Castle Paradox

[Artharol]

I was just wondering, when is a game considered to be "ready" to be reviewed? Is this upon the request of the game's creator, or whenever the game is made downloadable to the public? Should I worry about submitting a review to a game before the game's creator wants to be reviewed?

I've seen a few threads on this forum protesting "unfair" reviews, submitted before someone considered their game "ready" for a review, so I just thought I'd get some opinions before proceding.
_________________
“Well. Think about it. Lots of things you can do with a stopwatch.” — Ianto Jones, Torchwood

[Raekuul]

Why submit it in the gamelist if you don't want it to be reviewed? DoZ is fair fodder for review, even if it might never be completed...
_________________
A broken clock is still right twice a day.

[Gizmog1]

If it's on the list, it's reviewable. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool and a liar.

[LeRoy_Leo]

Hear hear! If a person is alone in a room and without the company of any qualm or guilt, able to behold bread in their hands, their mouth is able to open, their tongue able to swallow, then is that person not able to eat the bread?
_________________
Planning Project Blood Summons, an MMORPG which will incinerate all of the others with it's sheer brilliance...

---msw188 ---
"Seriously James, you keep rolling out the awesome like gingerbread men on a horror-movie assembly line. "

[TMC]

There are games which have no reason to be reviewed. As in, anything uploaded that is not a game (For example, I don't see the point in reviewing "Faces", which is a plotscripting code demo, but won't complain... unless someone says it's not a game and gives it an F+)

[Moogle1]

Wow, apparently I'm in the vast minority here.

I'd say that unless you put it up as a released demo or game (not a tech demo, not a WIP unofficial release) then it's not review material. Example: Super Sheep Rancher is not something I'd like to be reviewed. Contest games are fair game if released.

Also, Leroy, what?
_________________

Slime Salad :: Independent Game Design

[LeRoy_Leo]

Sorry, Moog and the others outside of the circle (everyone). I am a parable fanatic. I am not very good with them yet, I know. Mustard seed, gentlemen. Mustard seed.

Also; I like Moogle's position on a game's reviewability based on it's status.

Demo = Not fair game unless the author says so.
Full release = Totally fair game unless author says otherwise.
Right? Regardless, this seems possible and even beneficial.

Of course, what Gizmog said about it being there, and thus being a clear shot for a reviewer to review it is also true. That was basically the meaning of my bad parable. If it is available, and there are no stated restrictions on whether it is legal to review it without consent of the author, it is review-able, in my opinion. As for fabricating, refabricating, or re-enforcing stricter consequences for reviews that are given for demo games without a said author's consent, that's an entirely different matter. I think that could benefit some people.
_________________
Planning Project Blood Summons, an MMORPG which will incinerate all of the others with it's sheer brilliance...

---msw188 ---
"Seriously James, you keep rolling out the awesome like gingerbread men on a horror-movie assembly line. "

[TMC]

...That's not what Moogle said. He said released demos are fair game.

To extend what I said, I don't see the point in reviewing anything that isn't a game or TRYING to be a game. RRRRPG was a bunch of tilesets and wallmaps, it wasn't a game, and in my opinion, anything anyone would say in a review of it means nothing.

[Rinku]

unless a demo has some actual gameplay to it, i wouldn't say it's reviewable. if a demo is like 5 minutes, i wouldn't call it reviewable. so the demo of wingedmene would be reviewable, but the demo of zfrt or the demo of zelda: doujingeemu would no be.
_________________
Tower Defense Game

[Gizmog1]

There's a difference in being hard to review, being a review of an early version that's subject to change, and being a game that should NOT be reviewed. I feel that any game on the list is reviewable, though not necessarily a game that's review is going to say much, or be accurate a year from then. So long as the ability to edit a review is retained, I say let anything be reviewed, if it's on the list.

[Raekuul]

[no_shot]

First of all, I'd like to say, "What a great question!" So here goes,

What a great question!

To elaborate on why I voted yes, I believe that a review is just another form of feedback - although its use could be regarded with some etiquette, seeing as how it's a site-based activity thingy - so if someone makes a game and doesn't want feedback, they would either a) explicitly state that they DID NOT want their game to be reviewed, and that anyone who dared breach their statute would be forever anathema, or b) not release their work to the public. Basically, I'm saying if you can, then you should - if there is no obvious reason not to.
_________________
Play Horrible Fantasy NOW!

[Rinku]

zelda: doujingeemu is a game by komera and myself. yes, it's on the game list, but it's very old (2000 if i believe) and we haven't worked on it for a long while.
_________________
Tower Defense Game

[Komera]

[Nathan Karr]

Although an opinion nearly(or completely) identical to my own has doubtlessly been stated already, I beleive that if it's on the gamelist it's fair game. Unless it claerly says "DO NOT REVIEW." I beleive that even applies to tech demos and OHR movies. As long as it can be downloaded, and the author doesn't say not to, review it.

The redundancy of the above post is due to my utter stupidity.

And just so you know, I was the first to answer the poll. I just didn't want to be the first to reply. Not after what happened the last two times...
_________________