The contest has come to a close. Gizmog1 is, hands down, the winner of the contest.
Clocking in at a total of only 94 reviews (from 38 games) and 1 finalist compared to last year's contest of 200 reviews (from 54 games) and 3 finalists, this contest might seem like a downward trend. Particularly since this year basically saw all participation completely drop off somewhere around mid-October. However, we also had 11-12 participants over last year's 7 and we even saw several authors go out of their way to fix their game in time for the contest. A few people who aren't regulars of the community showed up. So I think we're still doing alright over all.
I'd like to take the time to highlight the unsung hero of the contest: sotrain515. He never posted in the thread to officially enter, but he did state the intent in one of his reviews. Please do check out his work:
Dreadful Occupant
The K'hyurbhi Lands
Open Trail
L'Sol Nocturnal Tears No Ingles
If you compare and contrast some of his reviews with the others, you'll find he does an amazing job breaking down problems with the games in explicit detail that many reviewers only spent a paragraph vaguely hinting at. I think everyone could learn from this guy, and I hope he makes a return next year.
Of course the central topic of discussion this year was the appearance of comic reviews. Some people felt that most of them added nothing to the reviews, and that they overshadowed the text reviews with their flashiness. Other people thought they were the funnest thing ever, and got several new reviewers in on the action. My official stance has always been that the more feedback we can get for games, regardless of quality, the better.
But I'll open it up for discussion: do we need to do anything special for comic reviews? Ban them? Put them in a separate ranking tier? Or just leave them alone since most comic reviewers lost interest after 3 games anyway. There's certainly something to be said for a harsher, stricter review contest where only the toughest of reviewers can make it through the gauntlet. So far I've been gliding it towards more open in the hopes of getting more reviews.
The 2013 game review contest will take place in summer 2014. The 2014 game review contest will take place in January 2015. The idea here being to move the contest back to January without killing the reviewers with another contest less than 2 months after the last. Plus we get to see what time slots are most convenient for participants.
Now then: what suggestions or comments do you have for next year's contest? What changes do you want to see happen? Here's a few things on my mind:
1. What to do with the comic reviews (see above)
2. This year I opted to put short / minimally updated games on an optional list. Would you prefer a different method of handling them?
3. How can we get more people to enter the contest? Even many common reviewers seem hesitant to enter.
4. How can we deal with the mid-contest burn out that happened this year?
5. Would a "book club" format where certain games were scheduled for certain days/weeks and discussed among reviewers at the same time be of interest to you?
2012 Review Contest Results / Discussion
Moderators: Bob the Hamster, marionline, SDHawk
-
Meowskivich
- Blubber Bloat
- Posts: 2199
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:38 am
- Location: Earth
- Contact:
1 - Comic reviews should be allowed ONLY IF they actually review the game, giving a clear point on what was liked and what was disliked and whether or not they suggest the game or suggest skipping.
2 - No comment, really.
3 - Perhaps a less extreme amount of games to review? I dunno. I liked Gizmog's random game picker thing, if giz is willing to keep that up for any other year this goes down. I'm sure the comic review approach being accepted helps some people ease into it with less wordy reviews that go more to the point while wrapped in colourful silly pictures.
4 - Couldn't say. I just got sick of the extreme amount of games to review. I limited myself to 30 minutes a game, to reduce the tedium. I suppose an earlier presented time-limit with an end-year end of it.
Perhaps Feburary to November? Or March, at least.
5 - I'd dig a "book club" format. But perhaps biweekly.
2 - No comment, really.
3 - Perhaps a less extreme amount of games to review? I dunno. I liked Gizmog's random game picker thing, if giz is willing to keep that up for any other year this goes down. I'm sure the comic review approach being accepted helps some people ease into it with less wordy reviews that go more to the point while wrapped in colourful silly pictures.
4 - Couldn't say. I just got sick of the extreme amount of games to review. I limited myself to 30 minutes a game, to reduce the tedium. I suppose an earlier presented time-limit with an end-year end of it.
Perhaps Feburary to November? Or March, at least.
5 - I'd dig a "book club" format. But perhaps biweekly.
Well all previously written reviews are eligible. So, technically speaking, the review contest is always going if you want to go at a slower pace. The smaller time window of the contest proper just gives a concentrated time slot for the community to come together and see reviews getting blasted out, giving it the feel of an event that's happening. If the contest window gets expanded then that explosion of reviews ends up diluted. (Plus some people really like the challenge element of the tighter window)Meowskivich wrote: 4 - Couldn't say. I just got sick of the extreme amount of games to review. I limited myself to 30 minutes a game, to reduce the tedium. I suppose an earlier presented time-limit with an end-year end of it.
Perhaps Feburary to November? Or March, at least.
-
Pepsi Ranger
- Liquid Metal Slime
- Posts: 1457
- Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:25 am
- Location: South Florida
I know I haven't participated in any of these review contests, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
My stance has always been that more reviewers offer more diversity to opinions and styles, and can give both developers and players a wider understanding about what works and what doesn't in a game. So, limiting comics or expecting certain formats for a review to work isn't really the way to go. Even if a reviewer focuses entirely on one aspect of the game, it's still helpful if the reviewer attempts to talk about it critically. The comics were gimmicky, and I got bored with the lesser quality ones, but I did like the idea behind them, and I do think they add tone to the words when handled well. Charbile was quite good at showing his opinion without speaking it through clever layout and smart visual choices. The copycats, I think, kinda missed the point. My suggestion is to allow reviewers to review however they want, be it comic, Youtube video, song, interpretive dance, or series of pastries arranged in story format. As long as it helps someone, it should be allowed.
As far as reviewing minimally updated games goes, I think keeping it optional is a lukewarm argument. It's smart for the players who may not have time to play them and bad for the developers who really need the feedback. What I would do is list the new games first and the updated games at the bottom. That way everyone prioritizes the new games without forgetting about the updated ones. If they have time to reach the updated ones, then awesome. If they don't, it's okay. I do think you should prioritize updated games according to addition and change if you have that information available though. I wouldn't want to spend two hours playing a previously released game so that I can adequately comment on that one cutscene the designer added to the ending when the game at the bottom of the list has ten new side quests, twelve new heroes, and the PIN to the developer's bank account as an easter egg.
The best way to get new people to post reviews is to spend time reviewing their games, too (including those not on the review list). One of my greatest frustrations when I had started reviewing for Operation: OHR so many years ago was that I'd give feedback on dozens of games, but not one person would bother to give feedback on my own. Eventually I got burned out from giving and not receiving. As time passed, people did finally heed my request and gave me a review. But by then I had moved on to another game. It did infuse a new burst of energy in me, though. In a contest like this, reviewing other people's games is a given. But there's also a sense of requirement that takes away that feeling of importance or interest. Reviewing in the off-season really helps people's sense of gaming purpose, and gets them a little more willing to give back.
One reason why some people might be hesitant to write a review is that they may not know how to approach it logically. Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone knows how to communicate it well, or how to approach certain topics. A hierarchy of Q&A prompts might help some start a review who might otherwise shy away from writing in public.
As far as the mid-contest burnout goes, it's bound to happen in a contest that rewards quantity. If everyone fires on all cylinders right out the gate, you're gonna have nothing left three weeks down the road. You might do better to arrange games in groups and challenge reviewers to take a group for the duration of the contest. If they want to do another group, they can. But if they stretch out a group over the course of two months rather than the entire year's game list, they're less likely to burn out. You're also more likely to get a few more reviewers participating.
A book club is a great idea, except that it's been tried before and never really went anywhere. Probably better not to give people too many options. More option means more anxiety over where to begin.
My stance has always been that more reviewers offer more diversity to opinions and styles, and can give both developers and players a wider understanding about what works and what doesn't in a game. So, limiting comics or expecting certain formats for a review to work isn't really the way to go. Even if a reviewer focuses entirely on one aspect of the game, it's still helpful if the reviewer attempts to talk about it critically. The comics were gimmicky, and I got bored with the lesser quality ones, but I did like the idea behind them, and I do think they add tone to the words when handled well. Charbile was quite good at showing his opinion without speaking it through clever layout and smart visual choices. The copycats, I think, kinda missed the point. My suggestion is to allow reviewers to review however they want, be it comic, Youtube video, song, interpretive dance, or series of pastries arranged in story format. As long as it helps someone, it should be allowed.
As far as reviewing minimally updated games goes, I think keeping it optional is a lukewarm argument. It's smart for the players who may not have time to play them and bad for the developers who really need the feedback. What I would do is list the new games first and the updated games at the bottom. That way everyone prioritizes the new games without forgetting about the updated ones. If they have time to reach the updated ones, then awesome. If they don't, it's okay. I do think you should prioritize updated games according to addition and change if you have that information available though. I wouldn't want to spend two hours playing a previously released game so that I can adequately comment on that one cutscene the designer added to the ending when the game at the bottom of the list has ten new side quests, twelve new heroes, and the PIN to the developer's bank account as an easter egg.
The best way to get new people to post reviews is to spend time reviewing their games, too (including those not on the review list). One of my greatest frustrations when I had started reviewing for Operation: OHR so many years ago was that I'd give feedback on dozens of games, but not one person would bother to give feedback on my own. Eventually I got burned out from giving and not receiving. As time passed, people did finally heed my request and gave me a review. But by then I had moved on to another game. It did infuse a new burst of energy in me, though. In a contest like this, reviewing other people's games is a given. But there's also a sense of requirement that takes away that feeling of importance or interest. Reviewing in the off-season really helps people's sense of gaming purpose, and gets them a little more willing to give back.
One reason why some people might be hesitant to write a review is that they may not know how to approach it logically. Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone knows how to communicate it well, or how to approach certain topics. A hierarchy of Q&A prompts might help some start a review who might otherwise shy away from writing in public.
As far as the mid-contest burnout goes, it's bound to happen in a contest that rewards quantity. If everyone fires on all cylinders right out the gate, you're gonna have nothing left three weeks down the road. You might do better to arrange games in groups and challenge reviewers to take a group for the duration of the contest. If they want to do another group, they can. But if they stretch out a group over the course of two months rather than the entire year's game list, they're less likely to burn out. You're also more likely to get a few more reviewers participating.
A book club is a great idea, except that it's been tried before and never really went anywhere. Probably better not to give people too many options. More option means more anxiety over where to begin.
Place Obligatory Signature Here
-
Spoonweaver
- Liquid Metal King Slime
- Posts: 6466
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:07 am
- Contact:
Time to review the reviewers eh?
I'd just like to say, I think the contest helped get the ball rolling and got a lot of people reviewing games they might never have played and got people reviewing that might never have reviewed.
Overall, I think the idea that some of the reviews were criticized, whether it was because of their content or their comic format, really worked against the contest. It was clear to me that once the negativity over the comic reviews started, everyone slowly bailed. Perhaps a certain reviewer isn't reviewing the way you'd like, and maybe you don't even value their comments at all, but even a 1 sentence comment about a game is better than no comment. You may want every reviewer to be a critical video game reviewer worthy of being printed in a magazine, but that's just not going to happen. So, in the future, less reviewing of the reviewers would be great.
So, on to these questions:
1. I think the biggest flaw of the comic reviews is the negative feed back they cause. They unrailed the contest and in that way they were bad. But ultimately, I think reviews of a alternative nature should be allowed. Let Play's should clearly be allowed in. I think pictures should clearly be allowed and even rewarded; maybe even required. When you look at some of the comics, like Meowskivich's, you'll see that it's really just a group of screenshots next to a fairly standard review. The only difference is that it's all gathered on to a single jpeg.
In any case, I think we won't be seeing many comic reviews in the future due to the negative feedback on them. So, it nothing really needs to be done here.
2. I agree with what pepsi said here.
3. Don't review the reviewers.
That and maybe go outside the community and try to get people in on it.
4. Incentive? I mean, people get bored of reviewing, so I'm not sure how we could really help that. Also, the quality of games really affects this a lot too.
5. The biggest thing I think that would hold this back, is that there would be too many games. even a game a week wouldn't have been possible last time with 54 games. 34 would have been more manageable but we're still talking about a breakneck speed here. Maybe there won't be too many games and it won't be a problem.
Also, this really feels like something different. Like, the review contest is all about people hunkering down and doing a bunch of reviews while they still care and have the free time. A book club thing, or game of the week, or gameS of the week, would find people not free that week, maybe your game lands on christmas or something and no one's here to really pay attention to it.
Anyways, I do actually like the idea, I just think it needs some work.
I'd just like to say, I think the contest helped get the ball rolling and got a lot of people reviewing games they might never have played and got people reviewing that might never have reviewed.
Overall, I think the idea that some of the reviews were criticized, whether it was because of their content or their comic format, really worked against the contest. It was clear to me that once the negativity over the comic reviews started, everyone slowly bailed. Perhaps a certain reviewer isn't reviewing the way you'd like, and maybe you don't even value their comments at all, but even a 1 sentence comment about a game is better than no comment. You may want every reviewer to be a critical video game reviewer worthy of being printed in a magazine, but that's just not going to happen. So, in the future, less reviewing of the reviewers would be great.
So, on to these questions:
1. I think the biggest flaw of the comic reviews is the negative feed back they cause. They unrailed the contest and in that way they were bad. But ultimately, I think reviews of a alternative nature should be allowed. Let Play's should clearly be allowed in. I think pictures should clearly be allowed and even rewarded; maybe even required. When you look at some of the comics, like Meowskivich's, you'll see that it's really just a group of screenshots next to a fairly standard review. The only difference is that it's all gathered on to a single jpeg.
In any case, I think we won't be seeing many comic reviews in the future due to the negative feedback on them. So, it nothing really needs to be done here.
2. I agree with what pepsi said here.
3. Don't review the reviewers.
That and maybe go outside the community and try to get people in on it.
4. Incentive? I mean, people get bored of reviewing, so I'm not sure how we could really help that. Also, the quality of games really affects this a lot too.
5. The biggest thing I think that would hold this back, is that there would be too many games. even a game a week wouldn't have been possible last time with 54 games. 34 would have been more manageable but we're still talking about a breakneck speed here. Maybe there won't be too many games and it won't be a problem.
Also, this really feels like something different. Like, the review contest is all about people hunkering down and doing a bunch of reviews while they still care and have the free time. A book club thing, or game of the week, or gameS of the week, would find people not free that week, maybe your game lands on christmas or something and no one's here to really pay attention to it.
Anyways, I do actually like the idea, I just think it needs some work.
-
marionline
- Metal Slime
- Posts: 673
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:23 pm
1. I really liked the comic reviews and I hope we get more of like that next time. 
Maybe make an extra cathegory for comic reviews.
They were something new and made reading all the reviews more interesting.
2. I think there are already to many games in the contests review list...so it's good that you put them optionally.
3. I guess it's because the review list is so long.
4. I had a contest burn out and droped out quite soon. There were just so many gamey, espacially games, you do not enjoy to play, so I lost intrest in reviewing them, (which would have meant i'd had to play them for reviewing). But I liked the idea of the contest. it's a good thing to give everygame at least one review.
Also, in Mid-October usually University starts in my country. Maybe that's the same in other contrys, so people are to busy?
In my opinion making contest every half year, (one in autum and one in spring, or one in winter and one in summer) would be a nice thing.
You don't have the whole bunch of games to be reviewed at once. Having little pieces to do, wich seem to be accomplishable is far more motivating, than a large list that seems like it dosen't want to get smaller.
5. For more communication while doing reviews, but I guess we can just use IRC.
A timeframe will require that people have time in that timeframe, so it could be difficult.
I liked the suggestion of putting games in groups.
Anyway, I'm looking forwand for the next review contest.
Maybe make an extra cathegory for comic reviews.
They were something new and made reading all the reviews more interesting.
2. I think there are already to many games in the contests review list...so it's good that you put them optionally.
3. I guess it's because the review list is so long.
4. I had a contest burn out and droped out quite soon. There were just so many gamey, espacially games, you do not enjoy to play, so I lost intrest in reviewing them, (which would have meant i'd had to play them for reviewing). But I liked the idea of the contest. it's a good thing to give everygame at least one review.
Also, in Mid-October usually University starts in my country. Maybe that's the same in other contrys, so people are to busy?
In my opinion making contest every half year, (one in autum and one in spring, or one in winter and one in summer) would be a nice thing.
You don't have the whole bunch of games to be reviewed at once. Having little pieces to do, wich seem to be accomplishable is far more motivating, than a large list that seems like it dosen't want to get smaller.
5. For more communication while doing reviews, but I guess we can just use IRC.
A timeframe will require that people have time in that timeframe, so it could be difficult.
I liked the suggestion of putting games in groups.
Anyway, I'm looking forwand for the next review contest.
Just stopping by to reiterate what I said during the contest - this is all great. I'm less likely to read a comic review (or watch a video review) than I am to read a normal textual review, but that doesn't mean that I think any format should be disallowed.
Reviewing reviews kinda sucks, but talking about the reviews is part of what makes the contest feel alive. So I think you just have to deal with it and hope people aren't jerks.
The book club idea failed in the past, and I don't see it magically working now. Doing the contest in smaller chunks (semi-annually, say) seems reasonable, but also might make the whole thing seem stale. Things like this need long breaks between the events, I think.
So I guess I'm saying I think the contest is perfectly fine as is, and I'd hesitate before making any of the suggested changes. Although Pepsi's suggestion about having some 'standard' Q&A prompts that people can use to get started (if they want - none of these would be mandatory) sounds great.
Reviewing reviews kinda sucks, but talking about the reviews is part of what makes the contest feel alive. So I think you just have to deal with it and hope people aren't jerks.
The book club idea failed in the past, and I don't see it magically working now. Doing the contest in smaller chunks (semi-annually, say) seems reasonable, but also might make the whole thing seem stale. Things like this need long breaks between the events, I think.
So I guess I'm saying I think the contest is perfectly fine as is, and I'd hesitate before making any of the suggested changes. Although Pepsi's suggestion about having some 'standard' Q&A prompts that people can use to get started (if they want - none of these would be mandatory) sounds great.
I am Srime
0. I love SoTrain. He's got soul and he's super bad. slime tha haters!
1. I didn't have a problem with the comic reviews. As has been mentioned, Charbile actually did something with the format and the others just print-screened their regular reviews, but both are acceptable. The Three Paragraph rule pretty cleanly covers this and keeps it from getting too lazy.
2. I think the treatment of short/minimal update games was ideal. Nobody benefitted last year from 6 reviews of The HangOVOHR. There are valid concerns raised about discouraging games which are continuously developed, but the Heart of the OHR Contest does a decent job of rewarding such updated games.
If HOTOHR isn't enough of a pat on the back to those dudes, then perhaps we can use it as a learning experience: If you've been working on a game for years, make sure people know what you changed! When you upload your new file, change the description! Mention all new areas, new bosses, systems, techniques. Excite people! Make them want to play your game again. Don't sit there with your thumb up your slime and just expect everyone to act like it's Christmas Morning.
If nobody has any idea what's changed in your game from one version to the last, and nobody wants to take the time to compare and contrast and figure that slime out then maybe your game has a problem and you should fix it to avoid that list. Even Santa's got Naughty and Nice!
3. It's hilarious that we've complained for years that the community is dying out and now people are bitching that too many games are coming out every year. I will admit, 38 games seems like a daunting amount, but you had from September 3rd to November 10th and most people were on pace to finish when they just dropped out. I think that only averages to one review every 48 hours and a lot of these games were short!
I guess the question was about how to increase participation. Pepsi's on the right track when he says that there's a certain level of obligation involved in these reviews which takes away some of the good feelings you'd usually get from feedback. This is doubly so if your game is short and terrible and everyone rags on it.
We've seen a lot of times that people hit on the same smiling pink, round points and the game maker gets tired of hearing it. Maybe we could do some kind of system where particularly good reviews are "canonized", meaning that in the opinion of the contest participants it covered all the points that needed to be covered and no longer NEEDS to be reviewed for the sake of the contest, though you'd still be welcome to write your own review if you felt the majority opinion was wrong. Might foster some additional teamwork value, some additional competitiveness to have "the one" review for that game, and might keep us from having a repeat of The Kirby Lands or HangOvohr fiascoes.
Other than that, there's always bribery. Even petty social status trinkets could be a motivating force. Gonna agree with Pepsi too, that I think reviewing should be a year round effort focused on prompt responses. By the time we reviewed a lot of these games, the guys who made them were long gone. A year is a very long time to wait for feedback.
4. This community is built on mid-contest burn out. I can't imagine we'll be able to beat it, the best we can do is just try to focus on getting every game reviewed. That said, I hate to encourage any course of action that would lead to only reviewing SOME of the games, or promoting lazy reviews.
I think it's important to try to review a game as if you were just playing for the hell of it. If you don't want to keep playing past a certain point, that's an important point to bring up in the review and by playing past that point out of "obligation" and delivering feedback on content you wouldn't have seen in the natural course of events, you're encouraging boring, slimy games and lord knows we have enough of those!
5. Everyone else said it, but I'll say it again: We tried it and it didn't work. The idea just isn't appealing to me, and it seems impossible to pull off in terms of logistics.
A week is the ideal length of time for a discussion like that, being long enough that everyone has time to finish and chime in and short enough that you can cover plenty of games but even then, I can't imagine spending an entire week talking about a short game like Clam Digger, an offensive game like Hamburgerman, a terrible game like Open Trail and on the other hand a week wouldn't be enough for anyone to finish something like Dungeonmen.
I like the idea of discussion, especially discussion where the author could get involved and really get a sense of how people feel about his/her game but there's a certain stilted nature to a "book club" that feeds back into obligation and lack of spontaneity which would maybe make the games feel less fun. I think we could encourage that level of discussion without resorting to forming a bridge club.
As for some other random stuff I don't feel like writing a paragraph about, I'm looking forward to the move to a January timeslot, I think it'll be great to be closer to Game of the Year voting. I think maybe some people tried to get too scientific in their reviews instead of just trusting and sharing their opinions. Games are fun, and fun is an emotional response, the opposite of science. Did anyone "save up" their reviews for the contest? Would people have still reviewed if there was no contest? Did the good outweigh the bad? Is it fair for reviews to extend beyond the game itself, to critique the gamelisting and any marketing campaigns that may've been run? And is it fair to complain about things like not including game.exe, not having clear instructions for plotscripted things, etc or is that just being bitchy?
I love this contest, I'm super stoked to have actually finished this year and super bummed that no one else did. I was really hoping the Random Review Picker might give people a sense of progress and community, and I was glad to see it catch on as much as it did. If I do it again next year, I'm gonna pretty it up more. If anyone has any suggestions for the Review Picker, I'd be glad to hear them.
1. I didn't have a problem with the comic reviews. As has been mentioned, Charbile actually did something with the format and the others just print-screened their regular reviews, but both are acceptable. The Three Paragraph rule pretty cleanly covers this and keeps it from getting too lazy.
2. I think the treatment of short/minimal update games was ideal. Nobody benefitted last year from 6 reviews of The HangOVOHR. There are valid concerns raised about discouraging games which are continuously developed, but the Heart of the OHR Contest does a decent job of rewarding such updated games.
If HOTOHR isn't enough of a pat on the back to those dudes, then perhaps we can use it as a learning experience: If you've been working on a game for years, make sure people know what you changed! When you upload your new file, change the description! Mention all new areas, new bosses, systems, techniques. Excite people! Make them want to play your game again. Don't sit there with your thumb up your slime and just expect everyone to act like it's Christmas Morning.
If nobody has any idea what's changed in your game from one version to the last, and nobody wants to take the time to compare and contrast and figure that slime out then maybe your game has a problem and you should fix it to avoid that list. Even Santa's got Naughty and Nice!
3. It's hilarious that we've complained for years that the community is dying out and now people are bitching that too many games are coming out every year. I will admit, 38 games seems like a daunting amount, but you had from September 3rd to November 10th and most people were on pace to finish when they just dropped out. I think that only averages to one review every 48 hours and a lot of these games were short!
I guess the question was about how to increase participation. Pepsi's on the right track when he says that there's a certain level of obligation involved in these reviews which takes away some of the good feelings you'd usually get from feedback. This is doubly so if your game is short and terrible and everyone rags on it.
We've seen a lot of times that people hit on the same smiling pink, round points and the game maker gets tired of hearing it. Maybe we could do some kind of system where particularly good reviews are "canonized", meaning that in the opinion of the contest participants it covered all the points that needed to be covered and no longer NEEDS to be reviewed for the sake of the contest, though you'd still be welcome to write your own review if you felt the majority opinion was wrong. Might foster some additional teamwork value, some additional competitiveness to have "the one" review for that game, and might keep us from having a repeat of The Kirby Lands or HangOvohr fiascoes.
Other than that, there's always bribery. Even petty social status trinkets could be a motivating force. Gonna agree with Pepsi too, that I think reviewing should be a year round effort focused on prompt responses. By the time we reviewed a lot of these games, the guys who made them were long gone. A year is a very long time to wait for feedback.
4. This community is built on mid-contest burn out. I can't imagine we'll be able to beat it, the best we can do is just try to focus on getting every game reviewed. That said, I hate to encourage any course of action that would lead to only reviewing SOME of the games, or promoting lazy reviews.
I think it's important to try to review a game as if you were just playing for the hell of it. If you don't want to keep playing past a certain point, that's an important point to bring up in the review and by playing past that point out of "obligation" and delivering feedback on content you wouldn't have seen in the natural course of events, you're encouraging boring, slimy games and lord knows we have enough of those!
5. Everyone else said it, but I'll say it again: We tried it and it didn't work. The idea just isn't appealing to me, and it seems impossible to pull off in terms of logistics.
A week is the ideal length of time for a discussion like that, being long enough that everyone has time to finish and chime in and short enough that you can cover plenty of games but even then, I can't imagine spending an entire week talking about a short game like Clam Digger, an offensive game like Hamburgerman, a terrible game like Open Trail and on the other hand a week wouldn't be enough for anyone to finish something like Dungeonmen.
I like the idea of discussion, especially discussion where the author could get involved and really get a sense of how people feel about his/her game but there's a certain stilted nature to a "book club" that feeds back into obligation and lack of spontaneity which would maybe make the games feel less fun. I think we could encourage that level of discussion without resorting to forming a bridge club.
As for some other random stuff I don't feel like writing a paragraph about, I'm looking forward to the move to a January timeslot, I think it'll be great to be closer to Game of the Year voting. I think maybe some people tried to get too scientific in their reviews instead of just trusting and sharing their opinions. Games are fun, and fun is an emotional response, the opposite of science. Did anyone "save up" their reviews for the contest? Would people have still reviewed if there was no contest? Did the good outweigh the bad? Is it fair for reviews to extend beyond the game itself, to critique the gamelisting and any marketing campaigns that may've been run? And is it fair to complain about things like not including game.exe, not having clear instructions for plotscripted things, etc or is that just being bitchy?
I love this contest, I'm super stoked to have actually finished this year and super bummed that no one else did. I was really hoping the Random Review Picker might give people a sense of progress and community, and I was glad to see it catch on as much as it did. If I do it again next year, I'm gonna pretty it up more. If anyone has any suggestions for the Review Picker, I'd be glad to hear them.
I don't like the idea of having a review 'canonized'. I think this contest works so well because people have a generous time window to review what they want, when they want. Besides, it seems like the number of reviews is going down; why seek to limit it further? If any game author is going to seriously complain about getting a large volume of reviews just because all of those reviews say similarly negative things, he or she can go slime himself (or herself). Also, canonizing a review seems like a highly arbitrary process. Who decides when a review becomes canonized?
I guess I just don't see turnout changing based on the number of games on the list. There were MORE games on the list the previous year, and there was still a higher review:game ratio.
One thing that might make things interesting is allowing teams. If people think the size of the gamelist is a deterrent, maybe teams of 2 could be allowed, where people on the team could then choose how they wanted to divide up the work of reviewing. It'd be a chance for people to get creative too - for a particularly interesting game, both people on the team could play it and have a sort of dialogue-style review, or something.
I guess I just don't see turnout changing based on the number of games on the list. There were MORE games on the list the previous year, and there was still a higher review:game ratio.
One thing that might make things interesting is allowing teams. If people think the size of the gamelist is a deterrent, maybe teams of 2 could be allowed, where people on the team could then choose how they wanted to divide up the work of reviewing. It'd be a chance for people to get creative too - for a particularly interesting game, both people on the team could play it and have a sort of dialogue-style review, or something.
I am Srime
1. What to do with the comic reviews (see above)
I happen to love the comic reviews! I've always been more of a visual person and the comic reviews made me giggle! Plus they're fun to work on. Even with some of the naysayers here. :P
2. This year I opted to put short / minimally updated games on an optional list. Would you prefer a different method of handling them?
I dunno. The current method works fine for me.
3. How can we get more people to enter the contest? Even many common reviewers seem hesitant to enter.
Maybe the pressure of it being a contest? I'm not sure.
4. How can we deal with the mid-contest burn out that happened this year?
Make the contest a little shorter, or sweeten the potential prize pot.
5. Would a "book club" format where certain games were scheduled for certain days/weeks and discussed among reviewers at the same time be of interest to you?
Actually, I would be interested in that! It sounds fun!
I happen to love the comic reviews! I've always been more of a visual person and the comic reviews made me giggle! Plus they're fun to work on. Even with some of the naysayers here. :P
2. This year I opted to put short / minimally updated games on an optional list. Would you prefer a different method of handling them?
I dunno. The current method works fine for me.
3. How can we get more people to enter the contest? Even many common reviewers seem hesitant to enter.
Maybe the pressure of it being a contest? I'm not sure.
4. How can we deal with the mid-contest burn out that happened this year?
Make the contest a little shorter, or sweeten the potential prize pot.
5. Would a "book club" format where certain games were scheduled for certain days/weeks and discussed among reviewers at the same time be of interest to you?
Actually, I would be interested in that! It sounds fun!
"One can never improve enough nor should one stop trying to improve."
-
FnrrfYgmSchnish
- Metal Slime
- Posts: 741
- Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:37 am
- Location: Middle of Nowhere
I didn't mind the comic reviews, generally. Some of them were a little lazy, yeah, but most were at least sort of funny and it's nice that they at least included pictures of what they're talking about. I'd rather have a short, lazy comic review than a short, lazy text-only review.
I noticed video reviews were mentioned--did anyone do video reviews for this? I can't remember. I know I've seen some in the past but I don't remember any coming up during this review-contest thing. Video reviews are okay, but I think in general I prefer the comics or text reviews (when they're done well) to videos just because I don't really like sitting around watching videos of stuff much to begin with.
"Canonizing" a review and saying "okay, nobody else review this one, everything that can be said already has" seems wrong.
I mean, I can kind of understand it for short jokey games with barely 15 minutes of content (or less) that will never be updated again, since there's only so much that can be said about a game like that; when literally every review is just some variation of "this is just a short jokey game with barely 15 minutes of content" plus the reviewer's opinion on whether or not the joke was even funny, you probably don't need more than a few of them (there still shouldn't be some sort of moratorium on more reviews for that game, but I can see there being a point where reviews for that kind of game would start being kinda pointless.)
But a lot of games that don't fit into the "short jokey game" category (and even some that do!) get a wide range of different reviews--not everyone likes the same stuff in a game, and a game that is super amazing to one person might be hated for some reason (or even for no reason!) by someone else. There's a lot of really subjective stuff--some people just like or dislike certain kinds of gameplay/story/graphics/music/humor/etc., whether they're done well or not--that can result in completely different reviews for the same game.
I'm reminded of how the Heart of the OHR contest has a category for "widest range between high votes and low votes," and there's always at least one game that gets both 8/9/10 and 1/2/3/4 ratings from at least one person. Aside from a few near-universally-loved games like Motrya or Dungeonmen, that probably happens to some extent to all games that get a decent number of reviews/ratings. Same thing happens with commercial game reviews all the time: just the other day I stumbled across a chart someone had made of the different scores one of the more recent Pokémon spinoff games got from different game magazines, online review sites, etc., and they ranged from somewhere in the mid-30s to 80 (on a 100-point scale.)
If a game gets several similar reviews in a row... all that means is that a few reviewers in a row (out of potentially hundreds or thousands, or at least dozens if you're only counting the "OHR community") happened to have a similar opinion, not that their opinion is the only one or the one that should be seen as somehow "official" and held up as "the ideal review" for that game, or something ridiculous like that.
If you can't spell "K'hyurbhi" (which is understandable) and are too lazy to just copy/paste it (which is not so understandable... seriously, it's right there in the first post of this thread, come on!), at least just abbreviate it down to "TKL" or something rather than randomly using the title of a different game.
I noticed video reviews were mentioned--did anyone do video reviews for this? I can't remember. I know I've seen some in the past but I don't remember any coming up during this review-contest thing. Video reviews are okay, but I think in general I prefer the comics or text reviews (when they're done well) to videos just because I don't really like sitting around watching videos of stuff much to begin with.
"Canonizing" a review and saying "okay, nobody else review this one, everything that can be said already has" seems wrong.
I mean, I can kind of understand it for short jokey games with barely 15 minutes of content (or less) that will never be updated again, since there's only so much that can be said about a game like that; when literally every review is just some variation of "this is just a short jokey game with barely 15 minutes of content" plus the reviewer's opinion on whether or not the joke was even funny, you probably don't need more than a few of them (there still shouldn't be some sort of moratorium on more reviews for that game, but I can see there being a point where reviews for that kind of game would start being kinda pointless.)
But a lot of games that don't fit into the "short jokey game" category (and even some that do!) get a wide range of different reviews--not everyone likes the same stuff in a game, and a game that is super amazing to one person might be hated for some reason (or even for no reason!) by someone else. There's a lot of really subjective stuff--some people just like or dislike certain kinds of gameplay/story/graphics/music/humor/etc., whether they're done well or not--that can result in completely different reviews for the same game.
I'm reminded of how the Heart of the OHR contest has a category for "widest range between high votes and low votes," and there's always at least one game that gets both 8/9/10 and 1/2/3/4 ratings from at least one person. Aside from a few near-universally-loved games like Motrya or Dungeonmen, that probably happens to some extent to all games that get a decent number of reviews/ratings. Same thing happens with commercial game reviews all the time: just the other day I stumbled across a chart someone had made of the different scores one of the more recent Pokémon spinoff games got from different game magazines, online review sites, etc., and they ranged from somewhere in the mid-30s to 80 (on a 100-point scale.)
If a game gets several similar reviews in a row... all that means is that a few reviewers in a row (out of potentially hundreds or thousands, or at least dozens if you're only counting the "OHR community") happened to have a similar opinion, not that their opinion is the only one or the one that should be seen as somehow "official" and held up as "the ideal review" for that game, or something ridiculous like that.
a repeat of The Kirby Lands or HangOvohr fiascoes.
The Kirby Lands
I've said this before, but there actually is a game titled "The Kirby Lands." It was made in 2000-2003, and it has never gotten any reviews, so it's obviously not the game you're talking about here. You're thinking of "The K'hyurbhi Lands," which was first released for Heart of the OHR 2012 and has several reviews.The [s]Kirby[/s] K'hyurbhi Lands
If you can't spell "K'hyurbhi" (which is understandable) and are too lazy to just copy/paste it (which is not so understandable... seriously, it's right there in the first post of this thread, come on!), at least just abbreviate it down to "TKL" or something rather than randomly using the title of a different game.
Last edited by FnrrfYgmSchnish on Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FYS:AHS -- Working on Yagziknian NPC walkabout sprites
3. How can we get more people to enter the contest? Even many common reviewers seem hesitant to enter.
Well, how about this? At the start of each contest, any authors who want to have their game reviewed will say so, and mention which games specifically they want to have reviewed. However, for each game that they put up, they are also expect to review one other person's game. (I know there's really no way to moderate this, but I think more people will review games if they feel like they're obligated to do so. And someone who reviews one game might be more likely to review several more.)
Well, how about this? At the start of each contest, any authors who want to have their game reviewed will say so, and mention which games specifically they want to have reviewed. However, for each game that they put up, they are also expect to review one other person's game. (I know there's really no way to moderate this, but I think more people will review games if they feel like they're obligated to do so. And someone who reviews one game might be more likely to review several more.)
The people who are interested in reviewing and the people who make games don't neatly overlap, though.
Maybe future contests could use a point system. Something like this:
This might be overly complicated, though, and it increases the bookkeeping required by the organizer.
Maybe future contests could use a point system. Something like this:
- Major releases: 5 pts
- Extremely short games and minor updates: 1 pt
- Author requests a review in the contest thread: +3 pts
This might be overly complicated, though, and it increases the bookkeeping required by the organizer.
Maybe I wasn't clea ron the "canonizing" thing. What I meant was, that the end goal of the contest would be to have EVERY game reviewed, at least once. The idea of canonizing was the ability to say that "Yes, this game has been satisfactorily reviewed and everything that needs to be said has been said". This was already done in the case of The Hangovohr and Escape from The Tower RPG in last years contest, to prevent people from having to English Major three paragraphs out of slime nothing.
I was only suggesting it since the fear so many people seem to have is of having to go in depth on EVERY game. I was not saying there could not be CONFLICTING canon reviews. I was not saying that any review was "THE FINAL WORD" on a given game and that further review, debate or discussion would be discouraged. In fact, I hoped that seeing a review "canonized" might spark a certain response of "slime that guy, he's got it all wrong!" while also defusing the "God, I saw that guy review that game and I don't want to get near it with a five foot pole!" response that I had to a couple of games this time out.
There's also a certain element of pride in being selected, that might encourage an element of teamwork, one reviewer or another tackling one of the big dogs so that others could focus on the other stuff.
And as a sidenote to Fnrrrf, I'm well aware of the name of your game, and I'll slime your mother's mouth before I'll abbreviate it TKL. Everyone knows what game I'm talking about when I say "The Kirby Lands", who the hell knows what TKL is! I don't know if you didn't notice this, but The Kirby Lands and The K'Hyuck Lands both are abbreviated TKL! I would hate to further any ambiguity!
I have to agree with Moogle, there's too many people who make games and don't review and too many reviewers who don't make games to have some kind of circle-jerk system in place, though I'm sure there's something we could do for those guys. A points system would get too messy, 'cause then you gotta get into deciding what game goes in what category. It's a good contest, the boat probably doesn't need that much rocking.
I was only suggesting it since the fear so many people seem to have is of having to go in depth on EVERY game. I was not saying there could not be CONFLICTING canon reviews. I was not saying that any review was "THE FINAL WORD" on a given game and that further review, debate or discussion would be discouraged. In fact, I hoped that seeing a review "canonized" might spark a certain response of "slime that guy, he's got it all wrong!" while also defusing the "God, I saw that guy review that game and I don't want to get near it with a five foot pole!" response that I had to a couple of games this time out.
There's also a certain element of pride in being selected, that might encourage an element of teamwork, one reviewer or another tackling one of the big dogs so that others could focus on the other stuff.
And as a sidenote to Fnrrrf, I'm well aware of the name of your game, and I'll slime your mother's mouth before I'll abbreviate it TKL. Everyone knows what game I'm talking about when I say "The Kirby Lands", who the hell knows what TKL is! I don't know if you didn't notice this, but The Kirby Lands and The K'Hyuck Lands both are abbreviated TKL! I would hate to further any ambiguity!
I have to agree with Moogle, there's too many people who make games and don't review and too many reviewers who don't make games to have some kind of circle-jerk system in place, though I'm sure there's something we could do for those guys. A points system would get too messy, 'cause then you gotta get into deciding what game goes in what category. It's a good contest, the boat probably doesn't need that much rocking.