I'm wondering, if the voting period was extended by, say, a three days, how many people would be able to play through more entries or make their votes at all (or at least reach the review bonus threshold of 20 reviews and top 20 ranks)?
Now don't get me wrong, I know that
NOTE: There is no pressure to play all 77 games.
but at the same time votes where the author played more games should be more stable overall (there's less chance that they'll miss some amazing entry they'd otherwise rank at the top).
Also, it seems that a few voters would be willing to play as much entries as they can. Though at the same time, it's hard to tell how many more extra games people would play given three more weekdays (rather than a weekend).
(why they didn't play through all the entries earlier, then? They had their reasons, I suppose?)
So, I'm just curious, how many of you people would be able and willing to play through at least some more Jam games if the voting period was extended (compared to keeping the voting deadline as-is)?
--------------------
On a somewhat related note:
If some of you got Crimson Festival served by Jam randomiser, and then decide to leave it for last because it uses progress from other entries: please,
please at least try it out before wrapping up your votes for good. It shouldn't take more than 5-10 minutes for a full playthrough. You can even right-click on title cards to change game states and see how it looks with 100% complete games.
I just don't want a situation when someone gets my entry in a randomiser and then it turns out they didn't play it anyway, because they left it "for last" and that "last" never came to be.
If you didn't get Crimson Festival via randomiser in the first place, it's fine - I just want to avoid a situation when my entry is played significantly fewer times compared to others because people left it for later and then didn't get around to it.