[TopAce]

I'd actually like to see a Campaign Review Board, with long-winded reviews by multiple reviewers as opposed to short, nondescript posts that are typically abundant in release threads, but not on the Wiki, but here at the forums.

[Shade]

I'm basically with TopAce and Battuta on this. Feel free to do stuff like this on the forums if you want, but the wiki really isn't the place for it. When it comes down to it, it is entirely subjective which campaigns one might find good, average or bad. And while the FS wiki is by no means wikipedia (and thank heavens for that), like it or not, it isn't a discussion club either.

That said, within the articles of the individual campaigns in question it would be perfectly ok to add a 'player comments' section, where you could add a text snippet (and I do mean a snippet, not a  novel) informing the general public of your opinion. Several articles already have this, and as I see it that represents the best way to comment on the worth -or lack of it- of a campaign within the wiki format.

[BlackDove]

While I certainly understand why you would have little confidence in the community at large to handle themselves in the face of something like this, I do not condone yielding to any potential positive development that solves a long standing issue, due to fear, pessimism and hypothetical negative expectations.

But I'm not entirely sure it would do anything that's not already done. Everyone seems to go play the 'big campaigns' right off anyway, and most of those are considered the better campaigns too.

Plus the Installer provides a nice bundle of fairly well-maintained campaigns.

It would simply streamline the process. Yes, it wouldn't do anything new, which is why I'm all for it.

What it would do is provide a quick and efficient way to deliver information to any new players, without the need for feedback exchange. Things that can be tutorialized or automated, and information that can be compiled in order to inform more easily, is definitely the step that takes precedence over any and all fears of community repercussions to such a solution.

The installer may provide a nice bundle, yet there are still many that post here asking for exactly this information, and who knows how many that do not register and post.

When it comes down to it, it is entirely subjective which campaigns one might find good, average or bad.

Not when you compile all of those. Then it's statistic. And there are no talks of discussion either, just cold hard compiled data.

A statistic that has worth directly proportional against how much one may value the community. If you believe everyone in the community is a retard, obviously the statistic's worth would not be favorable.

On the other hand, if you believe the only thing this game really has left, is its community, well...

[Qent]

What about the ratings on FSMods then?

[Mongoose]

This whole discussion reminds me of the music site Overclocked ReMix, and why they've never implemented numerical rankings for their individual music tracks.  The justification for this is that the site's creator doesn't want fans missing out on content they'd personally enjoy just because it's unpopular and/or heavily-criticized, but instead encourages them to try out new material and make such determinations on their own.  Granted, there's an inherent ease-of-entry difference between a four-minute song and a many-hour campaign, but I think the same principle still applies.  I think the current system of wiki page comments and lengthier forum reviews works just fine for our purposes.

(Actually, I personally don't believe on assigning numerical ratings or rankings to any entertainment products I consume, as I'm of the opinion that a single numerical value doesn't convey anything useful.)

[General Battuta]

I just don't like this idea. I don't want to see campaigns fighting for votes or ratings. I don't want to see lobbying. I don't want to see bickering over the bottom few spots on the Mighty List.

It seems like it has the potential to do more harm than good.

[headdie]

I just don't like this idea. I don't want to see campaigns fighting for votes or ratings. I don't want to see lobbying. I don't want to see bickering over the bottom few spots on the Mighty List.

It seems like it has the potential to do more harm than good.

I have to agree on all points there, as a community we all know what is good and what is not and as proven recently all somebody new has to do is post a thread asking what is the best out there and there will be inundated with good answers.

[Mobius]

Maybe it wouldn't work as an official list on the Wiki because of its nature, but would probably work on the forums as long as each review is connected to its author and does not represent the opinion of this community as a whole. At that point, the more campaign reviewers, the better.

And one number, as we all know, isn't enough. The most detailled reviews analyze multiple aspects of a game (usually 4+) and each one of them is rated independently. A similar may be used to rate campaigns depending on their FREDding, plot, graphics, mods, length, etc. etc. so that people looking for something specific can easily find it.

[Droid803]

Last thing we need are campaign makers trying to cater to the masses and get up the list instead of telling their own story.

People should pick what they like themselves. We do not need a numerical representation of the supposed superiority of campaigns over others.

[General Battuta]

I think there's a much greater need to spotlight a few campaigns that don't get talked up. Uncharted Territory, for instance, is one that I think deserves a lot more play.

[Goober5000]

Once it's done and written somewhere conclusively, plus aggregated with a maximum amount of membership votes, it would solve;

a) People posting threads asking for what to play, or what the community would recommend them, and

We have no shortage of new users asking questions without reading the sticky threads already, as Jeff Vader and The E can attest.

Instead, how about a small team of reviewers?

I really like this idea.  Does HLP have enough critical mass to start something like the old VWatch Archives series of reviews?  Those were excellent guides on what to expect when playing a mission, and they also had the bonus of reviewing poor and less-played missions as well as good and frequently-played ones.

[Mobius]

I'm afraid it could degenerate into elitism, but still remains a very good idea. I support it.

[Narwhal]

(Almost) everyone is against the short-list obviously. Fine - Let's drop the idea.

Both remaining solutions are good in my book. They have drawbacks, but they are better than the current situation.

I am personally more in favor of a user-made notation system. I believe the communauty is mature enough to avoid fanboyism and cheating (esp. if you need to be "logged" to vote), and I believe a system giving not only the "score" but also the number of votes would lessen the vicious circle of people only playing and thus voting for the campaigns having which received the most positive votes (as people would see that only say 5 persons played the campaigns, so the grade is not significant and the campaign might be worth a try).
I don't think people would make campaign "to please the communauty". I do believe that it will tend to people playing mostly the same campaigns, except for true fans - but I have no problem with this if people do actually play MORE campaigns (in total) that way. There is also the small problem with the wiki not allowing this as of yet.

Or else, everyone who ever participated on this thread go on the wiki and actually comment the campaign they played in the "Player comment" section of campaign pages

The problems with the "dedicated testing team", beyond a problem of principles for some of us (not me), is that 1. it is time-consuming for the tester 2. the communauty is too small : many members have contributed to some campaigns and know personally / are working with other people who together have been involved in most campaigns.
Also - how to choose them. The most proeminent members - with the most legitimacy - are either coders (who have little time) or campaign-makers (who also have little time and are involved).

[Narwhal]

Edit : Double Post

[Mobius]

I'm not sure about the lack of free time, really. I work a lot on what I'm involved on but still can find enough time to play and rate.

You probably won't believe it, but I was actually planning to write my own campaign reviews, post them on ModDB and then add links here.

[Narwhal]

You probably won't believe it, but I was actually planning to write my own campaign reviews, post them on ModDB and then add links here.[/color]

I believe you 

[BlackDove]

A statistical compilation of a simple vote to the effect of "I recommend this campaign", which already occurs all the time, eliminates any subjective degrees and opinions of given works. It also evades any negative remarks. It is simply an endorsement for whatever people like, and nothing further, which is as close as you're going to get to a clean impression from others.

Suggesting for people to give campaigns scores, and to "review" them, means that you have chosen to step into an entirely different area where personal opinions and judgment play a factor, something that doesn't transpire to a large degree when you're just compiling a "likes" list.

The current status of the gaming industry serves as proof that most people who actually get paid to review games are notoriously bad at it, and in general lack the necessary skills required in order to give informed reviews. Placing that power into the hands of random general people on this board, is a notion that borders on the psychotic, as there's no real way to even evaluate general competency of every given "reviewer".

Confusing reviewing legitimacy, integrity and experience with coders and campaign makers is an error of significant proportions. Being a coder or a campaign maker does not grant any qualifications whatsoever to make informed opinions or rationalizations towards any given work.

[Mobius]

But many community members have years of experience: IMHO our reviews will probably be of high quality, really.

[General Battuta]

The whole idea is terrible. This will lead to no end of drama and hissyfits.

I think we should be less srs about things. No reviewers, no databases, just an anarchic collective!

[Droid803]

But many community members have years of experience: IMHO our reviews will probably be of high quality, really.

Is that wishful thinking I hear?