The GMC Rad Reviewers [sign up & Discussion]

N

nvrogers

Guest
We can probably accept requests without too much of an issue as long as we do a good job of advertising ourselves to new members. It might actually force us to review games that may otherwise slip under even our collective radar.

-Editor, Head Reviewer, etc. (If it even needs a title)
-Secretary (If we have one)
-The "Discussion Wizard" doesn't really serve a purpose as far as I can tell.

If you desperately want to keep the word "Rad", you could just call it the "GMC Rad Reviewers." I think that "Club" is really more of a problem than "Rad."
 
__I'll count this as another vote to change the role names. I disagree that the word "rad" and the concept of professionalism can't go hand and hand. I see it as a signification of our humble view of ourselves. Each of our reviews are only the opinions of a single people, and having a silly name is a good way to show how human we are and how indifferent we are from anyone else here on the forum.
__Furthermore, anyone who worries about their reputation should consider putting more worry into the quality of the reviews instead. A reputation is near meaningless compared to doing a job properly.


__Do you want me to rename the roles (assuming the roles don't get added to removed)?
1. While "radical" is perfectly fine in certain contexts, the 90's completely destroyed the meaning of the word. Google image searching "radical" and especially "rad" brings up stuff like this:
Regardless of what you think your image is, or what the word actually means, this is what people will think.

2. I'm not talking about personal reputation. I care about games actually being discussed/reviewed. The fact is that less people will take reviews seriously if they're seriously radical, yo.

3. Yes. Rename them, and remove some useless positions completely.


I just want the Released/WIP Games forums to not be 95% dead like they were on the old GMC. I think I'll start playing/commenting/reviewing whenever I feel like it and not have to worry about progressing in some hierarchy or being in a cabal of reviewers. I wish you the best with this project, and I sincerely hope it benefits the GMC.
 
R

rui.rosario

Guest
you have so many ranks and etc
Do you want me to rename the roles (assuming the roles don't get added to removed)?
Call it the GMR (Game Maker Reviewers)
it's much more professional
Yes, I think there is a serious deficiency in GMC users actually playing and providing feedback on games. Yes, there are people queuing up to be reviewers because they realize it's needed.
No, people aren't going to listen to someone who doesn't know how to operate a structured system for reviewing games.
It might be wise to focus on reviews rather than mottos and general silliness.
There just needs to be something to give people who are not as comfortable writing a grasp on how to write a review.
it will be up to everybody to pitch in and push them in the right direction
Secretary
I just want the Released/WIP Games forums to not be 95% dead like they were on the old GMC.
(interesting portions, in no particular order)

Just to leave my opinion, I do think a re-branding of the overall "club" would be beneficial, as it would look much more serious and it would help people get the right notion of what they were getting themselves into.
I do in fact like the suggestion @Rusty made: GameMaker Reviewers (GMR).

Another thing is the excessive amount of "titles". Why label people differently? Sure, there'll be someone generally in charge and someone to help organize, but the remaining members will all be reviewers. Some with more experience, some with less. The group should have a private PM thread where they could discuss internal affairs and one of those could be a more fine-grained categorization of members, where senior members would tutor junior members. I liked what @nvrogers suggested (with a minor alteration): Editor, Secretary and Reviewer.

IMO this group has two major focus:
  • Call attention upon GM creations that could otherwise lay-low in the midst of other creations;
  • Give the developers and/or readers an opinion of how the game feels, with good and bad points like every creation.
I also would like to remember this is first and foremost a community, the GameMaker Community. Ever since I joined the GMC (in the older version, with various accounts.... sorry about that mods, but I kept on forgetting my email logins) I always got the notion the "community" part of the name was really present. There were places and people to hang out with, talking trash, just passing time, and there were people and places were to seek help and help others, nudging them in the right direction. I do feel this reviewer group should take in a bit of this community sense and slowly turn the group and all of its participants into something greater: a better, more professional and more organized group and better and more qualified reviewers.

Anyway, these are just some of my thoughts. I was planning on letting them out one by one throughout time, in order to slowly try and nudge the group into what I would think would be its better place, but given the already existing conversations I just went with the flow.
 
O

Otyugra

Guest
I changed the group name, position names, and renamed Not Cool points to Warning Points. Yes, Vice Editor is going to remain because I want to eventually elect someone to share the burden of running the club, especially on consecutive days when I am absent from the forum. I fail to see why there is a push to remove that position. Also, all regular members are now lumped into one group rather than divided in three.
 
R

Rusty

Guest
I changed the group name, position names, and renamed Not Cool points to Warning Points. Yes, Vice Editor is going to remain because I want to eventually elect someone to share the burden of running the club, especially on consecutive days when I am absent from the forum. I fail to see why there is a push to remove that position. Also, all regular members are now lumped into one group rather than divided in three.
I approve strongly of the new changes. I'm much more comfortable with the word "rad" being using in this sense as more of a minor branding than an overall theme. (And while we're still on the subject of the word, it only reminds me of the Rad Scorpions from the Fallout series. Not whatever those racing pirates up there are doing with Nacho.)

I think you've missed the point in what people were telling you though. You need a Vice Editor OR a Sec, you don't need both. If you're going to take charge of the group then it means you're going to be doing the legwork and the responsibility of running it. If somebody else is handling all that, by delegating tasks down to a VE and a Sec then you've successfully invalidated your own usefulness to the group.

I don't mean to intrude at all when I ask this Otyugra, but have you ever actually ran a group like this before?

Edit:
I'd also like to suggest an alternative template:
Project Title
Game Authour

Review Title (should you want one)

Review (We are still a GML learning community, not a marketing site, so remember to keep emphasis any brilliant uses of Game Maker and include links and suggestions to revelvant tutorials for the reader to take advantage of)

Where to find the game (Preferrably links to a forum topic as well as Steam Greenlight/IndieDB/etc pages. This section should also include any links to posts advertising any freelance artists or musicians that have been used during the development of the game to promote their business interests)

Your sign off (should you want one)
 
Last edited:
R

rui.rosario

Guest
I reallly enjoy the new changes much more, I just have some things that I would like to point out in the first post:

before the moment you are reading this.
This has been bugging me for quite some time but I always forgot to mention it: I think it would be better to rephrase this bit to "before the moment you sign up".

I am the current group leader, known as Lead Editor Otyugra, or Editor for short. I have top authority (below the mods and admins obviously) over the club and I decide major decisions.
As you can see, there is an inconsistency: You call yourself the "group leader" but then you say you have top authority over the "club", I would advice changing it all to "group".

it only reminds me of the Rad Scorpions from the Fallout series.
That sir, earned you a like :p
 
N

nvrogers

Guest
I think I can actually see the utility of having a VE, but not until the group grows large enough to make management difficult for one person. As of now, it wouldn't be particularly usefull. How about shelving that position until there are more people signed up?
 
O

Otyugra

Guest
__Ahem. It is my belief that a good leader in a group as small as this ought to settle the unrest of those following whether by agreeing to the whim of those mentioned prior or by laying one's foot down with trust of their own inner wisdom, depending on what the situation calls for. Often this leads to compromises, but to say "a compromise is always the best solution" is not always true, because truth cannot be found in such a generalization. Therefore I cannot yet rule out the idea that compromising may possibly not be a better solution than going with my conviction now and then on the decisions I want to make for this group.
__I turn your attention to the two similar requests to completely change the review template to be one that contains neither restrictions nor any text giving personal advice that can be accepted or ignored freely. There is a philosophical law, with a name I don't recall, which goes: whoever provides a new alternative to the currently accepted thought or way should first provide a counter argument against the original and then provide reasoning to back their new way once their counter argument is stated. In this situation, I ask that you first explain to me, in detail, why my template is needing changes, amendments, or even a replacement. Until you do that, and convince me, I see no reason to change my template. For now, it stays the same.
__I now change the subject to whether or not to remove the position of VE. As with above, it was told more than once why the position was not need but not told to me why removing the position is needed. @Rusty wrote that by giving control and responsibility to both a VE and a Secretary, I would be making my role near useless. In the first post, I stated that the VE is like a substitute. Only if I am not around, which I predict to be fairly often yet not so often that I ought to be replaced, someone should be able to make decisions and to form discussions by asking questions and guiding members with a light hand. Once things are settled, I can imagine us talking about things like "is it bad to judge a game's worth by it's difficulty?" and other such fun questions. Without a person with a designated role of making sure discussion is kept orderly, several questions could be asked at once, bickering could occur and possibly go unseen by the staff for longer than it ought to, and other such events. It is then that having a VE would help to settle this problem. You might ask, "Why not make the Secretary do the job when you are not around?" I would respond by stating "The Secretary should not be given more work than reasonable if work can be divided up to make things easier for all." I believe that inequality in the labor of members is a problem and as an extension I don't like the idea of asking someone to do a great deal of work when alternatively I can divide the work load in half and getting a second helping hand. If you believe the exemption from having to do the reviews is wrong, I will consider removing that if requested, but even that is part of my philosophy that the work should be divided fairly among us.
__It is here that I want to remind you all that I am the leader, and that my leadership should not be undermined. If neither I nor a replacement existed, I imagine nothing getting established in this group, and that is generously assuming the group still existed. Had I not made this group, I very strongly foresee one never getting made in the next three years. I have waited 18 months for a group like this to form; this has been a want of mine for that long, and nothing ever came of it. I asked myself, "Why is it that so many people post their indie games here yet almost no one bothers to give them feedback?" I felt helpless to review those games myself because I did not have the time. To compromised, I took reviewing jam games very seriously whenever I did have a little bit of time for it. @Rusty, maybe instead of asking if I have been a leader before of something similar (which I kinda am; for the last four months, I have been the project leader of a big game that has seven people working under me), you should have asked yourself if you would have ever made a topic like this or if my leadership is truly as bad as you make it out to be, because I find it insulting that you and @nacho_chicken constantly belittle my decisions and refuse to make an effort to understand my point of view.

As a side note, I fixed the two errors on the original post. Thank you for pointing those out @rui.rosario

This post does not have a summary because I think it would be best if you all read my words in their entirety.
 
R

rui.rosario

Guest
Concerning the template, @Otyugra you have the following as the Copy on the Review Thread:

Copy on the Review Thread:

Name of the Game

@Names or usernames of the people who made the game <--(NOT optional)
~ ~ ~
___This is the Opening Paragraph, it is optional but recommended.
___This represents the Body Paragraphs.
___Optional Review Score accompanied with reasons for the score / Optional recommendation in the form of one or two sentences.

[Game] (pretend that is the color green and links to a game)
From what I understand you want a verbatim copy of the review on the Review Thread. with some minor header and footer adjustments. However, I think it would be best if one just quoted one paragraph or so that they felt made an impact (concerning the review) and only post that quote on the Review Thread. I think this would help keep the Review Thread light and if people wanted to see the complete review they would have to go to the actual game's page, so you would somewhat generate traffic to the game.

I believe this was mentioned earlier by @Nocturne on the post in the closed Clubhouse thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

Rusty

Guest
Therefore I cannot yet rule out the idea that compromising may possibly not be a better solution than going with my conviction now and then on the decisions I want to make for this group. <The rest>
You're right that a leader must make hard choices and then stick with them. The most popular decision is not always the most prosperous but both I, and others, including Nocturne, are coming to you as fellow community members and veterans of this industry to try and help you. It would have probably have been an easier process to cut you out of the middle and propose a second group under new leadership entirely but out of respect to you, neither I or anybody else here has done it.

The template I brought to your attention is an agenda'd model, one that follows your original goal of being more traffic to the GMC while basing itself off of the templates used by professional sites like IGN.

Also, pointing out that a position is pointless is the argument for removing it. Complicating matters with unneeded bloat is what brings groups like this to a fast close (which was one of the main problems of the GMCG, you know, that project thingy I was a part of.) You Sec can be a substitute too, because people aren't binary and (once they have proven they can be trusted with such positions) can cover multiple responsibilities. It isn't going to be very difficult to run. Member's PM you to put their games on the waiting list, reviewers take games from the top of the list and the only job of the leader is to settle disputes and remove troublesome members. You don't need three guys to handle that minor workload.

It is here that I want to remind you all that I am the leader, and that my leadership should not be undermined.
Here's the thing though, this isn't a position we put you in, this is a position you appointed to yourself. You taking offence to people who dare to question your authourity isn't going to put any more faith in your leadership, nor is it going to cement you into that position.

Here's the thing, it wasn't YoYoGames who came up with the GMC Jam (to the best of my memory thatshelby officially started GMC Jam #1 but it was somebody else who came up with the idea) but even then it was Mark129138284739842 (now Nocturne) who took over after that because he was deemed the most appropriate leader for an idea that something else started. This is your idea yes and I applaud you for that, for taking on the initiative to start this, but ultimately in a community volunteer group the community decides who they follow. So stop acting like Big Dawg Gangsta G about your leadership role and start acting like a leader because like I said, out of respect for you, nobody has started up elsewhere but if you start throwing hard weight around then it will happen, I can promise you it won't be me who does it, but splinter groups will happen.

Edit:
Don't take this the wrong way, I'm genuinely trying to help you but my points are;
A) It is a leader's job to serve his people
B) Don't go throwing your weight around
C) Don't start throwing weight around that you don't have.
D) We are genuinely trying to help you, you have nothing for us to rebel against

Hammering down your authourity right now is pointless, the group is still just a concept and in it's infancy. You're as much as a leader right now as I am of the wandering acting troupe I may one day start (I won't, trust me, I won't).
 
Last edited:
N

nvrogers

Guest
Drama aside, this is starting to shape up very nicely :)

I also prefer Rusty's template. The original template contains all of the same material, but Rusty's is more concise and comes across as oriented towards customization. In practice, though, I think either would do.

We should probably stop bickering about the usefulness of positions (we're pretty much all guilty of this), and just try to get the ball rolling with the current setup. If something doesn't work, we can change it. It's not like anything is really set in stone.

Oh, and Rusty, if you start a wandering acting troupe, I swear I will see every show.
 
O

Otyugra

Guest
@rui.rosario I nearly forgot about @Nocturne saying that so it is good that you reminded me. I made changes to the review template again.

@Rusty Rather than suggest a new template entirely, I want you all to identify specific things you want to change about my template. I see nothing wrong with the currently version of my template, and very little actual criticism is made towards the specifics. All I hear is "this other template is better" and "I like his template more." This way we can change the template to be more like yours rather than choose one or the other. Changing gears, I think you'd agree that the position usefulness is speculation and we should, as @nvrogers said, post-pone talking about it until we have more evidence that it needs change or is better to stay the same. The members, when they signed up, silently agreed to me as their leader and as such I plan to remain leader until we make a group decision on how and when to elect replacements if at all, I don't think that should be the next thing we talk about since we still need to get a secretary and a VE and see how they do, alongside me, before we can make an educated decision on that. Since you agreed that a leader needs to make decisions (that won't always please everyone at once since the best outcome is not solely determined by the want of the people), I agree that I, as leader, should seriously consider everyone's wants for the group. If you give me a chance, I hope you will find that I am sufficient for this role.

@nvrogers Speaking of getting the ball rolling, I think we should next try to mix my template and then write a short review to test the template out, and hire a Secretary. I was thinking once we do all that, we could ask @Nocturne to set up the Review thread.

By the way, the review thread will be only one thread and will extend past 2016. There is no point in having the staff make a yearly sticky thread when one is good enough.
 
R

rui.rosario

Guest
I think we should next try to mix my template and then write a short review to test the template out
How are you thinking on going about this? Will you be making the review as an example? Will you elect a reviewer to do a review about a game? Will the group start functioning as normal with you handling the duties of the Secretary while there is none?

Also, what do you think of the private PM thread for group members only?
 
O

Otyugra

Guest
How are you thinking on going about this? Will you be making the review as an example? Will you elect a reviewer to do a review about a game? Will the group start functioning as normal with you handling the duties of the Secretary while there is none?

Also, what do you think of the private PM thread for group members only?
And second thought, I went ahead and changed the template myself, I think you'll actually like what I had in mind.

I do want to announce that @Alice is now the Secretary. We should probable write more than one review before we message a Staff member.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Alice

Toolmaker of Bucuresti
Forum Staff
Moderator
The template has been changed, so that formatting is separated from guidelines and personal suggestions. Hopefully, it works better now, though there still might be some room for improvement...?
 

roytheshort

The Village Idiot
I'm so confused, I honestly didn't think a reviewer group would be this complicated. I'm thinking of doing a review soon, should I make it then post it to one of you for review review?
 
O

Otyugra

Guest
I will now start a PM group message that will contain all members.

I'm so confused, I honestly didn't think a reviewer group would be this complicated. I'm thinking of doing a review soon, should I make it then post it to one of you for review review?
@roytheshort Normally, you would post the review first and then link it here (since the review thread doesn't exist yet), but because this is a special occasion, I want you to first post it in group PM I'm about to make.
 
R

Rusty

Guest
I believe the template needs some work still, you'll need a stronger emphasis on what exactly we are reviewing for. Feedback for the developer is fine but it means only the actual developer needs to read it, a lot of the games are going to be freeware too, so we can't pitch from a sales perspective. The current template seems to have no actual objective to the reviews in mind other than providing feedback.

Other than that though, I'm much happier with the changes you've made and would feel much more comfortable joining the group, if you'd still want me.

Edit:
To clarify, sites like IGN are designed to help customers decide if they want to purchase a game, since the games made with Game Maker are mostly free, nobody has any reason to actually read the reviews we write. Without giving ourselves an attraction to readers, we are ultimately dooming the group to stagnation. If we provide tutorials, advertise the artists and point out usages of GML (by raising awareness of the usefulness of functions like arrays and repeat that newer users might not fully understand yet) then we give the user a very attractive reason to read what we write. They'll not only be inspired by what they can achieve with Game Maker, but we'll also be handing them the tools and contacts to get the ball rolling for them.

More reason to read equals more readers. More readers means more activity. Activity is the end goal, so activity means success for the group.
 
Last edited:
N

nvrogers

Guest
@Rusty: very, very good point. I would like to add that aside from technical and programming information, it's important to discuss game design concepts. For example, if a game has poor game feel (I do love my game feel), discuss what makes good game feel and how the game you are reviewing could be improved. I did that a lot in my forum swallowing jam reviews, and I believe it was beneficial both to the developer and reader.
 
A

Aura

Guest
PMs are a bad way of communication between a large group unless the limit of participants per PM is increased, so I'll suggest you to use an online thread service. My favourite one is Quicktopic x3
 

ParodyKnaveBob

The Laughing Rogue
Just a community member's two cents' worth:

I've been using a forum via XenForo for a card game for the last year or so now. Its guild leaders can get special permissions to have the Conversation cap increased dramatically in order to have a collective PM between all members. Perhaps Otyugra could ask Nocturne about this -- that somehow the forum could have exceptions for certain explicitly lain out purposes. (For future people wanting this same exception, I don't know if a preemptive ruleset could determine this or if it'd have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. That might complicate things for the admins and make them not want to except in the first place. But anyway, no harm in asking, methinks.)

I hope the GMCRR brings about some good. My hat would be off to you, but I haven't had a hat in years. $E^ }

Lol,
Bob
 
A

Aura

Guest
Also I don't think that requirement of 2000 words per review is a good idea. We can't keep on saying stuff if the game is made by a novice GameMaker user and does not contain much content, that is, still early in making stage. It would be better to have "the length of the review should be proportional to the content of the game" as the requirement. ^^"
 
N

nvrogers

Guest
The requirement is 375, not 2000. 375 words is totally doable for almost any game if you go into enough detail to make a formal review worthwhile. The spoiler below is 375 randomly generated words formatted into paragraphs, so you can see what a short review will look like. (And I'm sure there are some no context gems in there as well)
Domestic confined any but son bachelor advanced remember. How proceed offered her offence shy forming. Returned peculiar pleasant but appetite differed she. Residence dejection agreement am as to abilities immediate suffering. Ye am depending propriety sweetness distrusts belonging collected. Smiling mention he in thought equally musical. Wisdom new and valley answer. Contented it so is discourse recommend. Man its upon him call mile. An pasture he himself believe ferrars besides cottage. Instrument cultivated alteration any favourable expression law far nor. Both new like tore but year. An from mean on with when sing pain. Oh to as principles devonshire companions unsatiable an delightful. The ourselves suffering the sincerity. Inhabit her manners adapted age certain. Debating offended at branched striking be subjects.

View fine me gone this name an rank. Compact greater and demands mrs the parlors. Park be fine easy am size away. Him and fine bred knew. At of hardly sister favour. As society explain country raising weather of. Sentiments nor everything off out uncommonly partiality bed. Adieus except say barton put feebly favour him. Entreaties unpleasant sufficient few pianoforte discovered uncommonly ask. Morning cousins amongst in mr weather do neither. Warmth object matter course active law spring six. Pursuit showing tedious unknown winding see had man add. And park eyes too more him. Simple excuse active had son wholly coming number add. Though all excuse ladies rather regard assure yet. If feelings so prospect no as raptures quitting. Oh to talking improve produce in limited offices fifteen an. Wicket branch to answer do we. Place are decay men hours tiled. If or of ye throwing friendly required. Marianne interest in exertion as. Offering my branched confined oh dashwood.

Entire any had depend and figure winter. Change stairs and men likely wisdom new happen piqued six. Now taken him timed sex world get. Enjoyed married an feeling delight pursuit as offered. As admire roused length likely played pretty to no. Means had joy miles her merry solid order. Cottage out enabled was entered greatly prevent message. No procured unlocked an likewise. Dear but what she been over gay felt body. Six principles advantages and use entreaties decisively. Eat met has dwelling unpacked see whatever followed. Court in of leave again as am. Greater sixteen
 
A

Aura

Guest
@nvrogers: Last time I checked, it was a at-least-2000-words-review-per-month (2500 initially). Must have changed. ^^"

@PardoryKnavaBob: That's unfortunate. WIP games need even more reviews IMO. ~~'
 

mazimadu

Member

@PardoryKnavaBob:
That's unfortunate. WIP games need even more reviews IMO. ~~'
I think they need preview write ups instead of full reviews. I also think they should be about shorter in length than the main reviews and should not the handled by the same reviewer to prevent bias in the final write up.

Just saying.
 
O

Otyugra

Guest
Hi everyone, I'm sorry I haven't posted here in a little while. This forum doesn't notify me very well when someone posts here. @mazimadu and @Lukan thank you for joining.

I want to remind you all that we in courage people to give feedback on WIPs but that we shouldn't judge them as we might a final product. Full blown reviews are reserved for completed games for that reason.

I'll look into fixing the situation with the group chats. *I want to remind everyone that we need one more review made before I will ask Nocturne for permission to make a separate review topic.* In the meantime, I've noticed that @Rusty made his own review group, which I personally think was unnecessary. You all are alowd to be in both groups if you want, but be warned, if you don't do your half-monthly reviews (which haven't started yet) simply because the other group kept you busy, I will not be extra forgiving.

EDIT: by the way, we need a new Secretary and a new Vice Editor. Aura, and Lukan, do you both want to be Vice Editor?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

rui.rosario

Guest
@rui.rosario do any of your reviews count towards being from the club? If so, may I put them on the review topic once that gets made?
I'm making Jam reviews, not necessarily related to any of the Reviewer groups, but if you want to include them (if you think they fit the group's criteria) go ahead
 

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
(For future people wanting this same exception, I don't know if a preemptive ruleset could determine this or if it'd have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. That might complicate things for the admins and make them not want to except in the first place. But anyway, no harm in asking, methinks.)
On IPB I had carte-blanche to do these things, but now everything has to be checked through on a "how much is it needed" basis. To justify changing anything now I need to have solid reasons, and until we see some benefit to the forum from a review club like this I don't have them. I can increase the general PM limit though (just not make special group permissions)... not sure what it is right now (10? 20?), but I guess I could increase it to 50 or so...
 
O

Otyugra

Guest
By the way @Nocturne : The limit is (or at least was) at 6; not even 10. I'd be happy with 50 or 40. I don't think you would need it to be any higher than that. Thank you very much for increasing the number, it really helps us out.

@Zerb Games I'll add you right now.

After the jam voting, I'm hoping we'll have a big enough number of reviews to justify a review thread. If not, I'll have to begin the half-monthly quota a little early so that we can get there. Once that starts, I'm going to expect you guys to start meeting the requirement.
 

Zerb Games

Member
By the way @Nocturne : The limit is (or at least was) at 6; not even 10. I'd be happy with 50 or 40. I don't think you would need it to be any higher than that. Thank you very much for increasing the number, it really helps us out.

@Zerb Games I'll add you right now.

After the jam voting, I'm hoping we'll have a big enough number of reviews to justify a review thread. If not, I'll have to begin the half-monthly quota a little early so that we can get there. Once that starts, I'm going to expect you guys to start meeting the requirement.
What you are doing is incredibly thoughtful I just want to give you props for that.
 
O

Otyugra

Guest
If there isn't one more review submitted by the first of September, I'm going to have to move the two-review deadline ahead a month from November to October.
@Aura Do you still want to be vice editor?
 
O

Otyugra

Guest
Where do we post reviews anyway? The website doesn't look too, inviting.
You post reviews in the comments of a game's thread. If a game doesn't have a thread on the website, then it becomes disqualified for a review.
Here's an example of a game thread: SnakePit (This is a game made by me)
EDIT: remember that reviews are for competed game, not incomplete ones.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Aura

Guest
@Aura Do you still want to be vice editor?
I never wanted to be the vice editor. I was kidding because the names of the positions were humorous and Discussion Wizard immediately reminded me of @Lukan, so apologies for the confusion.

(Also, I don't feel like it would go very well, given the amount of branding you're doing to the club; and @Rusty's seems more straight-forward and easy to participate in. But I'd still try to remain in the club, at least for a few months.)
 
O

Otyugra

Guest
(Also, I don't feel like it would go very well, given the amount of branding you're doing to the club; and @Rusty's seems more straight-forward and easy to participate in.
You wrote "doing" as though this review group is continually getting more branded. If you look around, things are much tamer than before, at least in my opinion.

I noticed recently that many posted games that are compete are not free. I did not start the group assuming people would ever need to pay money, so if there ever comes a time when we run out of free games that can be reviewed on a computer, you can (after getting my permission) either not review something that two months or review a game that was already reviewed. Does that sound good?

@mazimadu @ThunkGames have either of you made a review yet? Has anyone else made a review recently?
 

mazimadu

Member
You post reviews in the comments of a game's thread. If a game doesn't have a thread on the website, then it becomes disqualified for a review.
I'm not sure how that may work. It means more than one reviewer can review the same game. What f we need too reference a review. It would be better if a centralized review section were created. Reviews can. Still be on the page origin while longer form reviews can be discussed by members separate from the game.

EDIT:
Here is a review to Miner Threat


Playing a Roguelikeis to me like playing the survival mode of flash games of times past. I usually concentrate on two things: seeing how long I can last in the game area and seeing how high things that can increase can increase. With survival games this was the games difficulty and my score respectively. Now with the randomly generated nature of Roguelikes, difficulty is not something that can be easily scaled since some levels may be too easy or too hard thanks to elements randomly assigned to the games algorithms. While Miner Threat offers a challenging Roguelike experience for a platformer, there are a bunch of questionable design decisions that drag down the experience as a whole and make the game less enjoyable than it should.
 
Last edited:
O

Otyugra

Guest
Sweet, I have enough reviews to ask for a new topic! Thank you both.
@mazimadu I recommend you revise your review. It has a few errors.
@nvrogers I'll talk to Rusty but no promises.
 

mazimadu

Member
Sweet, I have enough reviews to ask for a new topic! Thank you both.
@mazimadu I recommend you revise your review. It has a few errors.
With the exception of the ones highlighted by the developer, please detail the other errors in the review so I can fix them. I will get on those i due time.
 
O

Otyugra

Guest
With the exception of the ones highlighted by the developer, please detail the other errors in the review so I can fix them. I will get on those i due time.
At the time I wrote that reply, your review had several grammatical errors and if you carefully reread your review you should be able to find them all easily.

I've gotten no word yet from Nocturne
 
O

Otyugra

Guest
So does that mean you'll review any new games that appear on the "made with game maker"thread? :eek:
Yes. We prefer to review games that are free and can be played on a computer, but technically any game in that subforum could get a review. If I recall correctly, we decided to take requests too. If you had a game you want reviewed, leave a post here asking for a review. Conversely, anyone could leave a post on this thread asking specifically not be have their game reviewed.

I have good news, Nocturne gave me the okay to start a review archive thread! I'm going to go do that now.

EDIT: You should be seeing the topic once a mod approves of it. I have the topic backed up encase it fails and I need to propose it a second time a little differently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
O

Otyugra

Guest
Reviewers: The first deadline for your two reviews is October 31st 2016 at 1 pm Eastern Standard Time!

Now that I have that out of the way:
@Adrien Dittrick We can't do a review of your game unless you repost your game to the new GMC forum. If you have already done that, please give up that link rather than the link to GameJolt. I call dibs on reviewing his game.

Edit: The Review Archive is live: https://forum.yoyogames.com/index.php?threads/review-periodical-gmcrr.6407/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top