Alright, in order to organize things, I have created a spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F0jfzJugy4_bqxEh-KnkvgIsonUK25jaFVJgg7wsQPQ/edit?usp=sharing) in Google docs. Right now, it’s just a list of game (minus one, but I can’t figure out which, if anyone finds which one I missed, please add it!) and I need some help adding reviewers to the columns.
Nice work! From my point of view, I like being able to immediately see who else has said anything about something I’ve reviewed, and then look up their reviews for anything I might have missed, or a different viewpoint, or whatever. Especially at this stage of the comp, where there seems to be very little overlap and quite a few games that nobody’s reviewed yet.
Someone else found and added “Riot” to the list. I just moved it up to its place in the alphabetical order.
Well, I went ahead and added in my reviews. I’ll keep doing that as I work my way through the games.
Fantastic! Thank you!
This spreadsheet is such a cool idea. I don’t remember seeing any resources in the past that made it quite this easy to cross reference games and review sites. Thanks.
I just checked out the sheet and it’s awesome. However, I think when I was roaming around, I might have accidentally F’d something up. I don’t see a “B” column. Did I inadvertently delete it?
Sorry in advance,
I found the B, but messed up the layout even further! Can someone savvy with spreadsheets help me out here?
Hi Owlor, thanks for publishing this list.
The number of reviews for each game should not be published. (You could put it in a spoiler tag.) It is a public rating system. Games with more reviews may be considered more popular = better. Players may neglect the other games or give them worse ratings.
I disagree. Some of us are using the low number of reviews to review (sic) those games with “bad luck”.
And whatever, anyone could cast an eye to the spreadsheet and know who are being reviewed a lot and who not.
There is a sharp difference between a list of numbers which tells popularity at a glance - you can sort the games by popularity with one or two clicks - versus sparse lists of reviews which aren’t revealing without exceptional panning. Even if you don’t care about voters, the cost for you to look in a spoiler tag is slight.
I decided to include the numbers for a reason and I am NOT happy about the fact that someone decided to remove them without first consulting me about it.
There is nothing about getting more reviews that should imply a game is better; it could very well mean people keep piling on it with bad reviews. Instead it’s been my experience that reviewers use it to gauge which games need more attention. There is no logical connection between “no one has reviewed a game yet” and “that must mean the game is bad” and if people where to infer one, they where probably not planning on judging the games fairly and rationally in the first place.
It is not possible to conceal which game is more popular. Not only is it obvious from the spreadsheet, it’s obvious to anyone reading the reviews and catching the buzz. Meanwhile, I see too much benefit in having a feature that allows reviewers intent on spreading the love to see which games would benefit most from a review to remove it.
If people are going to vandalize the list, I’m going to lock editing.
I wouldn’t mind it being in a spoiler tag/hidden column/whatever. Somebody added the review count to the authors’ version of this spreadsheet (which has authors’ reviews posted in the private forum, which may or may not get published when the comp closes). I talked to Owlor about putting it in the public sheet, because I was wary of it looking like a “who’s got the most reviews” contest, but yeah, since the information is publicly available anyway there doesn’t seem much point in making it hard to see. Nobody was calling it “popularity”.
Seconding that I’ve also seen several reviewers say they want to give priority to the less-reviewed games.
Owlor, I don’t think “vandalize” is the right word. The spreadsheet was publicly editable, and the change hz made was intended to improve it.
I believe that for an IF Comp author to publish review counts - which look like ratings and are readily interpreted as measures of popularity - violates rule 4:
I don’t know if it was HZ who did it, but it was a change as unwelcome as vandalizing, and with a similar effect. And this is not the first time someone with an axe to grind has changed the format of the spreadsheet without putting it up for discussion first, so my tolerance for this sort of thing is running very low.
I have added a comment to the document that clarifies what the number means. These aren’t ratings! I don’t even see how they could be confused for ratings! For one, they go beyond the 1-10 scale used for ratings. And I doubt anyone even remotely in-tune with pop-culture could confuse “popularity” for quality.
The number of reviews something have in no way suggest a particular score, directly or indirectly. A large number of reviews could mean people are piling on with negative reviews, or that it’s a divisive game with lots of opinions or simply that it happened to come up first on a lot of reviewer’s shuffle list.
The only one suggesting that the number of reviews something get should correlate to how judges rate it is you, heartless zombie. The spreadsheet just contain that number, now with a comment explaining that number of reviews does not correlate to quality of work, what people might infer from that is beyond my control (and I have tried to clear up any misunderstanding about what the number means both here and in the spreadsheet.)
There’s another thing that tells popularity at a glance: Number of Google results. Or IFDB ratings. If you wanted to fight this battle you are several years too late.
Alright, we’re gonna have to do a sweep to make sure the spreadsheet is up to date. If you want to help me, pick a column out of this list:
Sam Kabo Ashwell
The Short Game (podcast)
Leeloo Dallas Multigrain
Videogame Generations (podcast)
Old Games Italia (Italian)
Kirjallinen Suunnistaja (Finnish)
Jacqueline A. Lott
Some Strange Circus
and report here if all their reviews are listed. I’ll strike-through the names after I, or someone else, have checked them.
EDIT: Also, before I forget, I should make note of the people I know have contributed to the spreadsheet: Robinjohnson, VerityVirtue, aschultz, Ruber Eagelnest, Hz, Nick Turner, Hope Chow, Miseri… plus a bunch of others, if you’ve edited the spreadsheet, haven’t been credited and wants to, please tell me and I’ll add it to the list.
My reviews should be up to date.
Lynda Clark and PC Gamer (at least for the free games of the week section) look good too.
Thanks for setting this up, btw.
I have made a note of those, thank you for checking them!
I’ve been updating my own column each time I post a new review.
Great, I’ll cross you off AND add you to the list of people known to have contributed to the spreadsheet. If anyone wants to make it known, please tell me. I think it’s important that credit gets where it’s due and it’s acknowledged as a group effort.