My review of Comp 02 Reviews

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike Sousa

unread,
Nov 25, 2002, 11:21:36 PM11/25/02
to
(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
No Doubt -- Tragic Kingdom
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
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 Agea
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
Unfairly 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.

Yoon Ha Lee

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 7:01:09 AM11/26/02
to
Mike Sousa <mjsousa_R_...@attbi.com> wrote:

Thanks, Mike, for the overview! :-) I found it quite helpful.

> Yoon Ha Lee (6.3)
> Link to reviews: http://pegasus.cityofveils.com/if2002.phtml

Heh. I'm flattered you consider that page reviews at all (though I did
post the link to r*if); they're more like condensations of the notes I
took rather than fully-developed reviews, which I'm not sure I yet have
the experience to write. Next year I'll do better, I promise.

YHL, novice IFer

Knight37

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 3:29:27 PM11/26/02
to
Prophet Mike Sousa <mjsousa_R_...@attbi.com> consulted the bones
and whispered:

> 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.

I'll give this review of comp 02 reviews a 9 out of 10. ;p

--

Knight37

asok: 'you're my role model, wally. despite all the pressure and
frustration, you press on. you bend but you do not break.'
wally: 'my motto is - they can't break you if you don't have a spine.'
-- Dilbert

Peter Seebach

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 3:47:18 PM11/26/02
to
In article <3DE2F6F4...@attbi.com>,

Mike Sousa <mjsousa_R_...@attbi.com> wrote:
>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.

I think I may have a new title to claim: "Most unfairly reviewed game".

-s
--
Copyright 2002, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
$ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists.
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/

Dan Schmidt

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 5:49:16 PM11/26/02
to
Mike Sousa <mjsousa_R_...@attbi.com> writes:

| Sam Ashwell (5.2) (assuming this is Sam Kabo Ashwell)

| Entertaining: 2

I nominate Mr Ashwell for Most Unfairly Reviewed Reviewer! His reviews
were easily the most entertaining of the lot, to me. Perhaps I'd feel
differently if I were an author this year...

Dan

--
http://www.dfan.org

Sam Kabo Ashwell

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 9:25:46 PM11/26/02
to

> Sam Ashwell (5.2) (assuming this is Sam Kabo Ashwell)

Ayup.

> Unfairly Reviewed: Too many to list

Hooray.


>As I read each review I became more
>and more depressed.

That'd be osmosis, then.

> Sam, why do
> you torture yourself?

I get almost as much fun out of laughing at very bad games as I do out of
playing very good ones. I probably ended up enjoying Augustine about as much
as I did Moonlit Tower because of this.

> Well,
> one more thing. How the author of something called "stupidgame" can go
> on a long rant like that escapes me.

stupidgame is speedIF (as are all the rest, to be fair). It isn't expected
to be a marvel of the modern age. It was titled that as a result of me
hitting Save, having no idea what to call the thing, and not wanting to
waste five precious seconds thinking of something marginally less crap. In
any case, surely being able to acknowledge the crapness of your own games
should put you in a better objective position than... okay, I'm stalling
here.
All that said, yeah, as far as any level of fairness, objectivity,
helpfulness to author or player, or indeed any redeeming human quality
whatsoever is concerned, these were pretty useless. That, and I didn't feel
marvelous in the morning, either. KIDS: the critical faculty and gin do not
mix.
SKA

Billy Harris

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 10:35:52 PM11/26/02
to
In article <3DE2F6F4...@attbi.com>, Mike Sousa
<mjsousa_R_...@attbi.com> wrote:

> Billy Harris (5.8)
> Presentation: 3

How can I improve the presentation of my reviews?

Mike Sousa

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 10:55:36 PM11/26/02
to

In regards to style and how it was organized, your reviews were
presented fairly well. I reserved the 4 and 5 rating mostly for those
reviews that were formatted (HTML) and, of course, had cool pictures.

-- Mike

Billy Harris

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 9:25:41 PM11/27/02
to
In article <3DE44258...@attbi.com>, Mike Sousa
<mjsousa_R_...@attbi.com> wrote:

> In regards to style and how it was organized, your reviews were
> presented fairly well. I reserved the 4 and 5 rating mostly for those
> reviews that were formatted (HTML) and, of course, had cool pictures.

OK. Thanks for the critique!

Akilesh Ayyar

unread,
Nov 28, 2002, 4:47:15 PM11/28/02
to
This had me grinning ear to ear... thanks for the chuckle! (and the
interesting insights)

Knight37

unread,
Dec 3, 2002, 3:20:45 PM12/3/02
to
Prophet "Sam Kabo Ashwell" <sk...@cam.ac.uk> consulted the bones and
whispered:

>
>

>> Sam Ashwell (5.2) (assuming this is Sam Kabo Ashwell)
> Ayup.

> All that said, yeah, as far as any level of fairness, objectivity,


> helpfulness to author or player, or indeed any redeeming human quality
> whatsoever is concerned, these were pretty useless.

FWIW, I found your reviews to be entertaining. :)

--

Knight37

"There are those who think that life
Has nothing left to chance
With a host of holy horrors
To direct our aimless dance"
-- Rush "Free Will"

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages