Writing IF reviews
Arnel Legaspi
I've read some of the past and present reviews for IF games posted
here and on Paul's SPAG. I'd like to try writing some, but I can't
find a general, uh, "pattern" or way for writing one.
These are the questions I'd like to ask:
[1] How do you write reviews for puzzle-fest IF games, and puzzleless
games? I'd actually like to write ones for puzzleless games, since
they are what I do play most of the time. (Or perhaps I'm playing
games too difficult for a "newbie" to play?)
[2] What are the usual criteria on which to write an IF review? For
both kinds of games?
Thanks again in advance!
--Arnel
Jessica Knoch
>
> [1] How do you write reviews for puzzle-fest IF games, and puzzleless
> games? I'd actually like to write ones for puzzleless games, since
> they are what I do play most of the time. (Or perhaps I'm playing
> games too difficult for a "newbie" to play?)
>
> [2] What are the usual criteria on which to write an IF review? For
> both kinds of games?
One thing I've noticed in reading some excellent reviews by Emily
Short and others is this: they find what the game "turns on" or, to
put it another way, the main thing that makes the game work. For a
puzzle-fest, it might be a certain gimmick that you have to use to
solve several puzzles; for a puzzleless game, it might be plot or
characterization or setting. Once you've figured out what the main
*thing* of the game is, then you can figure out how well it does it
or doesn't do it. Cite some examples, write it all up, and you've
got a perfectly reasonable review.
If you go on to talk about other things the game is trying to do and
how well it does them (or how it doesn't), then you've got a pretty
well fleshed-out review. IMO. I tend to ramble <g>.
Other advice would be not to worry about playing games that are too
difficult: you can still write reviews even if you use hints, and if
there are no hints or walkthroughs available, e-mail the author and
tell her you are wanting to write a review but can't finish the
game, and see where that gets you. People reading your review will
want to know how hard it was, if they are potential players.
--
Jess K.
Quintin Stone
> I've read some of the past and present reviews for IF games posted here
> and on Paul's SPAG. I'd like to try writing some, but I can't find a
> general, uh, "pattern" or way for writing one.
That's probably because everyone has their own idea of what makes a good
review. Reviews are pretty personal things, especially for a hobbyist.
And even the same person might write completely different types of review
for two similar games based purely on their mood.
> [1] How do you write reviews for puzzle-fest IF games, and puzzleless
> games? I'd actually like to write ones for puzzleless games, since they
> are what I do play most of the time. (Or perhaps I'm playing games too
> difficult for a "newbie" to play?)
>
> [2] What are the usual criteria on which to write an IF review? For
> both kinds of games?
I think the first step is to first identify what qualities stand out in
puzzleless games that you most admire. Is it the tone and atmosphere?
The skilled writing? That the PC's situation and motivations make sense?
Maybe it's that the game made you feel like you're in control of the game
instead of being railroaded to the end result. Or that the NPCs were
particularly well done, reacting in a realistic fashion to various
stimuli. Once you decide on what makes a good puzzleless game, you can
compare how the reviewed game stands up in these categories to your
personal favorites. Not necessarily in the review, but at least in your
mind.
Puzzle-fest games I think are a bit easier and have pretty standard
categories for judgement. Do the puzzles make sense in the context of the
game? Are they too complicated or too easy? Do the solutions make sense,
if only in hindsight? How does the game react to other solutions that you
believe were just as viable?
And of course, there are certain criteria that apply equally to both
styles, namely spelling and grammar, programming (lack of coding errors),
humor (if appropriate), a consistent style, and overall satisfaction with
the game.
/====================================================================\
|| Quintin Stone O- > "You speak of necessary evil? One ||
|| Code Monkey < of those necessities is that if ||
|| Rebel Programmers Society > innocents must suffer, the guilty must ||
|| st...@rps.net < suffer more." -- Mackenzie Calhoun ||
|| http://www.rps.net/ > "Once Burned" by Peter David ||
\====================================================================/
Neil Cerutti
> Hi again!
>
> I've read some of the past and present reviews for IF games
> posted here and on Paul's SPAG. I'd like to try writing some,
> but I can't find a general, uh, "pattern" or way for writing
> one.
Try this article on the if-archive:
info/feedback-guide.txt
Also, look up back issues of XYZZY News (on the web), where
Gareth Rees and others have written some articles about IF
Criticism.
--
Neil Cerutti
MFischer5
>here and on Paul's SPAG. I'd like to try writing some,
Woo Hoo! Good for you. :)
>but I can't find a general, uh, "pattern" or way for writing one.
There isn't one.
>These are the questions I'd like to ask:
>
>[1] How do you write reviews for puzzle-fest IF games, and puzzleless
>games? I'd actually like to write ones for puzzleless games, since
>they are what I do play most of the time. (Or perhaps I'm playing
>games too difficult for a "newbie" to play?)
There are no hard rules to review writing, and there probably shouldn't be.
If everyone's reviews looked alike, then we wouldn't need more than
one person to write them per game.
>[2] What are the usual criteria on which to write an IF review? For
>both kinds of games?
Well, everyone will probably have a different take on this, but here's mine.
I would write about what you liked, what you didn't, and if possible (and
this can be the hard part for me) the reasons WHY you did or didn't like it.
Stating: "The game sucked" is a data point, but not a particularly useful
one for either author or reader. "The game sucked because it had a maze
in it." is better. "The game sucked because, although reasonably well written,
there was a maze it in it and I loath games with maze." is best (IMHO) as it
states:
1. Your overall opinion of the game
2. Your reason for the opinion
3. At least one thing positive (come on, you can think of ONE thing, can't
you?)
4. (particularly for negative reviews) Your built in biases (loath mazes).
We all have them. Someone who dearly loves mazes might read the
above and say -- Wow, the game for me! The rest will shake their
heads knowingly and move on. :)
Kathleen (oh, and don't forget to avoid spoilers if possible. Nothing worse
than reading a review that "gives away" the game before you ever have a change
to
play it!)
-- Inevitable (SpringComp03) -
http://www.ifarchive.org/if-archive/games/zcode/Inevita.z5
-- ... also The Cove (ArtShow00)(Cove.z5) and Masquerade (Comp00)(Mask.z5)
-- plus Prized Posession (Comp01) .../games/competition2001/inform/possess
-- Redemption (ArtShow 03) - http://members.aol.com/iffyart/
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair
Jon Ingold
film reviews, it became clear that the mark of a good review was that
someone who would like the film would read it and think "it sounds
fantastic", whereas someone who wouldn't like it would read *the same words*
and come away with the impression that the film wasn't very good. To do
that, you need to include nothing personal; nothing on why *you* liked the
game -- because that's a response, not a review. A good review tells you
what the game is about thematically, how well-made it is, what's its for,
and it's flaws. It's not necessarily analytic but it should come as close as
possible.
Of course, a good review is damn hard; and if you're going to write
something from a personal perspective, then the most important thing to do
is be aware of your own subjectivity (as I think Kathleen has already said
here).
Jon
Cedric Knight
> Hi again!
>
> I've read some of the past and present reviews for IF games posted
> here and on Paul's SPAG. I'd like to try writing some, but I can't
> find a general, uh, "pattern" or way for writing one.
Excellent - more reviews, particularly of otherwise scarcely-reviewed
non-competition games, would be welcome to players and authors alike.
Even a couple of paragraphs of general impressions are appreciated (to
me, anyway).
This is my approach, although it may not be the best. While playing, I
keep a transcript, look for anything unusual, and take notes of anything
interesting that occurs to me about the story, particularly reasons why
something does or doesn't work as far as I can tell, or does or doesn't
add to my experience. I then try to order these diverse thoughts in
text (often not too well!), often falling back on standard headings like
'prose quality', theme, and 'playability'. This isn't the way to write
the wittiest or most entertaining reviews - for that see, e.g. those by
Sam Kabo Ashwell.
I wonder myself how to avoid spoilers.
>
> These are the questions I'd like to ask:
>
> [1] How do you write reviews for puzzle-fest IF games, and puzzleless
> games? I'd actually like to write ones for puzzleless games, since
> they are what I do play most of the time. (Or perhaps I'm playing
> games too difficult for a "newbie" to play?)
>
> [2] What are the usual criteria on which to write an IF review? For
> both kinds of games?
You probably noticed that SPAG used to have a score system in reviews,
divided into Plot, Atmosphere, Writing, Gameplay and some 'wildcard' you
could choose yourself. Characterisation and puzzles were additional to
this system, as many works have no intention of including one or both of
these elements. I think this is a good indication of what aspects to
focus on if nothing else takes priority. Comparisons to existing works
are fairly useful if they are well-known, but mostly if you both compare
and contrast.
Characterisation could be judged against Emily Short's page on NPCs, but
I think it's worth separating out the 'coding' aspects of NPCs from
questions of how much, if any, personality comes across.
Puzzle reviewing kind of depends on what path you chose through the game
and with me tends to just be 'I was pleased with myself for getting this
one' or 'I didn't get this one without hints, probably because (insert
reason)', but I find it hard to identify what I'm talking about (for the
benefit of the author, partly) without spoilers.
Anyway, I hope your write some reviews & look forward to reading them.
CK
Arnel Legaspi
I greatly appreciate all your responses to my questions. I find them
highly encouraging, even though I've been around playing (and
experimenting) with IF for only about 2 or 3 years now. Maybe that
might not be enough "experience", but I'd like to think we all have
just about the same standards in mind, though mine may not necessarily
be as high (or low) as yours. I _will_ write some.
Let me reply to some of the points raised:
>Excellent - more reviews, particularly of otherwise scarcely-reviewed
>non-competition games, would be welcome to players and authors alike.
>Even a couple of paragraphs of general impressions are appreciated
(to
>me, anyway).
Indeed. There are a lot of IF games out there that need some form of
feedback or review one way or another -- and not all of them are on
the Archive. I think it's pretty encouraging for authors (and would-be
ones) to see that their work, no matter how skillfully/creatively made
(or otherwise), has been played, thought of, and written about. It not
just helps them improve their craft; it attracts more players, thereby
generating more thoughts about the game (hopefully at least). It's a
subtle form of advertising.
And, yes, that is what I'm planning to do. Competition games get quite
a fair share of reviewers, but most of the games on the Archive (and
outside of it) weren't made with the yearly competition in mind. I'd
like to review those games that went through the same process of
conceptualization and beta-testing, but never got judged or ranked.
>Other advice would be not to worry about playing games that are too
>difficult: you can still write reviews even if you use hints, and if
>there are no hints or walkthroughs available, e-mail the author and
>tell her you are wanting to write a review but can't finish the
>game, and see where that gets you. People reading your review will
>want to know how hard it was, if they are potential players.
One thing that attracted me to writing reviews was Emily Short's
"mini-reviews", the "good ol' college try" as Peter Nepstad called it.
She tries the game without any hints at all, then resorts to it when
it's really necessary.
I'm not very adept at puzzles, and though I'd like to have the time to
figure what works, I don't. Won't the hints affect your general idea
of how hard a game is, and wouldn't it lessen the puzzle's effect,
especially if the author designed it to be solvable through a lot of
ways?
I do agree, nevertheless, that potential players will want to have
some idea first of how hard a game is, before they play it. (On that
line of thought, does anybody have an idea where you could find the
Zarfian cruelty rating system?)
>...it became clear that the mark of a good review was that
>someone who would like the film would read it and think "it sounds
>fantastic", whereas someone who wouldn't like it would read *the same
words*
>and come away with the impression that the film wasn't very good.
Still make the reader think that he should see for himself. I agree. I
hope I'll be able to do that -- or at least be aware of my own biases,
as what you and Kathleen have said.
>oh, and don't forget to avoid spoilers if possible.
How do you avoid spoilers without giving away too much of the game?
This probably takes practice.
Thanks again for your encouraging answers! I'll write one soon.
--Arnel
Tommy Herbert
> line of thought, does anybody have an idea where you could find the
> Zarfian cruelty rating system?)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4lwkmey00WB30%3DudZV%40andrew.cmu.edu
Arnel Legaspi
Thanks for that URL!
--Arnel