Since I'm a lazy, terrible human being who only likes to play games and maybe occasionally get in on some development, I haven't written a single review.

What I'd like to know from you Board Designers is what kinds of things you like to see in reviews. Are you just interested in judgement/praise? Do you also like to see opinions about improvement, or do you prefer to view your work as "take it or leave it"? I know I'll leave information potentially useful to other players, but should I avoid even the smallest strategy hints?

My plan is to begin reviewing the boards that I feel are 10's, then 9's, and so forth. And I'm only reviewing boards I know very well. (BTW - I interpret a 10 as meaning better than 9.5 on a continuous scale, so I give 10's to non-perfect boards.)

ARGH!  I meant Ratings, not Reviews!

As a designer, generally I find it helpful to know what players like about a board (i.e. what boosts the score up) and what they dislike (i.e. what pushes the rating away from 10). For instance, is it too stalemate-prone? Is the strategy too fixed? Are the graphics unaesthetic? Is the gameplay too confusing? and so forth. It's not necessarily so that I can fix that particular board (though I may update if there are really good suggestions in a review), but more so that I can incorporate feedback into the design of new boards. Too often I see reviews like "great board!" with 7 out of 10 stars -- what could have been changed to make you give it those extra three stars? Or something like "This board sucks" with 3 stars -- ok, you don't like it, but why?? Explanation of the rating is key.

For other players, I think it's useful to hear why someone should play the board, and the sorts of things that you think others might not enjoy about the board. Sort of a preview so that an interested new player can make a preliminary judgment.

I agree with most everything Kjeld said.  However, and though I have been known to make changes to boards based on reviews, I prefer Private Messages, or perhaps a thread in the forums over using the ratings for suggestions.

Though the fact that everyone is able to use different criteria can be seen as a weakness, I think that most raters are able to leverage this into a strength ..by being clear about the "why." As a general rule, people generally write more thoughtfully when they write about an aspect of a board they are more passionate about ..or have strong opinion about.

And lastly, I would second K's comment about suggesting why certain types of players may or may not like a board, or which scenario is best for newbies, etc.  After all, aren't reviews are mostly for players who are interested in trying out a board?

I also like the fact that players can edit and change reviews ..so you don't have to feel like what you write and how you rate is indelible.

I think Kjeld & M57 have covered it pretty well.  I don't think you have to avoid strategy hints, but I do think they fit better in a thread in the strategy & tactics forum (side note: I think every board should have an official thread started by the board creator and mentioned prominently in the board description).

Thanks for the reminder Hugh.  I should really go review some boards myself.

The only thing I don't like to see in reviews (and I am fairly certain that anyone who actually reads this would not be doing this in the first place), is a bad review based on obvious misunderstanding of the board.   For example, I have gotten several 2 & 3 star reviews where it is clear they took a capital and were eliminated quickly because of it, even though I explain in the board description how capitals work.

Good or bad, I think all discussion of a board is good.  Even if people are missing capitals... The reviews will help to inform those who don't know.

Yeah, it might be useful for someone reading the review, it's just frustrating as a map maker. 

Ok, first off I want to admit that I don't read the reviews of my maps anymore.  I used to reply to them, good or bad, but I got too defensive and so I decided to take myself out of the equation and let the people who enjoy my maps fight for them.  When I write reviews (which I have been bad at recently and I am sorry) I try to A. be funny and B. be honest about what is good and bad.  No map is ever totally bad (except for ?????????) and none are totally awesome (except for Risky Kong).

I try to write my reviews for people who are looking at them to play the map.  I read the other reviews, state if I agree or disagree and give my thoughts on the map itself.  I will complement the creator when it's due and point out things that could be better if I have them.  I will never just say "SUCKS" or "SUCKS" or even "SUCKS" because that is not helpful, constructive or a complete sentence.

Hugh, from you I would want total honesty in balance, play, design and concept.  Of course you are usually in my test group so I hope I would get those already.  Personally I thing the reviews should be for future players, but I as a map maker dont' take them that way and that's why I don't read them.

If any of this helps you, cool, but re-reading it I can't see anyway that it will

RiskyBack wrote:

If any of this helps you, cool, but re-reading it I can't see anyway that it will

Actually, Risky made a good point about refuting or agreeing with extant reviews.  Unfortunately, designers have no way to publicly respond to poor or inaccurate reviews resulting from a misunderstanding of, for instance, the mechanics of a board.

I hate it when my boards get a poor rating and the reviewer admits that "..it's just not my cup of tea." If that were one of my top criteria, I might pan every SimulGear map on the site.  I'm not saying that such a statement doesn't belong in a review, but when that sentiment is so clearly and heavily weighted in the score, it doesn't seem fair ..or productive for the site.

I'd love to see that particular issue addressed, but that's for another thread..

Excellent advice fellas. I do like the idea of strongly expressing disagreement with bad reviews.

@Risky: In a lot of the Dev games I feel confident in my advice. But in yours I'm always going "that's crazy; it can't work..." until I see why the design works. Then I don't have a new opinion until it's passed review and I've played 10 games. Anyway, I can promise you my honesty (which will come with plenty of praise).

Great reviews/ratings so far! I can see that after reading some I'm going to want to check out a few boards that I may have passed on in the past.

I'm also sweating out waiting for any reviews of my boards!

M57 wrote:

Great reviews/ratings so far! I can see that after reading some I'm going to want to check out a few boards that I may have passed on in the past.

I'm also sweating out waiting for any reviews of my boards!

If you mean the 2 I've got so far, thanks! I started a 3rd one on a board I really like, but then scrapped what I wrote. Of course, I intend to review Go-Geared. With Anarchy (and other maps), I'm having  a hard time remembering all my impressions and thoughts. So, I feel like playing it again will lead to a better review.

"The Hugh Reviews" may end up being a once-a-week publication!

Hugh wrote:

"The Hugh Reviews" may end up being a once-a-week publication!

That sounds awesome.  "Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."  Seriously based on your first two reviews, I would subscribe to this.

Every once in a while I go back and edit/update reviews.  Reading Hugh's and re-reading this thread will likely motivate me to give them another look..