It's not that people only give negative reviews, but if I see largely negative reviews, I'm less likely to try it. I believe there are many people like that which will avoid something that's known to be bad. If it's not as good, fewer people will play it, meaning fewer comments in total. You also can't fault the critics sometimes for only giving negative criticism, if there's really nothing that's good (merely things that are marginally acceptable).
There's nothing saying that you can't finish it if you get some other people's opinion before releasing it. If you do, the end product will be better, and more worth the time you spent making it. You'll get more reviews because it'd be good rather than mediocre, and that in turn allows you to improve even more.
I've held off releasing a campaign I finished FREDding basically last year just to get people's opinions on it, and make it relatively bug-free before releasing. I'm making significant changes to some of the missions and they're turning out better for it. Between the improvement in my FREDding skills between now and last year, and because I was told which parts were illogical, so I could patch up plot holes as best as I can.
I don't see how stepping back, evaluating what you've done on the project, getting/considering some other people's opinions on it, and making adjustments can be a bad thing.
Conversely, I don't see how just doing your own thing and ignoring everybody else can be beneficial - even if it is good, having people to bounce ideas off of only makes it better!
Have you considered that instead of redoing past missions and revamping what is a finished campaign you could be creating new missions and an entirely new, second campaign? Both arguments have their merits and I tend to favour the latter.
Alfred Hitchcock once said,
"Films aren't finished, they're abandoned."I think this is an idea that some campaign creators really need to learn and take to heart. And while we're at it George Lucas should learn it too. At some point in time a person needs to step back and say it's finished and just ship it out. The problem with most campaigns created for Freespace 2 or any other game is that the projects don't have hard deadlines so feature creep and revision time sets in and work is redone again and again and again.
Of course seeking input during the course of work can be beneficial, but it can also be a detriment. No one is going to share your exact vision for your campaign, and while you never have to take people at their word they can ultimately draw you off from what was once a singular vision, for better or for worse. It will be interesting for example how BP2 turns out, since Darius seems to have single-handidly created the first campaign and the second seems to be much more of a design by committee.
Having multiple people work on a campaign only exacerbates the situation because then consistency of quality or design goes out the window, unless each task is accomplished by only one individual. And in terms of mission balance and plot, sometimes its good to both have unbalanced missions and plot holes. If someone told Darius "Forced Entry is too hard, no one will like it" and then Darius made it a lot easier would many people remember the mission? If some unexplained events in FS2 like the sabotage of the Colossus or the fate of Bosch were spelled out in plain English would anyone talk about them? Or would they say "oh yeah, I know what happened. Whatever". And if Ransom had me playtest Transcend for him I would've told him the missions are repetitive, and after x amount of time I stopped caring and just wanted it to end. So then maybe Ransom goes back and changes all sorts of stuff and then perhaps the campaign doesn't have the same impact for everyone who loved it. Sometimes flaws or mistakes (which are not bug-related) can be happy accidents and when someone erases those mistakes then that aspect of the campaign is lost.
In short what I'm saying is that the more people who are involved in a campaign, the more diluted the original vision for that campaign becomes. That's the downside to bouncing ideas off of people. Though sometimes the original vision is flawed and needs some "dilution".
An artist, such as a storyteller can distance themselves from a campaign and then come back to it and make their own revisions if necessary. But there should be a limit to revisions and a deadline in mind. Maybe for example someone says "okay, I'm done my campaign. I'll leave it for a week, or a month and give it another go. Then after I see what's wrong with it, I have one month to fix whatever i can then it's out the door".
And finally, bouncing ideas or getting help from someone else has another downside. There is more value in a person figuring out a problem for themselves, rather than simply being told what is wrong and how to fix it. Because the latter can be used as a crutch. I know, in art school I used to always talk to a certain teacher about drawing in perspective, or to a friend. Then when they were busy, or they couldn't help, I had to figure it out for myself. And that's when I really started to learn and things clicked. I believe it's the same with any sort of skill.
