So I’ve got enough head of steam that I like my trajectory in meeting my review commitments this year. For the reviews that follow, some context about the criteria I’ll be using. The supporting materials seem to encourage using a judging framework of some kind, which makes perfect sense. I settled on the following, organized, as anything worthwhile in my life is, as a spreadsheet. Quick disclaimer: I will reserve the right to adjust these criteria over time if they prove less useful than believed. I am laughably unprepared in community and hobby context to judge how valid these criteria are, and am really just winging it by imposing an artificial order on the chaos of life. Though on some level, aren’t we all? :]
score artistic response fn() tech intrusiveness =overall
1 Bouncy AND unplayable bad
2 Bouncy OR* unplayable bad
3 Mechanical AND intrusively buggy meh
4 Mechanical OR* intrusively buggy meh
5 Sparks of Joy AND notably buggy you have my attention
6 Sparks of Joy OR* notably buggy you have my attention
7 Engaging OR* mostly seamless good
8 Engaging AND mostly seamless good
9 Transcendent AND not seamless great
10 Transcendent AND seamless great
*technically XOR, if that makes a difference to you
Of course these are not unrelated aspects that I have separated. You could theoretically envision a seamless implementation of a contemptible artistic statement, or text so transcendent that no amount of bugs dilutes the experience. I expect in practice I will use the “Artistic Response” as a maximum score, and “Technical Intrusiveness” as a modifier. Will likely burn some text in reviews explaining how that balancing resulted in the score I gave.
Some terminology clarifications:
Bouncy - subject matter or writing style that collides directly with one of my many character flaws and bounces me off the material like I was fired from a cannon
Mechanical - material that doesn’t actively repel me, but elicits no feelings of emotional engagement. Just pushing buttons.
Sparks of Joy - uneven material that nevertheless has bright shining spots of “Hell Yeah!” be it an amazing setpiece, really engaging prose, a mechanical or story twist that I admire, etc
Technical Intrusiveness - mostly bugs, but also fundamental technical limitations that downgrade the narrative experience. “Intrusively Buggy” will mean its technical flaws are primarily what I remember, due either to their eggregiousness or raw volume. “Notably Buggy” likely means I was able to work around or power past the issues in a way that I can’t forget, but that won’t disrupt my entire experience. I do have some patience here. “Mostly seamless” means on reflection I might remember some glitchy moments but only if I force myself to think about them.
The rest is probably self explanatory. I am using the personal randomizer to review and have set a goal to meet or beat 3 reviews a week for the duration of the period. My whatever-is-just-shy-of-OCD likely dictates that the final review count will be divisible by 5. Without further ado, here we go! Your advice and guidance appreciated, if I go far astray of community expectations for this kind of thing.