HamsterSpeak #52 Online

[msw188]

A quick reply before bed to:

The reviews were okay, though I feel like I keep reading and rereading the same comments over and over (this goes for the last few issues, as well).

I've felt like this every now and again while doing my Heart of the OHR reviews, but I don't intend on changing my approach, because I want all of those games to get 'equal' reviews, so to speak. After a very busy July, I'm hoping to get most of these games, if not all of them, done this month. I'm already an hour into Eternity Fragment.

[Meatballsub]

I can't help but be a little offended that some people feel that the content is not up to par.

I've said from the very beginning that I am not a writer by any means. I started writing for HS when the time came that many people were not pitching in to help, so I offered my services and try and do my best each and every time I contribute content.

With that being said, I still go back and proofread my content at least two or three times before I submit it for the magazine. That's not to say that there still won't be errors in my work because again, I'm not a professional writer (and you'll find that I often make fun of myself in my reviews because of that).

It is probable that some reviews written by the same author will follow a similar pattern of their other reviews. Maybe this is not the case in the professional writing world, but we all do this for fun in the end, yeah? I think that the main issue here is if more people contributed, this wouldn't be as big of a problem. Do you think I go out with the mission of reviewing multiple games each month? No, not really; but someone has to do them, right? No content; no magazine. I can guarantee you I put 100% effort into each and every article I turn out.

Another important thing to remember is that Hamsterspeak isn't EGM or Game Informer. It is magazine about casual game making with comments from primarily casual game developers. If you feel that the content is too redundant, maybe you should try contributing more yourself next month and everyone wins (this is not a direct stab at you, PR. I know that you have contributed a good amount of stuff to HS. I just felt like my opinion needed to be voiced regardless.)

[The Wobbler]

I saw nothing seriously wrong with the content of this month's reviews from anyone, and I try not to rewrite people's grammar when assembling an issue because I don't want to modify someone else's tone and delivery, even if the result is messy.

If you feel that the content is too redundant, maybe you should try contributing more yourself next month and everyone wins

Yeah, this was my response to all the "There's too much Vikings of Midgard/Walthros content in the magazine!" complaints years ago. The lack of variety is only a problem because most readers don't participate.

[Willy Elektrix]

All and all, I'd say this month's HS was lacking. The strong focus on reviews is neat but I'd rather see more origin articles

The reviews were okay, though I feel like I keep reading and rereading the same comments over and over (this goes for the last few issues, as well).

Hamsterspeak should start publishing reviews of other Hamsterspeak content. Then all these critics will have an outlet.

[JSH357]

Well, time to address the elephant in the room. I'll preface this by saying I mean it in the best possible way, but being in charge of something doesn't make it easy sometimes. I'm sure Surlaw can attest to this.

The true purpose of the Top 30, in my mind, is to expose popular games to people who haven't played them. Ego-stroking is a side effect, and the minute I start catering to that the list is dead as far as I'm concerned. End of story. If I'm running the list, that is how it's going to be, and if you don't like it you are free to run your own and furthermore Surlaw is free to reject my submissions. Want a good example of why I feel this way? Take a good look at the first few Top 30 polls and tell me how many of these games you can even find: http://rinku.castleparadox.com/Septa/ar ... lumns.html
Some of them were actually unreleased WHEN THE POLLS WERE RUN. (A good example being Rinku's "First Fifth.") Sorry, but I don't want my lists to look like this, especially if I'm taking the time to link to the games.

If nobody can download the game, then the list no longer serves its own purpose. It's like claiming an author's lost novel was one of his best--doing so ultimately has no purpose since nobody can read it whether it is true or not. If somebody removes his work from the internet, I respect his right to have nobody new play the game. I've done the same thing myself. However, it's not fair to the intended target audience of the list to even consider such games. I can't tell my friend "hey, Sword of Jade is a really great game, you should go play it" because he can't find it anywhere now. Imagine how disappointing this would be to an outsider who was browsing the list and couldn't even play the games on it.

For the record, I'm aware Fyre is working on a remake, and it's clear he wants the current version to be unavailable now. Sword of Jade was tied for #14 before I made the call to remove it. The only other game that's come close to having this problem is Powerstick Man, but in its case at the very least I could locate ancient demos of it to link to. Not my favorite solution, but it was the only available one.

This kind of thing is why I stopped running the poll in the first place. If it's not one issue it's another. You just can't please everyone, so I do what I think is the right call. If you don't like it, feel free to complain. I will be proud to address your complaints in the next poll. At the very least, I am glad that most of the people who criticize the list are those who vote in the first place (and leave good comments) because if they weren't I'd probably make them eat my hat.

Let's look at just one issue here, simply to illustrate what I go through whenever I run this poll. Do I want games to make the list with 2 votes? Not really. Can I do anything about it?

- First, I changed the number of games people could vote on to 15. This didn't work, as roughly 1/2 of voters don't pick 15 games and some do the bare minimum. That's fine; they have the right and wouldn't vote at all if they HAD to pick 15 (which they've told me directly), so I have to find another solution.

- I can extend voting, but whenever I do this, it generally results in a single new vote on average, and doesn't guarantee to eliminate the 2-vote entries. I suppose a single vote is fairly significant with this community, but I'd rather not hammer that thought home as it makes the purpose of the list seem even more obscure. Not to mention, there are several voters who for whatever reason always wait until the last day. I don't know why they choose to do this (especially since sometimes they miss it) but they have the right to if they want. In order to better ensure they get votes in, I always make the cutoff earlier rather than later and actually cut it off a day or two after I said I would. If you want an example of why 'loose' deadlines suck, take a look at the Slime Salad Dominion Tournament thread.

- I can try and get old veterans who haven't played OHR games in years to vote, but that seems even more absurd, not to mention it would irritate them. I can try and get newcomers to vote on the list, but that would involve an even more complicated process of getting them interested in the first place, which, get this, is partially the purpose of the list I'm trying to make now!

- In the past (read: every single other poll before this one) I have edited my own vote to eliminate 2-vote entries, even going so far as to vote for games I don't like. Is that right or accurate? No. It just makes the list prettier. This time, I opted not to. I probably should have.

tl;dr: If I run this again I'll make it more clear in the rules that 'unreleased games' include games that people can no longer locate. I apologize if this is an unpopular judgment call, but an author makes his choice when he deletes his game. I've made mine.

[Bob the Hamster]

JSH, I totally agree with you about how you are running the list, but I did a double take at this:

For the record, I'm aware Fyre is working on a remake, and it's clear he wants the current version to be unavailable now. Sword of Jade was tied for #14 before I made the call to remove it.

As far as I know, Fyre has never asked for Sword of Jade to be unavailable. The latest version is the "Community Version", and it is available here: http://hamsterrepublic.com/ohrrpgce/Gam ... _Jade.html

[JSH357]

I know about that, but if you open it you'll see it's only an unlumped version with the HSS file. I couldn't get it to play.

EDIT: Well I've been informed that the demo is possible to play, though it doesn't include game.exe. I'll edit the list over on my home page. If Surlaw wants to update the one on Hspeak he can.

That said, my feelings on disqualifying missing game stand.

EDIT 2: The updated list

http://www.jshgaming.com/Site/top_30/top30_2011.html

[The Wobbler]

I'll edit the HS52 version when I get home.

I think the easiest solution to eliminating games that only have two or three votes ranking (even though some of the two vote games are ones I like!) would be to not make it a Top 30. If there aren't enough votes to fill out a list of 30 games, just cut it down to 15 or 20 for that season, and bring it back up to 30 if voting is heavier next time. Mention the rest in an Honorable Mentions section.

I believe this is the first time in like six years that I haven't voted in a top 30, but the time frame really didn't work out for me. I wanted to be able to play as many games released since the last poll as possible, otherwise my vote would just be a copy and paste and be stupid. When I run the Game of the Year polls I generally need to leave it open for three or four months to get enough people to play the games and vote, and I know that's probably not the ideal solution but it does help.

[Meatballsub]

I just noticed that you listed Attack Fish as being new to the Top 30. It actually made its way onto the top 30 in summer 2008 though it was near the bottom of the list.

http://www.jshgaming.com/Site/top_30/top30summer08.html

[JSH357]

I just noticed that you listed Attack Fish as being new to the Top 30. It actually made its way onto the top 30 in summer 2008 though it was near the bottom of the list.

http://www.jshgaming.com/Site/top_30/top30summer08.html

Yeah, sorry it's a little confusing, but when I say "New" to the list, I mean a "new streak."

[FnrrfYgmSchnish]

How exactly are the Top 30's "points" determined? I notice that the recent lists (like the one in the newest Hamsterspeak) show both points and number of votes, but older lists (like this one where one of my old games inexplicably got 15th place before it was even uploaded to Castle Paradox... I still have no idea how people even found the game back then, let alone why they voted for it) show points only.

Assuming it's the same system, it looks like the newer Top 30 lists are actually getting a whole lot more votes than the ones in the past... the games with the absolute lowest point values on the newest list would've ended up around the middle on the older list, while the bottom of the old list has a 4-way tie between games with single-digit points (which I have to assume means they only got one vote each and ended up down there on the bottom just because there weren't enough games with multiple votes to fill the whole thing up) and a bunch more with only 10 or so.

[Meatballsub]

I just noticed that you listed Attack Fish as being new to the Top 30. It actually made its way onto the top 30 in summer 2008 though it was near the bottom of the list.

http://www.jshgaming.com/Site/top_30/top30summer08.html

Yeah, sorry it's a little confusing, but when I say "New" to the list, I mean a "new streak."

Got it, thanks for clarifying

[JSH357]

How exactly are the Top 30's "points" determined? I notice that the recent lists (like the one in the newest Hamsterspeak) show both points and number of votes, but older lists (like this one where The Kirby Lands inexplicably got 15th place before it was even uploaded to Castle Paradox... I still have no idea how people even found the game back then, let alone why they voted for it) show points only.

Assuming it's the same system, it looks like the newer Top 30 lists are actually getting a whole lot more votes than the ones in the past... the games with the absolute lowest point values on the newest list would've ended up around the middle on the older list, while the bottom of the old list has a 4-way tie between games with single-digit points (which I have to assume means they only got one vote each and ended up down there on the bottom just because there weren't enough games with multiple votes to fill the whole thing up) and a bunch more with only 10 or so.

The scores are higher because you can now vote on 15 games. The math is extremely simple too. Here is this year's spreadsheet:
http://www.jshgaming.com/Site/top_30/top30.xls

[msw188]

After finishing reading this issue, I'm actually pretty happy with the reviews and retrospectives, but I agree that the Tower review needed an author's proofread at least to get rid of the run on sentences they were pretty common, commas don't solve the problem.

And I didn't have an opinion on this earlier, but after reading JSH's response, I think I agree with his philosophy on disqualifying non-downloadable games. And certainly, no one can argue against the list being his to conduct as he sees fit.

[Pepsi Ranger]

With that being said, I still go back and proofread my content at least two or three times before I submit it for the magazine. That's not to say that there still won't be errors in my work because again, I'm not a professional writer (and you'll find that I often make fun of myself in my reviews because of that).

MBS,

Believe me, it wasn't your grammar I was having issue with. Yours is not 100%, but it's hardly distracting. You're pretty consistent with the solid writing. For you, I wouldn't worry about that. You can take comfort in knowing that readers are never left scratching their heads trying to figure out what you mean.

It is probable that some reviews written by the same author will follow a similar pattern of their other reviews. Maybe this is not the case in the professional writing world, but we all do this for fun in the end, yeah? I think that the main issue here is if more people contributed, this wouldn't be as big of a problem.

Actually, the professionalism I was referring to had strictly to do with presentation (i.e. grammar, proofreading, etc.--the same stuff you'd have to do on a college essay if you expected to pass it).

Professionalism, unfortunately, doesn't eliminate repetitiveness. For writers who have a way with words or ideas, they can usually get away with repetitive tones--heck, that's why many authors are so popular--their readership expects the same old same old from them. For an audience who cares more about the content than about the tone of the article, however, it's easier to get bored of reading the same ideas over and over, and that's the trap I'm finding myself falling into in reading these lately.

If we focus on the blockiness of the graphics more than we do on how the graphics serve the game, it becomes a question of "why do I care?" I believe MSW got it right when he talked about how weird it was to walk behind buildings in Legendary Heroes but not behind trees. There was nothing spectacular in his writing style that got my attention. It was the fact that he discussed an issue that's normally glossed over in reviews. It was something that the author not only could use, but did use, and had subsequently addressed--all the things that reviews are supposed to accomplish. When we criticize a game for being nothing more than a Spacebar masher, we don't really offer anything new readers and potential players--not the reviewer's fault; this is still a problem with the game, and a problem for the designer to fix. Sadly, readers expect the game to be a Spacebar masher. Confirming it just slows down the review. That's why I'm suggesting the different angles approach. Talk about whether the enemies make sense. This sometimes makes a review, but rarely. Cast the gameplay off if it clones other experiences. "Well, you've played these battles before when they were in every other OHR game since 1999. You know, the Spacebar mashers. Probably best to move on to more important things. Let's take enemies, for example." I'd use this approach for anything that offers readers nothing new or interesting, especially if mentioning it wouldn't really help the author, either. (Calling something a Spacebar masher doesn't show an author how to make it better. Telling him he could make some use out of Mogri's Battle Gimmicks feature might be a subtler, but more effective hint.)

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to demean anyone's review writing. I'm just offering tips on how to make it more interesting and less repetitive. Having more contributors isn't the problem (well, it is a problem, but not the repetition problem). Many new contributors start off doing the same thing. Why? Because most of the reviews they submit follow the same patterns as the ones they had read in the last few issues. In the end, everything looks like a carbon copy of the next, but with new characters and screenshots. If we encourage more reviewers to step in to their own style and review according to what they want to cover, and not just to what's standard, we'll have more interesting approaches (or dismal failures if it becomes an artistic experiment, but we'll never know until we try). I liked that MSW talked about the logic in Legendary Heroes's wall-mapping. It was useful, critical, and somewhat different. I think it made up for his criticism against the Smashing Pumpkins ;). Says nothing about his writing style, just his attempt to change perspective a bit. It worked great.

If you feel that the content is too redundant, maybe you should try contributing more yourself next month and everyone wins (this is not a direct stab at you, PR. I know that you have contributed a good amount of stuff to HS. I just felt like my opinion needed to be voiced regardless.)

I really would like to review something new. I'm just waiting for a game to come out that I want to play. I don't have the patience to sit through another throwaway game just for the sake of reviewing (I've taken my licks in that department), and I have yet to see one recently (except for First Fantasy, which looks impressive to me) that really has my interest. But I'll throw my voice back into the arena one of these days. When an author releases something that looks like he had put some effort into it.

Hope that helps some. Writers constantly challenge themselves. If you're gonna write for a magazine, you're gonna have to call yourself a writer, whether you've got confidence in that or not. May as well show some confidence anyway. You never know who will stumble across our obscure site and write about it to much bigger sites. So, try challenging yourself to catch those uncommon angles if you're gonna write often. If you don't catch them, then no big deal; we still have content. But if you do catch them, it'll make the article, and the magazine, all the more interesting.

I still applaud everyone's willingness to contribute. Shows your dedication to the magazine. Sorry that I'm a bored Roman elitist wanting a good Gladiator show this month, but I gotta voice my opinion, too. Just because we're a niche magazine with 10 readers + Brazil doesn't mean we should settle for average. It offends me when reviewers demand improvement in games, but have no interest in stepping up their own reviews. We can all do a little better this time than what our last submission showed.