«

[_r.u.s.s.]

why forcing ourselves to write longer reviews when there's nothing really much more to say about a game?

[Acethor]

Not forcing anyone per se... if someone wants to *force themselves* to write a longer review then they may. Nothing wrong with that IMO. And I think there's plenty more that could be said about Blackthorne.

[Saccade]

You've got a point, russ...

I feel that, if a game is a great one and is pretty popular, sometimes a more descriptive review - not a longer one - can help browsers decide to get it.

There's no point in adding words for the sake of it, but there may be point in changing the words so they have more impact.

[ed]
I'm quite happy to sit down and be a review machine... I've got several reviews that are backlogged; I just need to get things organised.
Hopefully, using this guy's network (or, in a few weeks, when I get my own again) I won't be having all these bastard problems with connecting to the FTP.

I think Paco's getting a bit tired of having to tell me to re-upload stuff because of screwed transfers...

[marko river]

I wanted to protest seeing that you want to replace a review that is not a stub. But after reading it again, I do get the feeling that it is stub review. Perhaps some don't agree.

My point is that we should now determine all the reviews that are stub. Also, new reviews we add can't be stub so sooner or later we will replace all stub reviews and everything will be ok. I just don't want to see other reviews being replaced because they are short. It is also possible to have long review that doesn't tell enough, but that's not the point. It must be clear what reviews are to be replaced ASAP and other reviews shouldn't be touched anymore.

[Acethor]

TotalAnarchy has a list of stubs here.

There are many more than that though, like Cannon Fodder 2.

[marko river]

Is that list of stubs or replaced stubs?

I read Cannon fodder 2 review. It is actually short and precise review. You don't really need to say anything else and it is only few lines long... It apears as stub review but is actually enough because it has link to Cannonf Fodder first part... don't know what to think...

[bobson]

Originally Posted by Acethor

TotalAnarchy has a list of stubs here.

There are many more than that though, like Cannon Fodder 2.

I'm sorry Acethor to say you are wrong, but that list is just a place where the stubs are going after replacement to honour the work of the original reviewer

[Luchsen]

Originally Posted by marko river

is actually enough because it has link to Cannonf Fodder first part...

That's not really a good solution. The reviews should be stand-alone. Blending the linked review in would be best, I think. Except if someone absolutely wants to re-review it.

[Acethor]

Ok you are right bob. Regarding Cannon Fodder 2, ten lines or less qualifies as a stub review. Just look at it - it's only one paragraph!

[marko river]

Yes, it is only one paragraph so it does look like stub review.

It's just that I remembered my review for Livingstone, I Presume that is not long but I feel it is enough. Still, it does have more than us 1 paragraph.

Looking at that page gave me link to Congo Bongo. Is that stub review in your opinion? And why is Slovenian translation in "also try"????