Real quick W1z, what Civ 5 benchmark are you using? Thanks.
Originally Posted by W1zzard
yes, i'm just listing them, readers should think about those points and decide whether they matter for their own requirements or not
Originally Posted by thunderising
Also, The summary should be based on the card's price. You should work out positively, like
: Great for gaming at 1680x1050 @ 100$
That puts a proper impression, instead of:
: Not good at Full HD
Just my opinions.. and I guess, DX11 relevance point will go once BF3 releases huh :P (crysis 2 made a fool of us already)
I don't mean this to be personal in anyway (to W1z, thunder, or anyone else). I've never realized it myself either.
You know I was not sure why W1z always put things like that in the comments. There was always a blatant obviousness to me. Now I realize that the target customer maybe oblivious (for obvious reasons) to those blatancies. Most on this site have the privilege of having something way faster while similarly costlier.
It may look monotonous at first glance but its also stating a clear limit of a possible unawareness that the buyer needs to understand.
"Great for 1680x1050" does not draw the line in the sand like
"Not good at Full HD". They both say each other in their assumptions. Both also speak clearly at their intended point on the surface. thunder's tells you the max the card can provide without killing enjoyment. Though Wizzard's says don't go here, you need to turn around and go back to thunder's limit or spend more money to avoid "in hindsight" experience.
In a review I'd rather state the plain and obvious (neg and/or pos) less the reader think they got hustled by me when I thought I was being clear. It reads as ymmv instead of "here and no further". I'm not saying you have to always put it in the negative. Just limits in their very nature carry some kind of negative tone in them.
An analogy? How does the ref call the game if the lines are not on the field/court? Whether the lines are negative or not to the player depends on if they are the one disputing the clearness of them (clarity being the point).
You always read how dumb/stupid/etc the buyers on the bottom end of the market are (the usual "they don't do research" comments), the ones who buy in to the marketing of whoever throws it out best. What does that say about the quality of the reviews out there then? Sounds to me like there are a lot of markless fields. I think most readers will forgive a negative tone to avoid a "in hindsight" moment.
It's not always easy to see what is obvious to us either. It is always hard though to make the obvious, obvious when it is unapparent to the reader of their need to know. So you got to "cover all the bases" per-say without making the reader think they're being talked down to.
That's a challenge.