This thread is getting hijacked, and it's an important thread, so let me say this:
I basically agree with LJR that reviewing needs to improve and that many of those who sign up to be reviewers (including myself) need to try and put more regular effort into it.
I do not think LJR's assumptions about the reasons people do not review are relevant or valid (you can accuse me of many things, but being lazy or not continually working to help BYOND are not generally among them, for example). I think we simply need a better system and policy in place.
This weekend I hope to get started on some new functionality, and on thinking about this more. Please continue to add any comments you have on how we can improve the reviewing. Any further comments about laziness/professionalism/etc will be deleted to keep the thread focussed.
HrH was far from perfect, at least not in the areas you should be paying attention to as a reviewer. I mean the interface was horrible, verbs dissapearing and reappearing every couple of seconds. The graphics were usable and did their job, but would score low. Gameplay was excellent. The staff did a great job, since the rules were followed, even the staff rules, and there wasnt more "GMs" then needed.
The Help Documentation is rather out of date (Unless its been updated). If I was reviewing it for a channel I would probably accept it on the grounds that Lexi changes the interface to be a little more organised, and updates the help. With the DBZ/Icon games, most wouldn't make it into Fangames or chat, because they are generally buggy/incomplete and dont reflect well upon BYOND. | |
The ability to cancel the review. Im not sure if this exists in the form of unchecking the box, but it would be nice to have a de-submit button next to the checkbox.
Automatic weeding out of Beta and/or Alpha stage enteries would be nice, if its not already in. That way the reviewers arent getting flooded with a bunch of "Im working on adding everything now but when its finished its going to rule!" enteries. Previewers would be nice. They dont have any real powers, but they can go into games on the review list, and give it a quick once over, then leave a comment attached to the entery. This would speed things up for the reviewers since they know what too look for. If the comment says there are still bugs in the game, and lists them, the reviewer just has to go to the listed bugs, check them, then decline it. Tighter standards. Ive often submitted something then had it rejected for X reason. Then fixed X reason, only to be rejected again for XX reason because a differnt reviewer has looked at it. Im not saying I shouldnt have to worry about XX reason, Im saying that XX reason should have been brought to my attention by the first reviewer. Although it is expecting a little to much for these people to think with a hive mentality, and always see every flaw in my game. Also, sorry if these have been suggested before, but after it got hijacked I lost track of the ideas. | |
Well, weeding out Beta and Alpha entries would weed out every entry there is. Even weeding out Alphas might be counter-productive. When I start hosting my games (I've said it before, but "soon!"), I'm going to pass them off as alphas; the first time I test a game for the public, I want the public to be able to give input into the intimate details of the game.
These are the general categories, as I perceive them: Alpha is a state where a game is being designed, developed, and implemented. Beta is a state where a game is being fixed, and where last minute balancing tweaks are made. Gamma is a state where a game is being tested for playability before the release. Most people skip the gamma stage because it's simple enough to test for playability during beta. Besides, no game can ever truly be finished -- it can be brought into a state where you no longer believe it needs work, but it always will. | |
Yeah maybe. Although it might be a good idea to limit the size of the Alpha downloads (Or maybe just in general, unless you have concent from Dantom) or something. Although people would probably end up just saying their game was in a differnt stage.
However I did mean ones that havent been worked on in X amount of time, since most alpha games that havent been worked on in a while are discontinued. Maybe they should just find a way to motivate people to delete useless entries. | |
I don't really agree with that, either. I have hub entries that are hidden that I fully intend to update, but which haven't been updated for over a year.
| |
Sorry Deadron if you and the others thought I was just calling you out on being lazy. I value you and a select few others of this community who I consider value contributors. Your time given is both considerd and thankful. In the end, I too only wish to see the process improved upon without pointing fingers or putting any negative comments about the current one.
Cheers! LJR Deadron wrote: I do not think LJR's assumptions about the reasons people do not review are relevant or valid (you can accuse me of many things, but being lazy or not continually working to help BYOND are not generally among them, for example). I think we simply need a better system and policy in place. | |
Aye, forgot to mention this within my reply, oh well :P
I only knew this thanks to you saying it in the first place anyway :P
Anyhow, what I said about wanting to be a reviewer still stands, but like I said there, I can want all I want but I wont necessarily get what I want. -- Do you get that? May seem confusing to some at a first glance hehe.
--Lee