>But I also think that the best compliment that can be paid to a game is
>to treat it as though it were a serious piece of work rather than a few
>minutes diversion of roughly comparable value to Space Invaders. If
>anyone praised my work just because they wanted to make me happy I would
>feel patronised. I'd much prefer something along these lines:
Yes. Truly. I put an awful lot of effort into _Lethe_, and I expect people
who discuss it with me to talk accordingly. I don't want just heapings of
praise (although, I must admit that I was very surprised and pleased by how
many people wrote to say they enjoyed it), I'd like people to suggest ways to
improve it (such as "in all the time you spent checking and programming it,
why didn't you catch the large bug with the buckets?").
>"Christminster": a review
>-------------------------
[..]
>In conclusion, the author is to be commended on having had the endurance
>to write something as long as "Christminster", but this reviewer
>suggests he stick to flower-arranging in future.
Come, come. This is an example of a poor review, IMO. As someone who writes
IF oughta know, the presentation and content are both important :P It's just
not necessary to be this harsh with your game, even though you did point out
some flaws with it. Like someone says elsewhere, IF authoring and criticism
are both new genres, and we really need to be a little more careful how we
write (from either side of the review).
>--
>Gareth Rees
---------------------------------------------------+ Dan Shiovitz /**/ scythe@u.washington.edu | "Thys ys a happi snakc. The Grim Reaper /**/ shiov@cs.washington.edu | Happi snakc ys fun to eat. -------------------------------------------------+ Uh-oh, yt's a ceiboard!" http://weber.u.washington.edu/~scythe/ | -------------------------------------------------+