Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
A WAY TO DIFFERENTIATE REVIEWS WHETHER IT'S FOR THE DEMO OR THE FULL GAME?
Posts
Feldschlacht IV
View playlists
CloseIs it possible to build this functionality in? I admit I'm sort of speaking from FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE to look at a review and go 'this is just for the demo, so it's not going to be accurate once the full game comes out', and also I'm sure this happens from a player point as well, reading a review that was written with the demo in mind, when the full game could be a lot better or worse!
I pitched this in IRC (or maybe it was Staff forum?) and the general consensus was "no, you're stupid for suggesting it kenton."
I think I suggested that if the game is a demo you could submit a Critique (or some synonym thereof) and a Full or Canceled game (both I consider to be "finished") a Review. And until the game is finished, the Critique scores would make up the average, and when it moves to a finished state, the Review scores count. iirc.
I think I suggested that if the game is a demo you could submit a Critique (or some synonym thereof) and a Full or Canceled game (both I consider to be "finished") a Review. And until the game is finished, the Critique scores would make up the average, and when it moves to a finished state, the Review scores count. iirc.
Lennon
88
Reviewers could always tag the review (DEMO) or (FULL), although the problem is that you have to expect people to know that and abide by it.
This should definitely be a feature though.
This should definitely be a feature though.
In general I think the idea of linking reviews to specific downloads might work.
i.e. when you write a review, you are reviewing a specific download, not an entire gamepage.
Of course, leaving aside the complexities of coding that, we'd also have to make sure the reviews stayed up (for posterity) even if the download in question was taken down.
i.e. when you write a review, you are reviewing a specific download, not an entire gamepage.
Of course, leaving aside the complexities of coding that, we'd also have to make sure the reviews stayed up (for posterity) even if the download in question was taken down.
If WIP doesn't want to do it, he won't. No amount of peer pressure is going to make him so I wouldn't worry about that last point. : )
I agree that there must be a way to differentiate them. In the meantime, whenever I write another one, I will make sure to mention the status of the game somewhere within the review. Also, there is the issue of the game that have several demos (significantly different, not fixes) released over time or even the ones released in chapters and episodes that don't necessarily have a gamepage for each.
In theory, this would work, but what happens if a demo is taken down? Puff, the associated review probably would no longer be linked.
I believe kentona has a good idea here. Games that don't have any downloads shouldn't get either. If a demo is submitted, a Critique tab would appear if no demo was there before. Finally if a game gets canceled or completed, a Review tab. The only question that would remain is if a game that had a Demo that was critiqued and becomes cancelled or completed, whether those critiques should stay remain visible or not.
I think this is a good practice that reviewers, whenever possible, should do.
post=135221
In general I think the idea of linking reviews to specific downloads might work.
i.e. when you write a review, you are reviewing a specific download, not an entire gamepage.
Of course, leaving aside the complexities of coding that, we'd also have to make sure the reviews stayed up (for posterity) even if the download in question was taken down.
In theory, this would work, but what happens if a demo is taken down? Puff, the associated review probably would no longer be linked.
post=135212
I pitched this in IRC (or maybe it was Staff forum?) and the general consensus was "no, you're stupid for suggesting it kenton."
I think I suggested that if the game is a demo you could submit a Critique (or some synonym thereof) and a Full or Canceled game (both I consider to be "finished") a Review. And until the game is finished, the Critique scores would make up the average, and when it moves to a finished state, the Review scores count. iirc.
I believe kentona has a good idea here. Games that don't have any downloads shouldn't get either. If a demo is submitted, a Critique tab would appear if no demo was there before. Finally if a game gets canceled or completed, a Review tab. The only question that would remain is if a game that had a Demo that was critiqued and becomes cancelled or completed, whether those critiques should stay remain visible or not.
post=135211
Agree, 100%. (Although I personally update reviews if the developer tells me they've released a new/full version)
I think this is a good practice that reviewers, whenever possible, should do.
AznChipmunk
4613
I don't like the idea of a Critique, or at least the name, because it is misleading. Maybe... a preview? Dunno, but yeah, we really need a system to differentiate.
post=135331
I don't like the idea of a Critique, or at least the name, because it is misleading. Maybe... a preview? Dunno, but yeah, we really need a system to differentiate.
Previews at least in the arena of commerical games tend to withold judgment and be value-neutral.
post=135344
Previews at least in the arena of commerical games tend to withold judgment and be value-neutral.
The other name that comes to mind for that is what PC Mag uses which is "First Look". When do they do a "Preview" it is even more limited, usually to features.
post=135331It was the first thing to come to mind. I'd thesaurus it:
I don't like the idea of a Critique, or at least the name, because it is misleading. Maybe... a preview? Dunno, but yeah, we really need a system to differentiate.
Main Entry: critique
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: analysis, essay
Synonyms: appraisal, assessment, comment, commentary, criticism, editorial, examination, exposition, flak, judgment, notice, pan, putdown, rap, rave*, review, reviewal, slam*, slap, study, takedown, write-up, zapper
Notes: a criticism is an evaluation or judgment of something, while critique is a somewhat elevated term for the same thing; review is used as a synonym for these but may also imply a more comprehensive study
Antonyms: compliment, praise
What Max suggested, having it linked to the download, seems like it'd be most appropriate. Then the "average" score you see associated with the game could just be the average score of the main download you've got up.
This could create issues if someone should wish to make a small update to their game, however.
This could create issues if someone should wish to make a small update to their game, however.
This is something I think should really be looked into. It's especially important in the case of episodic games, game series using a single gamepage, and compilations of multiple games. Perhaps a new box could be added to reviews where you can select between Full, Demo, Beta, et cetera. In order to avoid having to conceive of every possible tag a review could have, perhaps developers can create a few review tags to their game somewhere in the game manager.
For example, say there was a game called Super Fantasy Anthology and it was a compilation of three different games, Fire, Water, and Earth. The developer could add review tags for Fire, Water, and Earth. Then, when a reviewer is submitting a review, he can select which the review covers, as well as a few generic, universal tags such as "Demo" and "Completed".
For example, say there was a game called Super Fantasy Anthology and it was a compilation of three different games, Fire, Water, and Earth. The developer could add review tags for Fire, Water, and Earth. Then, when a reviewer is submitting a review, he can select which the review covers, as well as a few generic, universal tags such as "Demo" and "Completed".
I'll just throw out some responses to some statements.
Linking to a download would be great if people weren't uploading near duplicate versions of their game (RTP/Non-RTP). It'd be possible to link the review to multiple downloads to make sure it is accurate.
For my own feelings on things: I don't feel demos should be reviewed. But then I also don't feel that what people are releasing right now should really even be considered a true demo. Demos are usually there to push out some huge marketing prior to the game release. You don't typically release a demo and then come back two years to release the full game.
The community doesn't work like that, however. "Demos" are made and constantly cancelled as the community recklessly barrels down it's expressway of ADHD game development. That leaves an option of:
A) Building the site functionality to accommodate the way the RM community works
or
B) Screwing that noise and build it to work in a way that would pigeon hole the review flow.
One problem that I see is: people scream about wanting feedback from a review, but is that what a review is for? Is the review for the developer or for the player? Commercial games are able to hone in to the player perspective due to them being the target audience for the originating review source. There is no such luxury here.
Thought on this manner: critiques can be sent directly to the developer, are not public, and do not affect the score. Reviews are public, affect the game score, and are only allowed for completed games.
Linking to a download would be great if people weren't uploading near duplicate versions of their game (RTP/Non-RTP). It'd be possible to link the review to multiple downloads to make sure it is accurate.
For my own feelings on things: I don't feel demos should be reviewed. But then I also don't feel that what people are releasing right now should really even be considered a true demo. Demos are usually there to push out some huge marketing prior to the game release. You don't typically release a demo and then come back two years to release the full game.
The community doesn't work like that, however. "Demos" are made and constantly cancelled as the community recklessly barrels down it's expressway of ADHD game development. That leaves an option of:
A) Building the site functionality to accommodate the way the RM community works
or
B) Screwing that noise and build it to work in a way that would pigeon hole the review flow.
One problem that I see is: people scream about wanting feedback from a review, but is that what a review is for? Is the review for the developer or for the player? Commercial games are able to hone in to the player perspective due to them being the target audience for the originating review source. There is no such luxury here.
Thought on this manner: critiques can be sent directly to the developer, are not public, and do not affect the score. Reviews are public, affect the game score, and are only allowed for completed games.
WolfCoder
3554
I agree, whether you complain compliment about anything I do through comments, PMs, reviews or whatever doesn't make a bit of difference- I'm still going to get your feedback.
Reviewing a demo is a lot like getting a grade on an assignment suddenly before you even finish the assignment and turn it in.
I personally spew tons of demos which are really programs meant to see if my engine explodes on other people's machines. As evident from my game chill entry they tend to lack.. everything.
Reviewing a demo is a lot like getting a grade on an assignment suddenly before you even finish the assignment and turn it in.
I personally spew tons of demos which are really programs meant to see if my engine explodes on other people's machines. As evident from my game chill entry they tend to lack.. everything.
Shinan
4314
I think one way could be to track when a game was marked as "completed" and all reviews made before that gets its own section (perhaps only separated by a slightly largers space). Making it clear which reviews were written after a game was marked as complete and which were written before. (There's already fairly obvious dates on game reviews so sometimes it's possible to tell what was reviewed based on the date. A system like this would automate it)
post=135944
I'm 100% happy to have it set up so that games can only be reviewed if they are completed.
(Haha, ABL will no longer have a rating!)
I would opt to consider both Completed and Cancelled games as "finished" and possible subjects to reviews.
But I'm with Shinan in that there ought to be an editable completion date field on a gameprofile.
