Suggestion: JCrit to get the games reviewed.

General Discussions
#1

I write quite a bit and belong to an excellent organization called http://www.critters.org/. The concept is simple. Write critiques of peoples work to have your work critiqued. Each critique is worth points. The people with the most points get critiqued first. Each critiques requires a minimum amount of words 200, no short cuts. Typically you do about 10-15 crits and recieve about the same on each story you submit. It is a large community so it takes a long time, a few weeks to get reviewed.

The same could be done here. A moderator just list the games in order they should be crited with their version number. Once the minimum crits have be posted lets say 5-10, the next game is up for criting. Once your version is critted your points are removed and you go back to building up by criting others.

It is very important to have minimums for the critiques so people don’t cheat. “It sucked” is about as useful as “I love it.”

A suggestion on minimum format would be something like this. I like people to use numbers because it gets me a better feel for how they like it. If I’m getting 8s it is something special.

Title version x
(200 word minimum for credit)

Game play 1-10:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:

Art: 1-10:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:

Sound: 1-10:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:

UI: 1-10:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:

System and OS played on:

Frame rate recorded:

Bug List:

Suggestions for Improvement:

Similar/better games:

I’ve only been programming in java since January…so not sure how hard it would be set up something auto for this. Might be good to just do it via forums at first. I like the ideas of the reviews being open as everyone can learn from them.

Please Review the following games first in order

Mario Spin off one v 0.2 (8 reviews)
Mini Wow v 0.43 (4 reviews)
Hack and slash infinity v 1.0
Sidescroller to death v 0.5

Closed to review

Howto Data Java programmer v 0.1 (40 reviews)
Microsoft target practice v 2(20 reviews)

Reviewers by points:

Braacken 10
GlassbackfromtheDead 8
ChrisM 5
Darrin 5

ps. You guys have been so helpful to a noob like me. I hope this suggestion helps.

#2

feedback on projects is great.

But I think the main concerns for some people, hasnt just been a lack of feedback, but rather the level of completion of a project for someone to run it. With a citism sceme, it just means people who talk the most, will get the most feedback.

I think some people just get annoyed at testing Apps, when they try run it the only response they have is: “I couldnt run it.”

Personally I dont mind either way. But I dont think that system really works in a development environment.

This system would be great for Game Story Ideas/Game Concepts ideas.

#3

Yeah at this point I’m sort of in the camp that I don’t want more requirements imposed on the community. One suggestion I liked was having two showcase areas, one for WIPs and one for complete games. I wouldn’t even want those areas moderated more than community members saying “you should put this in WIP” or something like that. Instead simply making it up to the author is fine, with the understanding that if you want feedback on your game then it’s going in the WIP section, and if you just want to show off something that’s complete you put it in showcase. With these two concepts split up I think it will help a lot of people find what they’re looking for. Like lots of members don’t visit showcase anymore because they’re tired of seeing incomplete/broken projects, but a lot of people still do visit showcase because they enjoy giving suggestions (I know I do). So if we separated those so that people who want something to play they go to showcases and people who want to give suggestions go to WIPs, I think just that simple distinction would really help.

But in the end I really want the community to have the tools to have better results, but I don’t want any requirements to artificially create better results.