Post new topic    
Page «  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 13, 14, 15  »
Liquid Metal King Slime
Send private message
 
 PostSun Feb 08, 2015 7:19 am
Send private message Reply with quote
Surlaw, when'd you become such a huge troll?
A Scrambled Egg
Send private message
 
 PostSun Feb 08, 2015 7:20 am
Send private message Reply with quote
I don't know what you're talking about but I think you're a good guy and I like you.
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
Liquid Metal King Slime
Send private message
 
 PostSun Feb 08, 2015 7:22 am
Send private message Reply with quote
I feel like without the surlaw forums you're turning a large chunk of slimesalad into the jerkstore.
A Scrambled Egg
Send private message
 
 PostSun Feb 08, 2015 7:30 am
Send private message Reply with quote


it's blossoming bro, I'm telling you.
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
Liquid Metal King Slime
Send private message
 
 PostSun Feb 08, 2015 7:33 am
Send private message Reply with quote
Those OHRirc comics really bothered you, eh? Anyways, I'll stop replying after this. I feel bad I derailed the thread as much as I already have.
A Scrambled Egg
Send private message
 
 PostSun Feb 08, 2015 7:37 am
Send private message Reply with quote
I actually really like them a lot and I think you should keep making them.


Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
Metal King Slime
Send private message
 
 PostSun Feb 08, 2015 7:42 am
Send private message Reply with quote
Pheonix wrote:
Pepsi Ranger wrote:

Tell me, if we're reviewing in this thread for 2014, which part of the original game is relevant to this contest?


If it's not meant to be played and viewed in the context of the original game, why has it been released in the form of a bonus game mode for it?


I've read all of the arguments on both sides, and I think this is the heart of it. If it weren't for HOTOHR's rule about providing a save game that makes the new content easily reviewable we wouldn't have even had a way to weigh the new content against the old. I absolutely agree that the spirit of the contest is to review the newest (Or "Newest But Still Last Year" to be more accurate) version of a game and the latest content, but in many cases it's not obvious what that new content is.

Having authors provide saves seems like a weird way to do it, and like I've said and had said to me a number of times recently, if you're unable to get to that new content in the natural course of gameplay, that's good feedback for the author to get. Ideally we would've discussed this in the pre-contest game selection thread, but of course no one was playing games then because it wasn't officially the contest.

If the core game of Batman and Robin hasn't changed since 2010, it shouldn't have been reviewed for 2014. Joker Mode is the perfect storm of complications: It's enough content to merit being a whole new game, but it's an unlockable for a previously existing finished game. If he tacks on even more content next time, are we going to have to review Batman mode AND Joker mode AND the new content?

I don't think it was wrong of Charbile to write his review the way he did. He makes a lot of the same points I do, just a bit more tersely because Charbile enjoys playing the heel. He could've addressed the gameplay a bit more, but that's okay. He makes it clear by being dismissive that he wasn't very impressed.

What it boils down to is this: What does the very first page of this thread say?

Spoilers wrote:

List of 2014 Games

Batman & Robin



Not Batman and Robin Joker Mode. Weirdly enough, it's not mentioned at all in the selection thread. As I recall it was a last second addition to the list because of a conversation in IRC between Spoonweaver and RMZ. I imagine that's why it ended up causing a bit of a problem. I don't think it's wrong to ask Charbile to review Batman and Robin Joker Mode because that's the part that's new and that's the part that qualified it to be on the list in the first place. I don't think it's wrong for Charbile to review the main game, because if you can't get through that you don't get to the new part anyway and maybe things have changed since last time.

I really don't want there to be a precedent where people work on the same game for 6 years and upload a saved game so you can skip to their latest month of work. I really don't want there to be a precedent for games to have entire extra games tacked onto the backside rather than a new game. Let's look at Doom for a minute, which was literally uncompletable: That was a change from the last time I'd played it! If I were playing from last years save, I wouldn't have seen that, it would've gone unnoticed. I'm all for people having to replay the same game some years to see if anything's changed/to see how it's changed and to talk about it. If one of your old reviews is still relevant, then all you should have to do is point to it. If that review is no longer relevant, that provides a great comparison point. I don't think we oughta ruin the whole damn thing with a bunch of minutiae and rules lawyering, just review games that are new/have been significantly changed.

The fact that we're fighting about this for so long, over essentially nothing, is fantastic. I'm sure there's been like ten replies since I started to type this, who knew playing games could be so god damn dramatic?
Metal Slime
Send private message
 
 PostSun Feb 08, 2015 9:54 am
Send private message Reply with quote
The original intent of the version rule was primarily to give updated games a "second chance" review in case the author updated the earlier parts of the game. It's also there to give new content a chance to get feedback if the reviewer has kept their saves around, or if it's their first time playing it and they get to the new content (along with any other reason a reviewer might get further in a game the second time). But it is in no way a rule of forcing reviewers to specifically talk about what has changed between versions.

This is largely because it's way too convoluted to force that rule (would require every author to provide a save, require every author to specify changes, etc. Works in a contest where every author is voluntarily entering under rules, not so much when someone is just putting something on the game list). Even if it was possible I'm not sure if I'd enforce it, if a reviewer can't stand the first part of a game they probably don't have much else to say about the rest of it.

This "second chance" policy has led to plenty of problems this year (inevitable as the contest goes on longer). Reviewers feeling a game wasn't updated enough, reviewers having nothing new to say about updated games they hated since their earlier parts haven't been changed, etc. There's no clean cut solution available. I definitely want to reward continually updated games with more feedback. I don't want to waste reviewer's time with games that haven't changed in a way that would invalidate their previous reviews. I also don't want a convoluted patchwork of rules for updated games that makes it harder for people to just sit down with the list and start reviewing. Right now my tentative solution is to move all updated games to the optional list next year, but I feel like that is far too harsh. How to handle updated games will certainly be the primary topic for feedback in this year's post-contest discussion thread. The selection thread was intended to ease some of the problem, but it didn't really work since people aren't playing the games until the contest starts.

--

Gizmog wrote:
Not Batman and Robin Joker Mode. Weirdly enough, it's not mentioned at all in the selection thread. As I recall it was a last second addition to the list because of a conversation in IRC between Spoonweaver and RMZ. I imagine that's why it ended up causing a bit of a problem.


The actual reason it was missed is because the primary game list description just says "Joker Mode" in an offhand manner, as though it's some minor trinket that reskins Batman with the Joker or something. Only in the screenshots (which I didn't look at the first time I went through the game list) does it specify that joker mode is actually new content. Ordinarily it would have been an immediate shoe in.
Liquid Metal Slime
Send private message
 
 PostSun Feb 08, 2015 10:05 am
Send private message Reply with quote
Spoonweaver wrote:
@Pepsi, I wasn't asking if you were serious with your point. I was asking if you were serious with the entire tone of your post. You're complaining about a long review of a game that's not even yours. Think about that. Someone went out of their way to review a game and you're criticism them for it. Ever think that doing something like that might scare other potential reviewers off? Plus, you're not even doing any reviewing yourself. You're just posting wall after wall of cringe worthy tantrum talk.


Fair enough to your last point.

For your first point, I wasn't writing the first post to complain, just to remind Charbile what this contest's theme is (2014). I thought my tone was cordial.

My second point was made more out of annoyance because asking me if I'm serious is never the right question to ask me. I won't waste my time responding to a post if I'm not serious about my answer or care about the discussion (or trying to crack a joke).

For the rest of it, you have to understand, reviews were my gateway into this community, and I started reviewing because no one else at the time was bothering with it, in spite of the number of games getting released. I broke out of my lurk mode for that because I care about the feedback that's given to authors, and I care more when that feedback is cheap. I agree that some feedback is better than none. But if you have the time to write a review, you have the time to answer these key questions: 1. What do you like about the game? 2. What do you not like about the game? 3. Why? Too many reviews answer a little bit of #1 and a lot of #2. Very few attempt to answer #3. The last one is the most important part. Without that, the review isn't very thorough, and possibly not helpful, or at least not as helpful as it could be.

Like I said, under normal review conditions, I think you should say whatever you want, as long as you try to be helpful to the authors and the players. That includes reviewing old content. But I also think that when you're pushing out reviews for a contest, you should at least follow the contest's rules. Review old content to establish context or familiar ground, but don't forget the new stuff. That's what the author is most interested in hearing about. He or she is also interested in hearing why you feel the way you do about aspects of his game.

I'm not doing any reviewing because I'm not doing much playing. I won't review a game unless I've played all or most of it. But when I do review, you get a lot of content.

(Actually, I did review Okedoke in its entirety. If you recall.)

JSH357 wrote:
Well, if the contest is meant for new content to be reviewed, then how come nobody defended Motrya when every review sans Giz's in last year's contest had nothing to do with the new content? In fact, Pepsi, you yourself made a point to speak only of the Chapter 1 content. (Don't misunderstand my intent: I'm not asking for reviews, just pointing out a notable contradiction that should have been brought up then if this was actually as relevant as you say)


I just skimmed the entire 2013 in Review thread to check if this is true (the part about me speaking of Chapter 1), and I didn't find my name anywhere. I don't think you're wrong, but I don't know where I've said that. What I do vaguely recall was commenting somewhere how I wanted to play the whole game, but at the time of Chapter 2's release, I had only played a little bit of the Heart of the OHR version, and I had not given you much feedback about that, either. Again, I would be happy to give you more feedback, but I've only played the card game, so I don't think my feedback would be helpful to you.

I don't recall keeping up with the review thread last year, or I might've said something. I stand by my feelings. Anyone who reviewed Motrya for 2013 should've included Chapter 2. It would've bugged me if they hadn't, especially considering not only the hard work you put into it, but how much it took out of you. For a reviewer to ignore that would've been unfair, especially if the only thing stopping them from playing it was thinking Chapter 1 was enough to form an opinion in 2013. For some reason I had gotten it in my head that people were giving you feedback on Chapter 2. But I don't know. That was a long time ago.

JSH357 wrote:
It just feels like you guys are trying to pile on Charbile to me. I get that he kind of invites it, but he's made a lot of great points in his reviews that are probably more valuable than this particular post/discussion.


I don't have a problem with his other reviews. I had a problem with his Okedoke review because he basically piggybacked his review off of mine and offered nothing of his own that suggested he had actually played the game. For Batman & Robin, I wasn't trying to cause another argument; I was just reminding him that there was another piece of the game that he was ignoring (the 2014 part), and that he should consider reviewing it. Not sure how this went out of control.

I was thinking of calling you out on the same neglect for Joker Mode, but I didn't want to cause trouble. The fact that Charbile neglected it initially, too, just meant that somebody needed to remind you guys it's out there and new and ripe for criticism.

Gizmog wrote:
What it boils down to is this: What does the very first page of this thread say?

Spoilers wrote:

List of 2014 Games

Batman & Robin



Not Batman and Robin Joker Mode. Weirdly enough, it's not mentioned at all in the selection thread. As I recall it was a last second addition to the list because of a conversation in IRC between Spoonweaver and RMZ. I imagine that's why it ended up causing a bit of a problem. I don't think it's wrong to ask Charbile to review Batman and Robin Joker Mode because that's the part that's new and that's the part that qualified it to be on the list in the first place. I don't think it's wrong for Charbile to review the main game, because if you can't get through that you don't get to the new part anyway and maybe things have changed since last time.


Hmm...these are good points. That does put Batman & Robin in a strange place. And like you said, Heart of the OHR probably stomached most of the blame for Joker Mode being an add-on rather than a separate game. However, I think we should use common sense in cases like this: Anyone who gets to Joker Mode can see it's a new game, even if it's part of the same file. Where I would agree that the player or reviewer would miss this is if he played through to the end of Batman & Robin and wasn't aware that he had unlocked Joker Mode. Honestly, I could see that happening. Thing is though, everyone who's reading this thread knows that Joker Mode exists and that it's the main thing, if not the only thing, added in the 2014 release. The information is there, it's easy to see, and anyone who's a part of this contest should know it's there for review.

But yeah, seeing that Joker Mode wasn't listed in the actual game list for 2014 does leave a big question mark. Now I'm sorry I brought it up.

Gizmog wrote:
I really don't want there to be a precedent where people work on the same game for 6 years and upload a saved game so you can skip to their latest month of work. I really don't want there to be a precedent for games to have entire extra games tacked onto the backside rather than a new game. Let's look at Doom for a minute, which was literally uncompletable: That was a change from the last time I'd played it! If I were playing from last years save, I wouldn't have seen that, it would've gone unnoticed. I'm all for people having to replay the same game some years to see if anything's changed/to see how it's changed and to talk about it. If one of your old reviews is still relevant, then all you should have to do is point to it. If that review is no longer relevant, that provides a great comparison point. I don't think we oughta ruin the whole damn thing with a bunch of minutiae and rules lawyering, just review games that are new/have been significantly changed.


I think this was SDHawk's intention for rereleases all along. Referring to your old reviews and building on them is a good plan.

EDIT:

SDHawk wrote:
The original intent of the version rule was primarily to give updated games a "second chance" review in case the author updated the earlier parts of the game. It's also there to give new content a chance to get feedback if the reviewer has kept their saves around, or if it's their first time playing it and they get to the new content (along with any other reason a reviewer might get further in a game the second time). But it is in no way a rule of forcing reviewers to specifically talk about what has changed between versions.


Ah, okay, that's good to know.

I guess I'll just close my part of the discussion by encouraging other reviewers to tackle the new stuff as best as they can, since that's what the people making the games most want to hear right now.
Place Obligatory Signature Here
Liquid Metal Slime
Send private message
 
 PostSun Feb 08, 2015 3:09 pm
Send private message Reply with quote
Sorry about the confusion. This was all well over a year ago, so I got some streams crossed. There was a separate thread for discussing Motrya here: http://www.slimesalad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5971

The reviews in the contest thread were just links to the posts in that thread for the most part, if I recall. I agree that it's very frustrating as a developer when nobody plays the new stuff (I know it was for me) but at the same time, if the game didn't inspire the player to get that far, that's saying something too, no matter how ugly that truth is.
My website, the home of Motrya:
http://www.jshgaming.com
A Scrambled Egg
Send private message
 
 PostSun Feb 08, 2015 6:23 pm
Send private message Reply with quote
JSH357 wrote:
The reviews in the contest thread were just links to the posts in that thread for the most part, if I recall. I agree that it's very frustrating as a developer when nobody plays the new stuff (I know it was for me) but at the same time, if the game didn't inspire the player to get that far, that's saying something too, no matter how ugly that truth is.

I think you're correct about this but at the same time, it's also an issue that most people currently playing/reviewing games almost treat it more as work than fun, which is understandable since there's a deadline, and it leads to a way lower tolerance for anything that doesn't catch them 100% immediately. I think that's true both for this contest and for Heart of the OHR.

There's obviously been some good reviews written (and I seriously do think pretty much all of Giz's are solid) but most of what's been posted reads like writers suffering through something they have no interest in out of obligation, which is just boring for everyone. I don't want to see you guys suffer! 🐌 If I were writing reviews here I'd probably be doing the same thing, because most of these games aren't anything special this year. I'm not going to write about them because I don't think it would be useful to anyone. I'm spending time as a playtester instead.
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
Super Slime
Send private message
 
 PostSun Feb 08, 2015 10:55 pm
Send private message Reply with quote
JSH357 wrote:
It just feels like you guys are trying to pile on Charbile to me. I get that he kind of invites it, but he's made a lot of great points in his reviews that are probably more valuable than this particular post/discussion.

Mega Tact v1.1
Super Penguin Chef
Wizard Blocks
Metal Slime
Send private message
 
 PostMon Feb 09, 2015 3:02 am
Send private message Reply with quote
Agreed it can be nice to let people know what new features are in new versions. But it doesn't change what the game is, be it mostly old content or older with a shiney 'new version' sticker on it. Was all new to me.

And like we have different methods and reasons in making games, so do we have them with reviews. I can appreciate lengthy ones that flatter the developer and try to build some excitement. But every style isn't without its flaws. And really, it's okay if you dislike mine. I don't mind. If it makes you feel better.

Angel Angel Angel
Liquid Metal King Slime
Send private message
 
 PostMon Feb 09, 2015 4:26 am
Send private message Reply with quote
Of course the reviews are going to largely read as if the writer suffering through games. That's exactly what's going on. We're reviewing games that most people wouldn't even play. Thanks for catching up.

Some people are talking about how people should play the whole game before reviewing. Then they only play a hand full of games themselves. Someone's got to review these things. Maybe try to ignore the reviews of games you've already played and stop planning for some future where people actually care about the OHR.

I think it's really gross that this has become a debate about how people should and shouldn't review. But if that's what we're doing then that's what we're doing.
A Scrambled Egg
Send private message
 
 PostMon Feb 09, 2015 4:36 am
Send private message Reply with quote
Spoonweaver wrote:
Of course the reviews are going to largely read as if the writer suffering through games. That's exactly what's going on. We're reviewing games that most people wouldn't even play. Thanks for catching up.

Some people are talking about how people should play the whole game before reviewing. Then they only play a hand full of games themselves. Someone's got to review these things. Maybe try to ignore the reviews of games you've already played and stop planning for some future where people actually care about the OHR.

I think it's really gross that this has become a debate about how people should and shouldn't review. But if that's what we're doing then that's what we're doing.

You should do something you find fun instead, it's way better and much more cool. I'm worried about you Spoons. I just want you to be OK. If someone finds it fun to play bad games and say they suck that's cool! That can be fun too. Suffering isn't fun though it's really bad.
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
Display posts from previous:
Page «  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 13, 14, 15  »