Talk:Inform 7: Difference between revisions
From IFWiki
(Do we wish to link to the "Informless" review?) |
(Reply to Victor Gijsbers) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Do we really want to link to the "Informless" review? It's not that I mind criticisms of Inform 7, but what I do mind are utterly clueless and unfair reviews. It hardly seems worth anyone's time to follow that link and find out that the reviewers interpreted the "natural language" claim wrongly and smash Inform 7 because of their own wrong expectations. [[User:VictorGijsbers|VictorGijsbers]] 05:21, 7 February 2008 (PST) | Do we really want to link to the "Informless" review? It's not that I mind criticisms of Inform 7, but what I do mind are utterly clueless and unfair reviews. It hardly seems worth anyone's time to follow that link and find out that the reviewers interpreted the "natural language" claim wrongly and smash Inform 7 because of their own wrong expectations. [[User:VictorGijsbers|VictorGijsbers]] 05:21, 7 February 2008 (PST) | ||
:Personally, in game pages at least, I prefer to add all the reviews I can (except extremely short ones which aren't part of a bigger set of reviews), even when they seem unfair or pointless to me. Because it's often a subjective judgment, and because there aren't ''that'' many reviews of IF games anyway. | |||
:For authoring systems, it might be different, but I doubt it: the list of reviews links on this page certainly isn't unmanageably long. I think we should ''add'' links to other, better Inform 7 reviews if we can find them, not remove the link. | |||
:(By the way: I wonder if ''Some Observations on Using Inform 7'' should be in another section? Emily Short is a co-author of Inform 7, so it's not exactly a review...) | |||
:I do think this Inform 7 page isn't entirely satisfying, but I don't know enough about Inform 7 to modify it myself... (I did add the authors of the language some time ago, though.) I'd prefer a bit more info about the language itself and maybe a bit less about the early Inform 7 games (and if there must be a section about games, then we could at least add some more recent notable games). --[[User:Eriorg|Eriorg]] 09:44, 7 February 2008 (PST) | |||
Revision as of 17:44, 7 February 2008
Do we really want to link to the "Informless" review? It's not that I mind criticisms of Inform 7, but what I do mind are utterly clueless and unfair reviews. It hardly seems worth anyone's time to follow that link and find out that the reviewers interpreted the "natural language" claim wrongly and smash Inform 7 because of their own wrong expectations. VictorGijsbers 05:21, 7 February 2008 (PST)
- Personally, in game pages at least, I prefer to add all the reviews I can (except extremely short ones which aren't part of a bigger set of reviews), even when they seem unfair or pointless to me. Because it's often a subjective judgment, and because there aren't that many reviews of IF games anyway.
- For authoring systems, it might be different, but I doubt it: the list of reviews links on this page certainly isn't unmanageably long. I think we should add links to other, better Inform 7 reviews if we can find them, not remove the link.
- (By the way: I wonder if Some Observations on Using Inform 7 should be in another section? Emily Short is a co-author of Inform 7, so it's not exactly a review...)
- I do think this Inform 7 page isn't entirely satisfying, but I don't know enough about Inform 7 to modify it myself... (I did add the authors of the language some time ago, though.) I'd prefer a bit more info about the language itself and maybe a bit less about the early Inform 7 games (and if there must be a section about games, then we could at least add some more recent notable games). --Eriorg 09:44, 7 February 2008 (PST)