Reviews - your input needed!
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:29 pm
The new site is approaching a state where it can go live, which makes me endlessly happy.
One thing that still needs some work is the reviews section, which I've been working on with kind assistance from Alastair. So I'd very much like your input!
The current review model allows ratings in the following categories:
- Vocabulary/parser: how well does the game understand you?
- Writing: originality and atmosphere. Any graphics are mentioned here, too - which makes the category name a bit misleading, but it was the best we could come up with
- Puzzles: quality, originality and logic
- Fairness/cruelty*
- Overall
Any opinions on the above?
Our major problem is the fairness/cruelty rating. I think it's an excellent idea, I'm just uncertain of its exact content.
My first thought was Andrew Plotkin's
Cruelty scale:
- 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).
Good points: It's nice and clean, and it's used on other sites so it'll be easy to understand for a lot of people
Bad points: The scale was created for modern games. An overwhelming lot of oldies will be "cruel", and very few will be "merciful" or "polite"
Alastair's alternative was
Winnable/Unwinnable:
- Always winnable: you can never get into a situation where you cannot complete the game, and you cannot lose
- Unwinnable after obvious warnings: e.g. drinking a labelled bottle of poison; an unsafe bridge is clearly marked as such; deliberately smashing a priceless vase you are meant to return
- Unwinnable after little or no warning: e.g., sudden death without warning; a priceless vase breaks when you put it down
- Unwinnable with no indication: e.g., failing to carry out an action in a location that cannot be reached later on; pulling a lever which you later learn smashed that priceless vase
Frustration:
- Little or no frustration: e.g., few, if any, random elements; objects stay where you put them; ability to carry a large number of objects
- Frequent frustration: e.g., elements that needed to completing the game being random; random/unmappable mazes; objects often moved to non-obvious locations when dropped; very limited carrying capacity.
Which of these work the best?
One thing that still needs some work is the reviews section, which I've been working on with kind assistance from Alastair. So I'd very much like your input!
The current review model allows ratings in the following categories:
- Vocabulary/parser: how well does the game understand you?
- Writing: originality and atmosphere. Any graphics are mentioned here, too - which makes the category name a bit misleading, but it was the best we could come up with
- Puzzles: quality, originality and logic
- Fairness/cruelty*
- Overall
Any opinions on the above?
Our major problem is the fairness/cruelty rating. I think it's an excellent idea, I'm just uncertain of its exact content.
My first thought was Andrew Plotkin's
Cruelty scale:
- 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).
Good points: It's nice and clean, and it's used on other sites so it'll be easy to understand for a lot of people
Bad points: The scale was created for modern games. An overwhelming lot of oldies will be "cruel", and very few will be "merciful" or "polite"
Alastair's alternative was
Winnable/Unwinnable:
- Always winnable: you can never get into a situation where you cannot complete the game, and you cannot lose
- Unwinnable after obvious warnings: e.g. drinking a labelled bottle of poison; an unsafe bridge is clearly marked as such; deliberately smashing a priceless vase you are meant to return
- Unwinnable after little or no warning: e.g., sudden death without warning; a priceless vase breaks when you put it down
- Unwinnable with no indication: e.g., failing to carry out an action in a location that cannot be reached later on; pulling a lever which you later learn smashed that priceless vase
Frustration:
- Little or no frustration: e.g., few, if any, random elements; objects stay where you put them; ability to carry a large number of objects
- Frequent frustration: e.g., elements that needed to completing the game being random; random/unmappable mazes; objects often moved to non-obvious locations when dropped; very limited carrying capacity.
Which of these work the best?