Forums > Submission Feedback > Beepy's Insurgency: Modern Infantry Combat review

There is also a big difference between a review from a new contributor that is illegible or nonsensical, and one like this that mainly needs further elucidation.

Not sure how to make a sig? While logged into your account, you can edit it and your other public and private information from the Settings page.

There are a lot of new voices writing about games these days, and nowhere near enough of those voices have found their way to HonestGamers. Recruiting efforts these days are minimal, in part because there are so many places to look now that it gets overwhelming, and so it's important that we encourage every potential new contributor to the site.

We want people who take the time to sign up and to post a review to feel good about the process and to return to do it again. We want to give people the time that is required to grow into excellent reviewers, especially since it seems like every few months we see another old friend stop reviewing games. One thing that GameFAQs did well was provide a community where poor writers could turn into great ones (though not many of them bothered to, unfortunately). My first reviews for that site were horrid, but they gave me the opportunity to grow as a writer. I remember some of the first reviews from some of today's best writers, and they were almost as bad as my early stuff. Yet look where those writers are now... because they were given the chance to improve!

We need to maintain quality requirements here at HonestGamers. They're still one of the things that sets us aside from places like GameFAQs. However, we have to be ready to recognize potential in writers and to help that writer improve (if he is interested) so that our community can grow. Or, in this case, so that it can stop shrinking into a point of near non-existence.

We've been fortunate enough in recent months to see increased activity from Masters and Leroux, and from some new writers like JoetheDestroyer and a handful of others who I don't recognize. I'd like to see that trend continue. I'd like to see people feel good about inviting their writing friends to come here and to learn and improve. This site has in the past functioned almost as a review workshop, and I'd like to see that quality return. As I have time, I'll be doing what I can on my end to make that happen, hopefully within the next few months. In the meantime, let's all do what we can to make sure that new contributors have the opportunity to establish a foothold in the community and to grow as writers.

If that means that the occasional crummy review shows up on the site for a few days, we should all look at it as a learning experience. Beepy's review wasn't up to the site's standards, but it did show promise. There were some good ideas in there that could form the basis for a solid review if they were expanded upon and if some of the fluff were also trimmed. I can understand why some might object to seeing it posted, if they didn't know the reasoning behind that posting. Now everyone does, though, and I say that it's time to move forward.

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy on reality

"What if everything you see is more than what you see--the person next to you is a warrior and the space that appears empty is a secret door to another world? What if something appears that shouldn't? You either dismiss it, or you accept that there is much more to the world than you think. Perhaps it really is a doorway, and if you choose to go inside, you'll find many unexpected things." - Shigeru Miyamoto

So what you're saying is that staffers are assholes? ^_^

I AM!!!! Although, in my defense, my cruel parody using Black Ops was the fault of a friend of mine. There I was, all comfortable and seated to play Dragon Age Origins - Awakening and he called for the second time that night. The first time, it was just to talk sports for a bit. This time, he was well on his way to drunkenness and decided to go off on some friendship issues he was having with someone else. This went on for some time. Like 90 minutes (well, that was the conversation length...it wasn't ALL about this issue). I got off the phone around midnight my time knowing I had to start thinking about bed because of work the next day and having this "I WANT TO FUCKING STRANGLE SOMETHING" sort of pissed-offedness due to my quiet gaming night being dismantled due to the combination of me not being a great multi-tasker and that call. I got on here and saw the aforementioned review and let my rage flow.

So, since this friend isn't on this site, I will apologize on his behalf for his role in anything negative I said. I mean, after doing the city side-quests, I was expecting to do all of that dungeon starting in the Knotwood Hills or whatever it's called...instead, I'm like halfway through it.

I'm not afraid to die because I am invincible
Viva la muerte, that's my goddamn principle

You've got it all wrong, Leroux. It's Sportsman who apologizes and then you, as a staff, are supposed to ignore him.

Note to gamers: when someone shoots you in the face, they aren't "gay." They are "psychopathic."

This topic sums up the reasons why I was intimidated when I first came to HonestGamers.

...

Hell, I'm still intimidated.

Note to gamers: when someone shoots you in the face, they aren't "gay." They are "psychopathic."

EmP: That's fair and understandable, then. I forgot that the HGmail thing didn't used to be so prominent

I think the reason people get so snarky at newcomers as happened here has to do with the perception that the person writing the review doesn't give a shit. Leroux is right to say that there is a different between incoherent reviews that don't say anything of substance and reviews that have an idea but just haven't learned to express that idea. However, in either case, I think it's important that the person who wrote the review is open to criticism and willing to improve. If they're not, then providing any criticism is a pointless waste of time, and, as such, I think the community as a whole feels better mocking it because that's infinitely more entertaining than trying to help someone out that won't have anything to do with it.

That's not to say that this approach is the right thing. And this is especially true when the community didn't give the person a chance in the first place. I myself admit to being quite hostile towards this piece, uncharacterisitc though iti s for me, but I only expressed my discontent privately rather than publicly because I knew it wouldn't mean anything. I'd even had a mind to leave decent feedback for the review, but I didn't want to because I didn't want to sound overly mean about it, which I knew I would have. I also didn't want to waste my time.

In any case, I think part of the problem with reviews like this deals exactly with what Venter talked about. In a sense, there's an inherent contradiction between wanting to build the community and keeping high site standards. That's because in order to build up the community, we'll need to bring in people who may very well have only the level of writing shown here, but to encourage these people's participation, we need to be supportive and helpful towards their efforts. But maintaining site standards is also important, which inherently means reviews like this won't be accepted, or, as was the case here, they should be deleted soon after the feedback was given. Unfortantely, this division in standards automatically creates a dichotomy in which the veterans and skilled members of the community tend to step on those lesser then themselves.

So, to compromise between these two opposites, I propose that the best solution simply be to handle cases like this as they had been intended to here, only in a timely manner. Mocking and outright derogatory criticism should be avoided, at least publicly, though I admit even doing it privately probably won't help in the grand scheme of things, until it is shown that the recipient of the criticism indeed doesn't care at all or turned out to be a one-shot submission. Even then the mocking should probably be avoided, but I know this isn't always the case. I'm certainly not immune to it, and I often like to think that I'm fairly level-headed about these sorts of things.

What espiga does in his free time
[Eating EmP's brain] probably isn't a good idea. I mean... He's British, which means his brain's wired for PAL and your eyes are NTSC. - Will

Way too much over-analysis going on here.

The review is not up to site standards, but got posted anyway. Sportsman understandably assumed that us staffers were either not paying attention, or that we had gone daft. I've assumed the same thing in the past myself, in reference to a "review" that never got deleted. Sportsman pointed this out in a way that did not insult the writer. "Really Venter?" only makes sense to people who agree that the review doesn't meet site standards.

EmP showed up to explain the real story, and that explanation was accepted.

Anyways. Upholding site standards and increasing the contributing community's size will always be at odds, because great writers are less common than poor writers. But a failure to uphold site standards damages the "brand". What is HonestGamers? More than anything, it's a place for quality reviewing. That's our "brand".

Success is built around identity. Some identities are destined for mass appeal, and others aren't... but zero identity is destined for failure.

//Zig

Unlimited Zig Works!

Way too much over-analysis going on here.

Hey, it's an online forum. =)

I don't have to prove I'm refined - that's what makes me refined!

Why not try posting a Craigslist ad for new users?

It worked for Leyanna. He has more people now than he knows what to do with.

If I Die Young, May It Be Noble. If I Die Old, Let It Be Peaceful. And If I Am To Live Forever, Please Bless My Loved Ones With The Same Miracle.

Congratulations, Sportsman. You managed to piss Leroux off in three fewer words than I did.

You exist because we allow it. And you will end because we demand it.