With 79 games this year, it’s much harder for reviewers to finish reviewing all the games, so the authors have gotten together to offer some small prizes for reviewing!
This is not sponsored or run by IFComp itself or the Interactive Fiction Technology Foundation, but it has been permitted by the IFComp organizer.
The rules are as follows:
Everyone who reviews all 79 games is eligible to receive a prize.
At the end of the competition, the authors will vote for ‘Best Reviewer’ out of all eligible reviewers. The winners of the vote will select prizes in order until the prize pool is empty.
If there are more prizes than eligible reviewers (i.e. if not enough people have reviewed all 79 games), then the next reviewer that got the closest to 79 reviews will be added, and so on.
The reviewer doesn’t have to complete every game, but has to write something meaningful about the main content of the game (so just giving out star ratings on ifdb or judging blurbs doesn’t count).
The current prize pool is as follows:
-$50, donated by Mike Sousa
-$25, donated by Stephen Granade
-Adding the reviewer’s favorite food as scenery in Eat Me, donated by Chandler Groover
-Adding the reviewer’s name in a semi-prominent place to A Beauty Cold and Austere, donated by Mike Spivey
-Adding the reviewer as a character accessible by XYZZY in my next game, donated by Mathbrush
-A handwritten letter of gratitude, donated by Mathbrush.
Those donating prizes do not get any special voting rights; the final awards will be determined by any and all authors who choose to participate in the final vote.
I expect that hardly anyone will do all 79, which is why the few that do the most reviews will be eligible under rule 3, whether that’s 76 or 70.
But the low-performing games are exactly the ones that need reviews the most; some games have 5 reviews now while most have 1 or 2.
Edit: In edge cases like the Haunted P review, the authors can decide together. I personally would allow it because the transcript adds a lot, and because the game was intended to have little content, and this shows that dhakajack played long enougj to see its main content.
So far, I haven’t seen anyone whose been writing quick, cheap reviews of games as fast as possible. I doubt there will be 6 people in the 79 range. Anyone who cranks out poor reviews would be disqualified under the ‘meaningful’ rule, with that rule applied as a group by the authors.
Can authors participate in this as well? I hope to leave feedback on all the games; my health will determine if that is possible. X)
(I get sick around this time every year, it seems.)
Also, I assume I’ll have to post the review publically, so I can put the feedback as a review on ifdb as well. Hopefully that works.
Lynnea Glasser - 30
Maga - 20
So if the comp ended right now, these 6 would be eligible for prizes; authors would vote on their reviews, and all 6 would get prizes. (Note that this is just an off the cuff estimate; I haven’t checked these reviews for substance and I may have missed some forum posters [maybe dfabulich?]. So actual results may vary).
This means that there is plenty if room for a new reviewer to leap ahead at this point.
Here’s the leaderboard with one day remaining. Authors can start thinking about how they’ll rate each of the top 6 (although there’s time for someone to come in at sixth). We’re at 730 reviews so far this year, a remarkable improvement over last year’s 598. Thanks everyone! Don’t forget there’s still time to get your reviews in! Authors will be rating each of the final six on a 1-10 scale, and prizes will be selected in order of highest average score. Author’s ratings will be due Saturday at midnight eastern time.
Jack Welch - 79
Christopher Huang - 79
VGAPH - 79
Lynnea Glasser - 62
Fumiko666 - 26
I’m not sure it’s fair to include me since I didn’t produce full written reviews, just 15-45 second recorded ones. If anything I would just want to be included as an edible item in Eat Me. I would like to be described as a bitter but entertaining amuse-bouche.