Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Site Discussions & Suggestions' started by lynismybae, Mar 12, 2016.
I submitted a review last week and it's still awaiting approval. What gives?
I didn't think it was a serious effort with the tagline of "This game sucks balls."
If I was wrong, then my answer is still "no".
I wasn't aware there were guidelines. Must've missed them.
So the tagline is the only issue?
Expound on your reasonings a bit more, maybe have a more insightful tag line rather than "This game sucks balls", don't call the devs/publishers assholes in the final paragraph, and you openly admit in the ending that it might be better but you wouldn't know because you could only be bothered to play it for an hour.
Doesn't seem very fair, or like you tried very hard.
End result is the review is still subject to final review and we may wind up rejecting it if we feel it does not fit our criteria or quality expectations.
But I also state at the very beginning that I've only played the game for one hour. And I bolded that. And I mentioned that the overall score only represents the first hour of gameplay. I don't see why playtime is an issue if I'm up-front about it.
As for my reasoning, I think it was detailed enough. I wrote like three or four paragraphs on one hour of gameplay.
If we had a category for "First-hour reviews" that might fit. But our reviews primarily encompass the whole picture, or as much of the game is necessary to get a very educated feel for how it plays. In a lot of games these days the first hour is half spent on tutorials and shit-tier grinding to level you up more, hardly anything to judge an entire game off of.
Seems unnecessary to hide a review just because it doesn't reflect the entire game. The first hour of the game reveals how much the developers care about game design. Introductions and tutorials should be carefully constructed so that the experience is as enjoyable as possible. It's a crucial portion of the game that warrants its own review.
I'm also surprised by the amount of regulation for user-submitted reviews, when there is already an "Official GBAtemp Review" tag. Informal reviews can be just as valuable as formal reviews. Where is the place for them?
The place for them is the User Submitted Review section. But that isn't the "write whatever you want" section. Maybe your tagline of "this game sucks balls" is better fit for a blog or thread than a review that could possibly represent the site. Regardless of who writes them, reviews are still subject to moderation just as every post in a thread is subject to moderation.
Why does my review have to represent this site's ideals? There is a clear distinction between official reviews and user-submitted reviews. I think most people would be able to recognize that my opinions are my own and are not associated with GBAtemp.
If the place for informal reviews is the user-submitted section, I should be able to write whatever I want as long as I'm not off-topic or offensive. But I get the feeling that GBAtemp does not want any informal reviews.
Read some User-Submitted Review comments sometime... people will say things like "I can't believe GBAtemp has such awful, subjective, insert-negative-adjective-here reviews on their site!" You've been a member of this site for 2 months. That's plenty of time to learn that people don't read things or use logic.
Hell, you wrote a long comment explaining why MY long review was crap. You literally prefaced the comment by telling me that you hope it's not GBAtemp's only review of the game because it's crap. You don't seem to grasp the concept of opinions either so why are you complaining about someone telling you that your review is crap?
How is that even related? I would not mind if somebody said my review is crap. My problem is that the review I wrote is being blocked. The comments I left on your review were just an opinion. This is not just an opinion, it's also censorship.
The mods blocking your review is just another way of them saying it's crap.
They could just say the review is crap instead of blocking it. They're not the same thing.
I criticized that guy in my comments, but my criticism does nothing to the visibility of his review. This affects me directly in a negative way.
They blocked it BECAUSE it's crap. Sickly already told you what's wrong with it. There's a difference between blocking a review because the mod disagrees with your score and blocking a review because the reviewer only spent an hour playing and uses phrases like "This game sucks balls."
What are you replying to? endoverend was comparing my criticism of his review to the censorship of my review, when they are clearly different situations. One is just an opinion and the other is more than that.
They're both opinions. It's just that Sicklyboy's opinion can affect whether or not your review gets published. Like Endoverend said, you can just post it in the blogs section. Or, you can play the game to completion and then submit a review. If you don't understand that then there's nothing you can do but sit here and cry "Censorship!" to no avail.
So Sicklyboy's opinion is more than just an opinion? As in it also affects the visibility of my review? Thanks for repeating what I've been saying.
The reason this thread exists in the first place is because there are no explicit guidelines in the review section. And I will keep "crying" about the exclusion of informal reviews because it's bogus.
Well as long as you are using this site, you'd better get used to the standard.