Contact Info / Websites

Rating theory

2010-11-06 09:24:39 by Davoo
Updated

If you feel I have hated or loved your movie/game/song/art based on the score I gave it in my review, listen up; this is what I meant.

10 -- Sublime, as good as something could possibly be
Equally as good as: Seinfeld, The Princess Bride, Milk (beverage)

9 -- Excellent, a milestone of Newgrounds
Equally as good as: Lord of the Rings movies, Daft Punk, Justice, Super Smash Brothers series, Good Eats with Alton Brown, South Park, Toy Story Trilogy, Portal, Kick-Ass, Spiderman 1 and 2, Ramen Cups, Kraft Macaroni & Cheese

8 -- Great, not mind-blowing, but great
Equally as good as: "Hey Soul Sister" by Train, the best Family Guy episodes, riding a well-designed roller coaster, DX-ball, watching plastic plates and cups melt in fire, Spiderman 3, Paycheck (movie), Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches

7 -- Very good, has several things going for it
Equally as good as: Kraftwerk, Moby (artist), Transformers 2, Robot Chicken, Magnetica for Nintendo DS, Boys Noize

6 -- Good, forgettable, but good
Equally as good as: Num3ers, Game Informer Magazine, first Predator movie, Owl City, MSTRKRFT

5 -- Decent, but not good or worthwhile
Equally as good as: Deadmau5, Everyone on TGWTG.com who isn't Doug or Linkara, the worst Family Guy episodes

4 -- Sucky, at least one thing about it is severely wrong
3 -- Bad, riddled with tons of gripes, or hardly any effort seemed to be put into it
2 -- Very bad, nothing about it is decent at all
1 -- Terrible/pointless, not only is nothing decent, but everything is as bad as it could possibly be, and/or it serves absolutely no purpose on the portal
0 -- Anti-matter, it's just... nothing. Nothing at all, not even anything bad, just not a single trace of substance or purpose


Comments

You must be logged in to comment on this post.


PsychopathPsychopath

2010-11-10 20:30:59

The people who's work you're critiquing shouldn't have to read your blog to understand what your review means. That defeats the entire purpose of a review. Sadly that's not even the beginning as to why your shit eating reviews are being deleted.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1 199856

Davoo responds:

What IS the purpose of a review, according to you?


PsychopathPsychopath

2010-11-13 04:55:38

To leave your opinion in the review, to actually, concisely, express an opinion within the review itself and not just "Good, forgettable, but good", that's just a basic summary.

To actually pay attention to detail and to contribute to the work in question by critiquing it on certain details and to constructively give advise, to ask questions about plot holes and to point out flaws.

Not to just express your opinion in a single phrase but to elaborate on what you thought was wrong, where improvements could be made and just things in particular.

Not to attack the content but to criticize the quality of the content, not the story but rather the way it was executed, not the dynamic the animation follows but how well it follows the dynamic.

To weigh the value of something by it's quality and not it's content.

In otherwords, to actually give a shit to contribute to the improvement of someone else's work, skills and talent by expressing your own viewpoints on the subject matter, not to badger it with negative, hateful, personal, derogatory remarks aimed at the author for simply having created work in question.

That is the purpose of reviewing something.

Davoo responds:

Okay, that's reasonable. I just don't see it that way. I agree with the "giving a shit" and "not being hateful" parts, I just don't think one HAS to do all that other stuff every time. A basic summary, to me, is all that is required.

For you, reviewing is like giving the world instructions on how to do better. That's okay, but for me, sometimes I'll do the instructions thing, but reviews are simply to pat people on the back for being good, and give them a thumbs-down for being bad.

Maybe I don't WANT to tell people how to improve. Maybe I want to see people get better on their own.

But you know, that review of mine on your art could have been better. I guess I don't take art reviewing as seriously as flash reviewing, but here's a more detailed and coherent version:

"I find this pretty funny. I don't know if you're a furry or what, but it's pretty fun-tastically disturbing. You got the anatomy pretty correct I guess, but the lines, the gradients, and the glares of light all look pretty crappy. It's like he/she(?) is made out of rubber or something. So it's kind of a crummy picture thanks to tools used to draw it, but it's still pretty funny!"


PsychopathPsychopath

2010-11-21 01:40:07

Yeah, that is more concise, but how do you suggest I go about improving it? And yes I'm a furry.

Davoo responds:

Ok, I've had to say this a million billion trillion quadrillion times to people who say "you didn't say how to make it better". But here it goes again...

According to you, just saying,
"the lines, the gradients, and the glares of light all look pretty crappy."
is NOT a constructive statement, because it doesn't tell you how to improve. It might be "concise", but it's not "helpful", that's what you're saying, right?

Well okay, here, according to your rules, is the constructive version of that statement,
"STOP having lines that are crappy, STOP having gradients that are crappy, and STOP having glares that are crappy."

I also mention that the ultimate result of all this that is the real problem is that it makes your fox transvestite look like he/she is made out of rubber. So figure out how to make it not look like rubber. Do you think I should tell you how to do that? Because I really don't know! You're a better artist than me, so you should be able to figure that out better than I could.

I know the tone of this message may sound like it, but I'm truly not the least bit mad our annoyed at you at this present moment. So it's all cool. :)