with everything people have said and there's one point:
Trying to limit users to own games, tie in other services or "tracking" users' playtime seems altogether needlessly complicated. Sometimes I use the collection option, but being forced to use it so I can review games would just make me forget the whole thing. I trade in and give away my games constantly, and it changes forever (but I still have opinions on games I traded away five minutes ago!). Especially something like Raptr, which is even worse on that front.
I just don't think it's fair to force reviewers to use, for some people, what is an unecessary service. You're always going to have people game the system. Let's not make the bar to entry so high that nobody can get in.
I was using Gamespot's reviews system when they used to Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, Value and Tilt sliders and those also seemed fairly unnecessary. Sometimes I don't even talk about all of those topics in my review if the topic isn't important to the game. Game reviews are so subjective - some games have graphics as really important while in other games the gameplay is the only thing that matters. The review should communicate this information without added scores.
I'm, overall, a fan of making things less complicated, not more. Good reviews are good reviews. Glitzing them up or limiting the way they are posted won't change that.
I think the mentioned overhauls are a pretty good list of ideas, especially the searching by username and popularity. I approve of pictures, increasing the minimum word count, having a private, author only feedback box (or even just an easy way to PM them), and being able to use HTML.
My own ideas, which I haven't shared before:
-Eliminate the "down thumb" concept for "was this review helpful" entirely. This promotes the good reviews, rather than punishing the bad ones. Besides, the private feedback idea would possibly allow readers to voice their suggestions on making reviews better, at least in theory.
-That extra tag line has seemed unecessary to me since Gamespot's official reviews dropped it. I'm referring to the "dissapointing" or "check your bargain bin" tag lines. It has always seemed limited and I never usually use more than a handful of them anyway, because a lot of them are too specific. I'd like to see the emblem idea replace those, granted the emblems are varied enough and have allowance for user input and suggestion.
-Allow reviews to be posted sans score. It's just a random idea of mine - sometimes games have such a garbled opinion in my brain that I can't make up my mind, even if the review itself manages to convey what I'm trying to say. If nobody else thinks its necessary then I'll drop the idea, but I'd like to throw it out there.
I approve of a minor overhaul of reviews and I'm looking forward to the discussion.