Please, review my game.

Looking at rubrics feels so nostalgic. I am taken back to a night in 9th grade to my Humanities unit on cities for which we had to make an essay and an annotated map. I finished the essay at 4am, planning to wake up in 2 hours to do the map, only to walk into advisory and be asked by my classmate Ali if I had done the assignment, at which point I woke up from the dream having not yet done the map and with only few minutes before I had to go to school. The pig sitting at the desk also reminds me of Aggretsuko’s aggressive, misogynistic, power-abusing boss, further twisting the knife of academic and professional anxiety that this game stabbed into my chest.

Why must there be points? Why must there be winning? Why must I concern myself with whether my grammar is correct or not? This game almost seems to present itself as a metacommentary on game review culture, but very little of it actually guides the player towards truly understanding what this metacommentary is even about. I might point to the almost satirical language in the rubrics, reminiscent of university professors who say things like “To get an A you have to blow my mind”, but by relying on such subversive tactics, the game becomes inaccessible to the general public, its commentary being accessible only to those who have had their metaphorical eyes metaphorically opened already.

While movements of resistance and criticism towards the status quo often need to exist in the shadows for the sake of the safety of those involved, I believe this game can take a much bolder approach and explode its message wide open, while still leaving enough room for player creativity. I think a good way for this game to commit to its mission is to migrate it to a platform that has enough critical mass to ignite an explosion of a discussion, like reddit or YouTube. Within the safe confines of itch, I do not feel comfortable giving the game more than a pig’s tongue - an appetizer at best.

I take issue with this game's use of a rubric. First off, I think outlining such a specific rubric decreases the quality of the reviews people write. I am reminded of Goodhart's law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." Because you prescriptively outlined what makes reviews "good" or "bad", you have incentivized people to withhold their authentic opinions in favor of optimizing for your criteria. As an example, if Garfield creator Jim Davis was given a rubric for success while creating Garfield in the 1950s, it is unlikely that he would have come up with Garfield's charmingly cynical personality.

The categories in the rubric also seem frivolous - a review doesn't need to be tearjerking or even funny to be helpful. All that matters is that the user gains enough information about the game - such as its gameplay, story, or amount of Garfield content - so that they can make an informed decision about playing the game.

My main suggestion would be to turn this game into an MMORPG with dating sim elements, and also all the characters are from the beloved hit comic series Garfield, which has also been adapted into TV series, video games, films, and a stage musical. If that is too much work, I would also begrudgingly accept the addition of a "Garfield" category to the rubric, which rates how much the review incorporates references to Garfield.

This is a second review, entirely separate from my first. Any rubric score I receive is henceforth multiplicative, and all my points are cumulative, until this oversight in the rules is errata’d out. I am in charge.

gouda in a grilled cheese/10

suggestion: golf score

The game is self-defeating. As I sit here crafting the ideal review, I cease to consider the methods and metrics of the ideal game, for I am now the object of consideration. I am in competition with the rubric, and I resent the rubric. I am uninterested in seeing the game improved. I reject rationality, and I refuse to make sense. I refuse to connect with you, the reader. I lack a sense of humor. I am not making a point.

I’m lost in donkey space, drifting further and further away from myself, the game, and everything else, hurtling faster and faster as the universe expends ever more.

10/0

suggestion: golf score

To begin with, I wouldn't say I like the rubric with scores from 0 to 4. Because you could do 1 to 5 and even if I write a poor response at least I will not get a 0. This is very important for my self-esteem. I don't want to get a 0 in any video game because I can never imagine myself losing. 

Also, I would say that the game is trying to gatekeep non-English speakers because everything is in English and the players need to comment in English. So one way to improve is definitely to add a link to Google Translate in your game so people from different cultural backgrounds can at least try to enjoy the game. 

However, I am an Irasutoya head so I have to give 10/10 to every single game using Irasutoya assets. So the game is fine. Definitely will recommend it to my friends and family if the game is available in 200 languages.

I believe games should either be what we'll call 'cowboys' or 'firefighters.' All games that currently and will ever exist fall into one of these two categories and should be judged as such. Before I get into the review I think it should be clear about what these terms mean:

Cowboys:
These are primarily games that contain, feature, or are developed by horses. This is not always the case, though. When this is not the case, we can think of these games as games that evoke the feeling of the great American West, manifest destiny, and imperialism. But also, freedom, elegance, money, gold, settlers, California, and mountains. These games are defined by their commitment to exploration and a steadfast belief in games as entertainment. 

Firefighters:
These are games that are 100% reactionary, reacting to current trends, ideas, thoughts, beliefs, people, places, or things. For example, every game that is made by AI automatically falls into this category. Every sequel and game with more than one character also has the potential to fall into this category. 

Now that we've cleared that up, I know you're all thinking: "What about games that are politicians?!" Obviously, I have intentionally excluded the final third category of games up to this point in a narrative device known as 'burying the lead." You may also be thinking that this game is obviously a boat-type game. Unfortunately, the game is outside of the scope of this review due to semantics. 

Due to the lack of genre examples, I've also excluded farmer games from this dichotomy. 

In other words, this game is clearly interested in more than just the price of bread, and I have a lot of respect for that. To me, it's an obvious 8/10 for lack of a visible controller. But, I think I will increase it to a 9/10 because it's a game I could see people 1,000 years ago enjoying or people 150 years in the future loving, in other words, timeless! That also in my opinion, brings it down to a 7/10 because it's kinda pandering to such a massive audience trying to capture an audience like that. 

That being said, my gut says that I should give it a solid 8/10. 

The image at the bottom of your game brings forth many childhood memories of playing games gone awry. As a child I experienced many spoil sports, like my brother and my cousin who would flip over game boards or abandon me at the table as an opportunity for victory slipped from their grasps. Their faces would get red and their speech would become slurred. Your game is however, is not like those games at all. I am here, playing with strangers in the void of the internet, and no one can ruin this game by flipping it over or walking away. However, as the first person playing, I feel alone. I almost wonder if anyone will see this, and I cannot yet imagine others' replies. For that reason I give it a 9/10.