*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 29, 2014, 12:54:55 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4283 Members Latest Member: - otto Most online today: 76 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: version  (Read 3228 times)
kwill
Member

Posts: 167


WWW
« on: September 09, 2001, 04:12:00 AM »

browsing the reviews I must say I agree with Zak's request that reviews are date-stamped, not only for ease of browsing ("Which are new?"), but also to keep up with which version of an online game is being reviewed

more importantly, I think, games should include some version/latest revision/Fit the Nth comment so's that we can keep up with what/if changes have been made since the review

this way, as well as a date, a reviewer can include in the review which version/update of a system he or she is talking about

"Puppetland: Accessed on September 9 2000"

"The Pool v1.2"

hey, maybe this is just my computer geek nature and the hammering in of rulse to referencing online resources, but I reckon it's useful data

Logged

d@vid
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2001, 09:48:00 AM »

David,

Ideally, I agree. One thing I'd like to do is get the approximate dates of the reviews into their text, and some day, we'll do that. From now on, I'll put the dates of review into the text and indicate the version IF it's on the game.

And it's all very well as a suggestion, but in practice it ain't quite that easy.

First is the retrospective issue - when my first reviews went up, it was enough of a hassle and an achievement to get them written and posted at all. "What, independent RPGs? Huh?" The answer: "Look, here's a review, the game exists and is being played." Any action was positive action. The idea of an ongoing documentation of either the game's development or of the Forge's effort was simply not on my mind.

Second is the "edition" issue - if the game is locked into a production schedule or series, that's one thing, but for most of these games, that's not the case. When I played Puppetland, there was no indicator that it was even being considered for book form (the review had to be hastily revised). If a game exists as a few pages of text, even "1.0" is too official for some. "Proto-notion for development" is more like it.

So this is still garage-punk play and review, as well as, in some cases, garage-punk design. As I said, I'll try to rectify things a bit, but don't expect it to be pretty all the time.

Best,
Ron
Logged
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!