I have been thinking about the responsibility of reviewers after having read some of the reviews placed on the net, and it has struck me that the reviewer has a pretty powerful weapon where as the author is more or less a sitting duck.
Many of the reviews are actually quite discouraging for anyone who’s been working hard on his/her game, and does absolutely NOTHING to spur the want to do better.
In my opinion reviewing in the “amateur” world of IF should be a help, constructive criticism that the author can use to improve his/her next game. ( I am talking about games where it’s evident that the author has put a fair amount of work, and not the fast 30 minute, slap-together thingy that’s not worth even opening.)
There are guidelines and articles for almost any aspect of IF writing published, but none (that I could find) when it comes to reviewing a game.
I have thought this over and come up with some guidelines for reviewing a game.
Reviewing an IF game is not at all like reviewing a movie or a theater play. Mostly the making of the game is a hobby and done in the authors spare time, without the financial backup of a well established software company. S/he is very much dependent on volunteers when it comes to testing the game, and their thoroughness.
I’ve had quite a few testers myself, who were all “gung ho” to test the game, but after some weeks I never heard anything from them.
But that aside, let’s assume that the game has been tested and released.
[*] First of all, before you even start reviewing a game.
[*] Make it clear that this is YOUR opinion, and keep in mind that other may like or dislike the game, although you did/did not.
[*] State whether you are reviewing the use of the IF program or the game itself, and if you are doing both, separate the two.
[*] Take into consideration the nationality of the author. Give some slack to a “foreigner” for whom English isn’t his/her native language. (but expect at least the use of a text editor)
[*] If the author has provided an e-mail address, take time to write him/her and ask if there are things you have problems with. This way you at least give him/her the chance to explain his/her actions.
When it comes to the reviewing itself, I realize that each of us have our own standards regarding games, and the following is only meant to be a guide line for those who’d like to give a review but don’t want to write an essay about the game they’ve just played.
Atmosphere: Was the game catching on?
Puzzles: How was the puzzles, too hard, illogical, too easy, was there a fair amount of them?
Descriptions: How was the various descriptions? Did the author use too many fancy words, was the descriptions sufficient, too much or too little.
Objects: Was all essential objects mentioned in the text or picture, examinable? And was the object examinable to a satisfying degree?
Cruelty: The Andrew Plotkin cruelty index is very useful:
Merciful: Cannot get stuck.
Polite: Can get stuck or die, but it’s immediately obvious that you’re stuck or dead.
Tough: Can get stuck, but it’s immediately obvious that you’re about to do something irrevocable.
Nasty: Can get stuck, but when you do something irrevocable, it’s clear.
Cruel: Can get stuck by doing something which isn’t obviously irrevocable (even after the act).
Overall game play: ( A short summery of the game, maybe things you liked and things you didn’t like.)
Recommendation. (Is this a game you would recommend to other people?)
Feel free to add to this list. The more the better…