[Ed. note: Originally posted to RGIF on or about 11/26/2002.
Mike Sousa, co-author of the second-place finisher Till Death Makes a
Monk-Fish Out of Me, agreed to let me post this on Strange Breezes for
the time being.]
(some thanks and congrats first...)
First off, congratulations to Paul O'Brian for his most excellent
entry "Another Earth, Another Sky". Well done, Paul.
Also, thanks to Stephen Granade, Mark Musante, Lucian P. Smith and
the rest of the folks involved in the competition.
And thanks to all of the folks that spent time playing/reviewing
the comp games -- the feedback is really appreciated.
As I read all of the reviews I thought it would be interesting to
come up with a set of criteria to judge each reviewer. So I did.
It took me a while, but I finally broke it down into the following
categories, scored from a 1 to a 5, where 1 is 'not at all' to a 5
'excellent'.
Entertaining: Does it go down easy, is it funny, does it make me
want to continue reading?
Well Written: Is it, uhm, well written, make sense, grammer/spelling
okay (not that I'm one to really judge that, but hey, my rules...)
Help Author: Does the review help the author? Recommendations to
make the game better, sample transcripts, do's and don'ts, etc...
Help Player: Will this review help a fellow player appreciate the
game premise enough to give it a shot? Does it inform the player
without spoiling the game? Does it warn the player about spoilers?
Score Match: How well did the reviewer score the games according to
how they placed in the comp? (ie, did they give Another Earth, Another
Sky a 2, etc...)
Presentation: Did it just get dumped to RGIF unformatted? Is there
a link to a website? Does it have style? Is it easy to read?
Each of the above categories got a score from 1 to 5. I then felt
that I needed to add weight to the scores by adding a score which
depended on the number of games the reviewer played/reviewed. It was
scientific and based on the number of games you got 1 to 10 points.
With 40 possible points, I divided by 4 to get us to a familiar 10
point scale. Again, not perfect but hey, it worked for me.
Once I scored each review, I did a brain dump and smartly called
this section "comments". (cutting edge, I am...)
But wait, there's more.
Where I could, I have linked the reviewer's work to my review. When
I couldn't find a link, I simply stated "found on RGIF".
I also thought it might be important to display some background on
the reviewer. (note to reviewer -- I found this information either on
R*IF, BAF's Guide or your web site. My apologies if I misrepresented
any of your background, it's definitely not intentional.) The
background consists of previous comp review years as well as games the
reviewer has worked on.
Almost done.
I then thought it would be interesting to pick a game or two that,
in my humble opinion, got unfairly reviewed. The criteria I used for
this is subjective -- did the reviewer miss the game and give it a low
score compared to how the game finished? Again, lots of room in this
category to question, but I did my best.
Finally, I enjoy music and noticed that with each review, I would
pick a different CD. In the interest of nobody, I decided to jot down
which CD I listened to at the time I reviewed the review. (it sounded
like a better idea at the time... no really, it did...)
Anyway, the unofficial winner is, well, just read on. I've sorted
them by score.
Enjoy... I did.
-- Mike
========================================
Paul O'Brian (9.5)
Link to reviews: http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/02rev1.html
Background: R*IF poster, SPAG maintainer, 1996-2001 reviewer, games:
Earth and Sky, Another Earth, Another Sky, LASH -- Local Asynchronous
Satellite Hookup, and Wearing the Claw
Entertaining: 5
Well Written: 5
Help Author: 4
Help Player: 5
Score Match: 4
Presentation: 5
Reviewed 37 Games: 10
Unfairly Reviewed: Hell: A Comedy of Errors.
Led Zeppelin [Box Set] -- Disk 1 & 4
Comments: Paul's reviews are phenomenal. He pays lots of attention to
every game and tries to offer insight both to the author and the
player. He treads very carefully in the "spoiler" category
and gives advanced noticed when a puzzle/plot element might be
spoiled. The reviews are very consistent, entertaining, well written
and for the most part, his scores are right in line with the comp
results. If all you have time is to read one set of reviews, do
yourself a favor -- read Paul O'Brian's -- you won't be disappointed.
========================================
Emily Short (8.5)
Link to reviews: http://emshort.home.mindspring.com/Comp2002Reviews.html
Background: R*IF poster, 2000 reviewer, other comp reviews, games:
Banana Apocalypse and the Rocket Pants of Destiny, Best of Three, The
Crescent City at the Edge of Disaster, A Day for Fresh Sushi, Galatea,
The Last Sonnet of Marie Antoinette, Marble Madness, Metamorphoses,
Not Made With Hands, Pick Up the Phone Booth and Aisle, Pytho's Mask,
and Savoir Faire
Entertaining: 4
Well Written: 5
Help Author: 4
Help Player: 5
Score Match: 3
Presentation: 4
Reviewed 36 Games: 9
Unfairly Reviewed: The Temple
Robert Plant -- The Principal of Moments (twice)
Comments: Emily did a terrific job with the reviews, especially
considering the number of games she played & reviewed. Emily not
only offered her opinion on what worked and what didn't, but she took
the extra step in several reviews to recommend things to make it
better. For you authors that were lucky enough to receive this
insight, put it to good use. Emily is an accomplished
writer/programmer and knows what it takes to make a great game. Extra
points for adding new words to my vocabulary (logorrhea!).
========================================
Jessica Knoch (8.5)
Link to reviews: http://www.strangebreezes.com/if/reviews/comp02.htm
Background: Game: Tookie's Song
Entertaining: 4
Well Written: 5
Help Author: 4
Help Player: 4
Score Match: 4
Presentation: 5
Reviewed 35 Games: 8
Unfairly Reviewed: Nothing stood out
Counting Crows -- August and Everything After
Comments: Jessica did a super-fantastic job reviewing 35 games. The
reviews are broken up into two major sections -- a complete narrative
which includes examples, pointers, funny moments, etc.. and a scoring
system section. They are presented very well and therefore are easy to
follow and navigate. (ie, Back to Top implemented). As an acknowledged
puzzle-impaired IFer, Jessica seemed to focus on puzzle design at
times which made me think the reviews are targeted more for authors.
However, there is just so much information available in the reviews
that players also benefit tremendously. The sophisticated scoring
system (there are actually two, the old one has already been retired)
really breaks down the game into components which serves both players
and authors very well.
========================================
David Welbourn (8.3)
Link to reviews: http://webhome.idirect.com/~dswxyz/comp02reviews.html
Background: R*IF poster, big contributor to BAF's Guide.
Entertaining: 4
Well Written: 5
Help Author: 3
Help Player: 4
Score Match: 3
Presentation: 4
Reviewed 38 Games: 10
Unfairly Reviewed: When Help Collides
Jane's Addiction -- Nothing's Shocking
Comments: David did a terrific job reviewing all of the games. The
reviews were slanted toward players and were very easy to digest -- he
spent some time on the presentation (the "TOP" touch is very
nice). There are spoilers spread throughout the reviews but he does
warn potential readers up front. One of the better set of reviews
available for this year's comp.
========================================
J. Robinson Wheeler (8)
Link to reviews: http://raddial.com/if/reviews/comp02_reviews.html
Background: R*IF poster, 2000-2001 reviewer, games: Colours, Being
Andrew Plotkin, First Things First, Four in One, Centipede, Coke Is
It!, Pick Up the Phone Booth and Aisle, A Rock and a Hard Place, A
scurvy gift for Bosn Chuck, SpeedIF #2, The Tale of the Kissing
Bandit, and Your Choice
Entertaining: 4
Well Written: 5
Help Author: 5
Help Player: 4
Score Match: 3
Presentation: 5
Reviewed 27 Games: 6
Unfairly Reviewed: When Help Collides
Tool -- Lateralus
Comments: The drawings were way cool, bonus points there. Rob gears
his reviews more for authors (I think) in that he includes partial
transcripts to show what works and, more often, what doesn't. They
were easy to read and after reading the 27th review, I was longing for
more. Well, 26 actually, the review for When Help Collides consisted
of about 10 words. Personal note -- I beta-tested this game and I got
it -- maybe you're not from planet Earth. :) Anyway, I recommend comp
authors to read all Rob's feedback -- lots of great stuff in there.
========================================
Mike Russo (7.8)
Link to reviews: Found on RGIF
Entertaining: 3
Well Written: 5
Help Author: 3
Help Player: 4
Score Match: 4
Presentation: 2
Reviewed 38 Games: 10
Robert Plant -- Now and Zen
Unfairly Reviewed: When Help Collides
Comments: Mike does a great job of introducing himself, what he likes,
what he doesn't and how the reviews came together. I found that
opening pretty cool because it gave me a pretty good baseline of how
he was going to review them -- and boy did he review them. Mike's
reviews were consistent and well thought out and very detailed. The
reviews were primarily geared for players though there's enough meat
on them to help game authors. He managed to review all 38 games and my
only quibble was that the formatting was not easy on the eyes. Every
review was one gigantic paragraph and I was seeing double by the end.
That aside, great stuff and well worth the read.
========================================
Dan Shiovitz (7.5)
Link to reviews: http://www.drizzle.com/~dans/if/comp02.html
Background: R*IF poster, 1998-2001 reviewer, games: Bad Machine, Coke
Is It!, Danger School, Don't Fire Until You See The Yellows Of Their
Niblets, I don't remember why this game is called "Onion",
Jack's Adventures, Kids, don't..., Lethe Flow Phoenix, Pick Up the
Phone Booth and Aisle, and You are a Chef!
Entertaining: 3
Well Written: 4
Help Author: 2
Help Player: 4
Score Match: 4
Presentation: 3
Reviewed 38 Games: 10
Unfairly Reviewed: MythTale
The Police -- Synchronicity
Comments: Another reviewer that managed to play/write about all 38
games. An impressive feat to say the least. Dan has a unique way of
breaking the game into three categories -- highly recommended,
recommended and not recommended. The groupings seem to work and Dan,
for the most part (Scary House Amulet! and MythTale come to mind as
exceptions), does a good job putting the games into the right
categories. Dan doesn't get into too much detail but his views are
relatively consistent. Well worth the read.
========================================
Cedric Knight (7.3)
Link to reviews: Found on RGIF
Background: R*IF poster, 2001 reviewer
Entertaining: 3
Well Written: 4
Help Author: 2
Help Player: 4
Score Match: 3
Presentation: 3
Reviewed 38 Games: 10
Unfairly Reviewed: Janitor
Comments: Cedric reviewed all 38 games and did a fine job of breaking
them into genres. The groups consist of "Trams",
"Espionage", "Myth", "Horror", etc...
The reviews are considered spoilerish and are definitely geared more
toward players than authors. They are done rather matter-of-factly and
since there is a lot of material, I couldn't get through them in one
sitting. Don't get me wrong, they were well done -- maybe it's because
I didn't have any music playing? Cedric tended to score most of the
games on the high side and was very consistent throughout all of the
reviews. If you're a player and looking for a specific genre of games
in the '02 IF Comp, Cedric's reviews are a must read.
========================================
Demian Katz (7)
Link to reviews: http://www.gamebooks.org/comp02.htm
Entertaining: 3
Well Written: 3
Help Author: 2
Help Player: 3
Score Match: 3
Presentation: 4
Reviewed 38 Games: 10
Unfairly Reviewed: Augustine
Plant & Page -- Walking into Clarksdale
Comments: Demian didn't have a good time playing/reviewing comp 02. He
does write that he found the comp thoroughly disappointing and that he
is seriously considering ignoring the comp next year. I give him
credit for sticking it through the entire 38 games. I did notice that
a lot of his reviews found fault with the games and he didn't seem to
enjoy about half the games. His reviews are geared toward players and
are mostly non-spoilerish.
========================================
Andrew Plotkin (6.8)
Link to reviews: http://www.eblong.com/zarf/gamerev/comp02.html
Background: Long time R*IF poster, 1995-2001 reviewer, games: Shade,
Donkey Kong, Sensory Jam, Hunter in Darkness, Spider and Web, A Change
in the Weather, So Far, Lists and Lists, Inhumane, Freefall, The Space
Under the Window.
Entertaining: 3
Well Written: 4
Help Author: 4
Help Player: 3
Score Match: 4
Presentation: 3
Reviewed 25 Games: 6
Unfairly Reviewed: Tookie's Song
Stone Temple Pilots -- Purple
Comments: Andrew's reviews are targeted for comp authors, which is
(selfishly speaking) extremely helpful. He does tend to concentrate
more on the negatives than the positives but does it in such a way
that it lets the author say "oh, okay -- I should have considered
that" -- this can only help IF game creators. If you want to do
it right, read Andrew's reviews and learn from one of the best. Nuff'
said.
========================================
Sam Thursfield (6.3)
Link to reviews: http://golrien.hybd.net/text/comp02rev.txt
Background: R*IF poster, games: A Stroll on the Roof and WOODEN CAT
vs. ROBOT MONKEY
Entertaining: 4
Well Written: 3
Help Author: 2
Help Player: 3
Score Match: 2
Presentation: 3
Reviewed 34 Games: 8
Unfairly Reviewed: Janitor
Bill Joel -- The Bridge
Comments: Sam has an edge to his reviews and he kept up the edge
through all 34 reviews which was fun. I caught myself chuckling here
and there and they're definitely geared more toward players than
authors. My guess is that he ticked off a couple of authors with some
of his comments but hey, that's his opinion and we're all entitled to
it, um, I mean to ours. I ended up getting through his reviews even
though I have a short attent... hey, The Bridge just ended, lemme see
-- what am I in the mood for next...
========================================
Yoon Ha Lee (6.3)
Link to reviews: http://pegasus.cityofveils.com/if2002.phtml
Background: R*IF poster, game: THE MOONLIT TOWER
Entertaining: 3
Well Written: 4
Help Author: 3
Help Player: 3
Score Match: 3
Presentation: 4
Reviewed 23 Games: 5
Unfairly Reviewed: Photograph
Nirvana -- In Utero
Comments: Yoon managed to get 23 games reviewed. Some helped authors,
some helped players. She's a talented writer and knows her stuff. Yoon
quoted some passages from different games and gave her opinion in a
consistent and fair manner. Well worth a read.
========================================
Richard Bos (6)
Link to reviews: Found on RGIF
Background: R*IF poster, 2000 reviewer, games: The Damsel and the
Dragon and Why did the Dino cross the Road?
Entertaining: 3
Well Written: 3
Help Author: 3
Help Player: 3
Score Match: 3
Presentation: 3
Reviewed 24 Games: 6
Unfairly Reviewed: Till Death...
J. Geils Band -- Flashback
Comments: Richard warns up front that his reviews are quite scathing
here and there and not to take anything personal. For some, easier
said than done -- but luckily for me, the 3 "Till Death..."
received actually made me laugh out loud. I actually felt sorry for
Richard since his PC is obviously "not right". But anyway,
Richard reviewed all the Inform games and three TADS games. There are
some spoilers sprinkled about and his reviews are directed both at
authors and players.
========================================
Edward Lacey (5.8)
Link to reviews: Found on RGIF
Background: RGIF poster
Entertaining: 4
Well Written: 4
Help Author: 3
Help Player: 4
Score Match: 4
Presentation: 2
Reviewed 11 Games: 2
Unfairly Reviewed: Unraveling God
Mighty Mighty BossTones -- Let's Face It
Comments: I liked his style. He seemed fair and offered constructive
criticism where appropriate. Had some funny moments. Edward invested
time in his reviews and I gave him credit for sticking with games that
he obviously didn't like. Well done!
========================================
Billy Harris (5.8)
Link to reviews: Found on RGIF
Background: R*IF poster, 2000 & 2001 reviewer
Entertaining: 3
Well Written: 4
Help Author: 4
Help Player: 3
Score Match: 4
Presentation: 3
Reviewed 11 Games: 2
Unfairly Reviewed: Moonlit Tower
No Doubt -- Tragic Kingdom
Comments: Billy had a good grasp on the games and his reviews can be
considered mini beta-testing reports. He found typos, errant parser
responses, unimplemented actions, needed synonyms, etc... and that was
mostly geared to the programming side. From a plot perspective, his
feedback was on the light side. His reviews were well written and for
the most part, his ratings fell in line with the comp results.
========================================
Stephen Bond (5.5)
Link to reviews: Found on RGIF
Background: R*IF poster, 2001 reviewer; game: Rameses
Entertaining: 3
Well Written: 4
Help Author: 2
Help Player: 2
Score Match: 3
Presentation: 2
Reviewed 24 Games: 6
Led Zeppelin -- IV or Zozo or Ruins, yeah, the one with _Stairway to
Heaven_
Unfairly Reviewed: Janitor & Fort Aegea
Comments: Stephen's reviews were, er, hard to review. Of the 24 games,
almost half were dismissed with little to no reason -- usually in a
throwaway sentence, usually two to three games at a time. He did a
good job of breaking down his top 5 games and was much more verbose
and detailed with those reviews. Stephen is obviously not a fan of
games that have a certain level of 'puzzleness' and that's cool, so if
you're a player or author that want to know what works (or more
importantly, what doesn't work) in puzzle design, skip these reviews.
However, if you're a fan of story based IF and want to know what
elements make up a great game, I urge you to go through his reviews.
========================================
Akilesh Ayyar (5.3)
Link to reviews: Found on RGIF
Background: R*IF poster, 2001 reviewer
Entertaining: 3
Well Written: 3
Help Author: 2
Help Player: 3
Score Match: 3
Presentation: 3
Reviewed 38 Games: 10 U
nfairly Reviewed: Photograph
Comments: Akilesh manages to review all of the comp games, but does so
with an eye toward games with a strong propelling story. By his own
admission, the reviews are actually a set of short comp notes, jotted
down after completing (or quitting) a game. Akilesh tended to rate the
games about the same -- two games received a 2, two games received a 3
and one was scored an 8, the rest were given scores between 4 and 7.
========================================
Papillon (5.3)
Link to reviews: Found on RGIF
Background: R*IF poster; games: Triune and Desert Heat
Entertaining: 3
Well Written: 3
Help Author: 5
Help Player: 2
Score Match: 3
Presentation: 3
Reviewed 10 Games: 2
Unfairly Reviewed: None
Comments: Papillon comments are spoiler-filled and somewhat technical
which makes them geared toward authors. In fact, Papillon mentions
this a the top of the reviews. The reviews, which consist of all the
TADS games, are scored with three "C" categories;
cleanliness (as it relates to the coding), completeness (as it relates
to the game world) and coolness (how it affected Papillon). There was
a wild card category labeled Bonus Points which included random
musings and extra credit stuff. If you entered a TADS game in Comp 02,
read the reviews -- they're well worth the read.
========================================
Sam Ashwell (5.2) (assuming this is Sam Kabo Ashwell)
Link to reviews: Found on RGIF
Background: R*IF poster, games: Dithyrambic Bastards, Final Assault of
the Big Green Cliches, Manna, A Spliff in Time, and stupidgame
Entertaining: 2
Well Written: 4
Help Author: 1
Help Player: 2
Score Match: 2
Presentation: 2
Reviewed 32 Games: 8
Unfairly Reviewed: Too many to list
Tom Petty & the Heartbreaders -- Greatest Hits
Comments: Sam opens his review saying that he's going to review them
while intoxicated and, I quote, "my reviews are unfair,
prejudiced and written principally to gratify some deep-rooted and
sordid little complex of mine". Alrighty then. As I read each
review I became more and more depressed. I finally asked my wife to
hide all the knives and power tools -- I was afraid of inflicting
damage to myself. Sam, why do you torture yourself? You could have
accomplished the same goal, and I quote, "an opportunity for me
to spend too much time spending too little time on a lot of shoddy
games, yet an absolute social necessity if one wishes to stay afloat
in the cutthroat, intrigue-laden world of IF appreciation." by
skipping all of the games and reading some of the comp reviews.
Anyway, players and authors, stand clear if you have thin skin. There
are some funny moments. That's all I have to say. Well, one more
thing. How the author of something called "stupidgame" can
go on a long rant like that escapes me. Okay. That's all I really have
to say.
========================================
Matthew A. Murray (5)
Link to reviews: Found on RGIF
Background: Long time R*IF poster, 2000 reviewer, game: Assignment
Entertaining: 2
Well Written: 4
Help Author: 2
Help Player: 3
Score Match: 5
Presentation: 2
Reviewed 11 Games: 2
Unfairly Reviewed: Janitor
Led Zeppelin -- Coda
Comments: Matthew is more of a "player's" reviewer. He got
through 11 games and had some good insight on Jane, in which he
beta-tested. Matthew does a good job of bringing context to some of
the games and uses other established authors in his examples. In the
end, he was also slighted by only getting one of the top seven games
(Janitor, which ironically, he didn't care for) but that's to be
expected when playing less than a third of the potential games.
Matthew has been involved in R*IF for a long time and with this
experience, he pretty much nailed the ratings on the comp games.
========================================
LizM7 (4.5)
Link to reviews: Found on RGIF
Background: R*IF poster
Entertaining: 3
Well Written: 3
Help Author: 2
Help Player: 2
Score Match: 2
Presentation: 2
Reviewed 17 Games: 4
Unfairly Reviewed: Unraveling God
The Refreshments -- Fizzy Fuzzy Big & Buzzy
Comments: Poor Liz -- the random game generator wasn't too kind to
her, considering she played almost half the games and didn't get the
opportunity to play some of the higher scoring ones. Out of the top
seven games, Liz only played/reviewed one (Janitor). Maybe this is one
of the reasons why she was down on the comp. Her reviews don't appear
to be targeted to either the author or the player, more of a general
note, mostly venting I guess. Such is the luck of the randomizer.
Hopefully next year, LizM7 will have better fortune in the random
draw.
========================================
Rikard Peterson (4.5)
Link to reviews: Found on RGIF
Background: R*IF poster
Entertaining: 2
Well Written: 3
Help Author: 2
Help Player: 3
Score Match: 4
Presentation: 2
Reviewed 10 Games: 2
Unfairly Reviewed: Constraints
Pink Floyd -- A Momentary Lapse of Reason
Comments: Very terse (like me!), had some good insight in several
games, others too generic (why did he think MythTale had bad puzzles?
That really doesn't help the author or the player.) He seemed to have
a pulse on the games as his scores reflected the final standings
pretty closely.
========================================
Adrien Beau (4.3)
Link to reviews: Found on RGIF
Background: R*IF poster
Entertaining: 2
Well Written: 3
Help Author: 2
Help Player: 3
Score Match: 4
Presentation: 1
Reviewed 10 Games: 2
Unfairly Reviewed: Augustine
The Red Hot Chili Peppers -- What Hits!?
Comments: A set of mini reviews (really player notes). For the most
part, his scoring matched the comp results but there wasn't enough
meat there to really help the player or author. Nothing wrong with
that since he did preface it by saying it was written on the fly.
(Note that I only found this set of reviews by reading a response to
another review set).
========================================
End of reviews.
| 
