G
Guest
Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)
> I'm guessing your real objection is that I either severely downgraded a
game
> that you liked, or scored a game that you hated rather higher than you
think
> it deserves.
You did both, multiple times. But that is not my real objection. As I noted
before, my main complaint is that your reviews made judging the games seem
like such a chore. If you can't dedicate sufficient time, then why not judge
fewer games or just wait until the comp is over and play the ones you think
you'll like. If you find a well-written game where you are not the target
audience (e.g. All Things Devours), why not skip it rather than giving it a
bad score.
My second complaint is that your judging system seemed to boil down to how
long you played the game, which a) is mostly based on personal taste, and b)
seems to be fairly dependant on random factors, such as your mood on that
day. If you want to bail on Ninja or PTBAD3 after 15 minutes then I can't
say I blame you, but you also gave up on some technically very competant
games without giving them a fair chance. Sure first impressions/personal
taste matter, but should that be the difference between a 3 and an 8?
My third complaint is that you always seemed to quit the games without
looking at the hints or the walkthrough. Your criticism of Blue Chairs was
based solely on the first scene (maybe 15% of the game). When I played it, I
wasn't going to give it an 8 based on the first scene, but it certainly
wouldn't be an 2 either. My final assessment of an 8 was based on the game
as a whole. BTW, the game you reviewed the most unfairly IMHO was Sting of
the Wasp.
> Granted, this was my first time judging, and I've already worked out a
> refinement to my process if I judge again: rather than starting out each
> game at zero and raising it, in the future I would start each game out at
> four and then add from there (or subtract for annoyances). (Then I would
FWIW, your proposal for a revised scoring system seems at least better than
your previous one, although it still seems designed to save you the chore of
actually having to play all the games you judge/review.
> If I read your objection right, you are suggesting that the comp judges
> should be expected to play each game that they rate to completion or to
the
> end of the two-hour limit. However, I didn't see anything about that in
the
It's not a rule, but it is common courtesy.
Andrew
> I'm guessing your real objection is that I either severely downgraded a
game
> that you liked, or scored a game that you hated rather higher than you
think
> it deserves.
You did both, multiple times. But that is not my real objection. As I noted
before, my main complaint is that your reviews made judging the games seem
like such a chore. If you can't dedicate sufficient time, then why not judge
fewer games or just wait until the comp is over and play the ones you think
you'll like. If you find a well-written game where you are not the target
audience (e.g. All Things Devours), why not skip it rather than giving it a
bad score.
My second complaint is that your judging system seemed to boil down to how
long you played the game, which a) is mostly based on personal taste, and b)
seems to be fairly dependant on random factors, such as your mood on that
day. If you want to bail on Ninja or PTBAD3 after 15 minutes then I can't
say I blame you, but you also gave up on some technically very competant
games without giving them a fair chance. Sure first impressions/personal
taste matter, but should that be the difference between a 3 and an 8?
My third complaint is that you always seemed to quit the games without
looking at the hints or the walkthrough. Your criticism of Blue Chairs was
based solely on the first scene (maybe 15% of the game). When I played it, I
wasn't going to give it an 8 based on the first scene, but it certainly
wouldn't be an 2 either. My final assessment of an 8 was based on the game
as a whole. BTW, the game you reviewed the most unfairly IMHO was Sting of
the Wasp.
> Granted, this was my first time judging, and I've already worked out a
> refinement to my process if I judge again: rather than starting out each
> game at zero and raising it, in the future I would start each game out at
> four and then add from there (or subtract for annoyances). (Then I would
FWIW, your proposal for a revised scoring system seems at least better than
your previous one, although it still seems designed to save you the chore of
actually having to play all the games you judge/review.
> If I read your objection right, you are suggesting that the comp judges
> should be expected to play each game that they rate to completion or to
the
> end of the two-hour limit. However, I didn't see anything about that in
the
It's not a rule, but it is common courtesy.
Andrew