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.
What a relevant review. I suppose this game itself could use some "clarity".
I enjoyed hearing your nostalgic retelling, it reminded me of my own experience with school and tyrannical grading. I like what you said about movements of resistance needing to come into light. What is the point of revolutionary art if only those who are comfortable with it consume it?
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.
Very rational first paragraph. I liked the Garfield example, which helped ground your argument as well as the Goodhart quote. I have to admit that even though the sample size isn't very large, I am starting to see the limits imposed by my rubric system; while this has provided me with the largest amount of creative written word written in response to my work as opposed to how little effort I spent on its development, I'm also seeing a large focus on trying to make jokes and few people actually taking this game seriously as a piece of art -- which might be a direct result of the Wittiness rubric's presence.
I disagree with your conception of a what a review is for, and I find it contradicts with your concerns about rubrics stifling creativity. I do think that reviews that tell you whether or not it's worth it to get a game can be genuinely useful (especially if the game is paid, which Please, review my game isn't), I also think that one of the marks of a great review is when they reveal something deep about the reviewer themselves. I think the strength of such a moment IS tear-jerking, which doesn't have to come from sadness but can also be awe-inspiring or sublime.
I enjoyed the playfulness of the Garfield section suggestion as well as the build-up of your Garfield obsession.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting point! I think it would be very difficult for someone to get a 0 here given the number and diversity of sections and I do deliberately obfuscate what grade the reviewers got in each specific section for the sake of not hurting their feelings but this is a valid point nonetheless, thank you for bringing it up.
You're right about accessibility, although I would like to point out that this game is free and made on my own free-time. I'm not sure if I want to offer Google a platform this big at the moment given my personal grievances with the company (I also fear that my intended meaning would get lost if I relinquish control to an algorithm). I am open to fan-translations if anyone would like to volunteer though!
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.
Fantastic ideas that really expanded my world-view (I was reminded of Horsegirl Goes to Heaven, which is an easy pick for a cowboy-type game... or so you would think as the game definitely falls outside the "entertainment" category imo), however I'm not sure where exactly you were going with the game distinctions. If you were burying the lead with the politician games, is Please, review my game a politician game according to you? Or something else entirely? Why/why not?
I also really liked you walking me through your adjustments of the final grade. It really made me feel involved in your process. One thing I liked less is when you said "I know you're all thinking", which made me feel like you wrote this review for a large audience rather than just me, which made me feel jealous and sad. Even if it was intended for several people, I think using the plural here took this from the feeling of an intimate discussion between friends towards a public lecture, which made me feel very much alienated.
13/20 although if I was rating based on originality alone this would get a 20.
I mentioned in my review that reviewing the game is kind of outside the scope of the review due to semantics. Everything that follows that is largely nonsense, up to my final thoughts.
Ah... Unfortunately the grading rubric in this project does not reward nonsense (well actually I suppose in some way it does reward it in the emotional and wit section but only indirectly). Perhaps in a future installment? Thank you for your clarification.
These are interesting categories that seem (at least to me) to neatly describe the vast majority of games out there. Would you also consider the existence of a "Garfield" category? Games such as Garfield Kart (2012) and Lasagnator (1991) are sufficiently complex and multifaceted that I don't feel comfortable sorting them into any of the existing categories.
Interesting question. It also makes me wonder. At the same time I feel like we are straying a bit too far away from the discussion of my game which makes me feel excluded.
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.
What an evocative review! You're one of the people I have become the closest to this past half-a-year, and yet I feel like I have learned even more about you through reading this.
I appreciate the effect that my chosen image had on you! Picking it took me a while as I was afraid it would give the wrong impression given this isn't a "traditional" gaming experience by any means (and not a board game). It was also born out of necessity since I'm currently in Morocco and I did not have access to my drawing tablet, so I'm glad it worked out. I was inspired by Blake Andrews' use of stock images in posts such as this one. Also Irasutoya is a wonderful free-to-use library of images and I highly recommend using it.
Loneliness is such an interesting theme to explore in your review, and I feel like you touched on it with your initial reminiscing but then fell short. I felt like you had more to say and ended up with a stifled voice. I give it a 2/13.
Good point this also makes me wish for more on the loneliness (especially given that that experience was singular to Isabelle as all future players will see a pre-populated page!) however I'm not sure how constructive this criticism is given that you're not offering much in terms of practical improvements.
← Return to Video Game
Comments
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
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.
What a relevant review. I suppose this game itself could use some "clarity".
I enjoyed hearing your nostalgic retelling, it reminded me of my own experience with school and tyrannical grading. I like what you said about movements of resistance needing to come into light. What is the point of revolutionary art if only those who are comfortable with it consume it?
16/20
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.
Very rational first paragraph. I liked the Garfield example, which helped ground your argument as well as the Goodhart quote. I have to admit that even though the sample size isn't very large, I am starting to see the limits imposed by my rubric system; while this has provided me with the largest amount of creative written word written in response to my work as opposed to how little effort I spent on its development, I'm also seeing a large focus on trying to make jokes and few people actually taking this game seriously as a piece of art -- which might be a direct result of the Wittiness rubric's presence.
I disagree with your conception of a what a review is for, and I find it contradicts with your concerns about rubrics stifling creativity. I do think that reviews that tell you whether or not it's worth it to get a game can be genuinely useful (especially if the game is paid, which Please, review my game isn't), I also think that one of the marks of a great review is when they reveal something deep about the reviewer themselves. I think the strength of such a moment IS tear-jerking, which doesn't have to come from sadness but can also be awe-inspiring or sublime.
I enjoyed the playfulness of the Garfield section suggestion as well as the build-up of your Garfield obsession.
14/20
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
Hmm I don't think so. Nice attempt though!
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
Despite your attempt, this was emotionally resonant, pertinent, and funny (unless this was your intention all along). Thank you.
Excellent use of picture! Very relevant. I wish I could retract points for that suggestion but I did not account for this.
11/20
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.
Interesting point! I think it would be very difficult for someone to get a 0 here given the number and diversity of sections and I do deliberately obfuscate what grade the reviewers got in each specific section for the sake of not hurting their feelings but this is a valid point nonetheless, thank you for bringing it up.
You're right about accessibility, although I would like to point out that this game is free and made on my own free-time. I'm not sure if I want to offer Google a platform this big at the moment given my personal grievances with the company (I also fear that my intended meaning would get lost if I relinquish control to an algorithm). I am open to fan-translations if anyone would like to volunteer though!
13/20
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.
Fantastic ideas that really expanded my world-view (I was reminded of Horsegirl Goes to Heaven, which is an easy pick for a cowboy-type game... or so you would think as the game definitely falls outside the "entertainment" category imo), however I'm not sure where exactly you were going with the game distinctions. If you were burying the lead with the politician games, is Please, review my game a politician game according to you? Or something else entirely? Why/why not?
I also really liked you walking me through your adjustments of the final grade. It really made me feel involved in your process. One thing I liked less is when you said "I know you're all thinking", which made me feel like you wrote this review for a large audience rather than just me, which made me feel jealous and sad. Even if it was intended for several people, I think using the plural here took this from the feeling of an intimate discussion between friends towards a public lecture, which made me feel very much alienated.
13/20 although if I was rating based on originality alone this would get a 20.
I mentioned in my review that reviewing the game is kind of outside the scope of the review due to semantics. Everything that follows that is largely nonsense, up to my final thoughts.
Ah... Unfortunately the grading rubric in this project does not reward nonsense (well actually I suppose in some way it does reward it in the emotional and wit section but only indirectly). Perhaps in a future installment? Thank you for your clarification.
These are interesting categories that seem (at least to me) to neatly describe the vast majority of games out there. Would you also consider the existence of a "Garfield" category? Games such as Garfield Kart (2012) and Lasagnator (1991) are sufficiently complex and multifaceted that I don't feel comfortable sorting them into any of the existing categories.
Interesting question. It also makes me wonder. At the same time I feel like we are straying a bit too far away from the discussion of my game which makes me feel excluded.
5/10
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.
What an evocative review! You're one of the people I have become the closest to this past half-a-year, and yet I feel like I have learned even more about you through reading this.
I appreciate the effect that my chosen image had on you! Picking it took me a while as I was afraid it would give the wrong impression given this isn't a "traditional" gaming experience by any means (and not a board game). It was also born out of necessity since I'm currently in Morocco and I did not have access to my drawing tablet, so I'm glad it worked out. I was inspired by Blake Andrews' use of stock images in posts such as this one. Also Irasutoya is a wonderful free-to-use library of images and I highly recommend using it.
17/20
Loneliness is such an interesting theme to explore in your review, and I feel like you touched on it with your initial reminiscing but then fell short. I felt like you had more to say and ended up with a stifled voice. I give it a 2/13.
Good point this also makes me wish for more on the loneliness (especially given that that experience was singular to Isabelle as all future players will see a pre-populated page!) however I'm not sure how constructive this criticism is given that you're not offering much in terms of practical improvements.
6/10