|
Go to the game's main page Member ReviewsNumber of Reviews: 2 Write a review 2 of
7 people found the following review helpful:
 Nothing to it, December 23, 2010by Bernie (Fredericksburg, VA) In this game, you wake up as a zombie and look for things to eat. A promising premise, to be sure, but this game was a submission to a one-hour comp and thus is very short. There's one room and three objects, and although the premise is amusing, there's not enough in the game to make it entertaining. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Remove vote | Add a comment
Comments on this reviewPrevious | << 1 >> | Next Nusco, September 11, 2010 - Reply I also voted it one star like you did (mainly because I was stuck almost immediately, and the game has no hints/walkthrough), but I wonder: does it make any sense for us to slam down a one-hour comp game because it's not particularly fun? If we take into account that it was written in an hour, it's actually quite good. People might be discouraged from submitting games to such competitions if we evaluate them on the same metrics as "regular" games - it's just an unfair comparison. So I gave this game a single star for "You should probably play something else instead", but I do respect the effort. Bernie, September 11, 2010 - Reply I meant the review solely to be a helpful note to those who would think about playing the game, not any criticism toward the author. But your response has brought up a very interesting point: what is the exact purpose of a speed comp? I don't particularly enjoy a game with two rooms, five objects, and almost no plot. Does anybody? Granted that we do occasionally get a speed-if game that is cute and fun, the bulk of them are buggy and too brief to be enjoyable. One might argue that it's a tool to allow authors to practice their craft, but is it really? Is the ability to craft and code a quick game an ability that we value? Personally, I value the opposite: a game that is thoughtfully composed over a larger period of time and subjected to editing and beta-testing. If we don't judge these games on the same metrics as a regular game, how do we judge them? "Isn't buggy and unplayable" hardly seems to be a glowing recommendation for a game to be added to the corpus of IF. And thus I believe that the games should be held to the same standard. If speed-if can't add meaningful and fun simple games to the database, then we should take a hard look at what purpose speed-if really serves. Nusco, September 12, 2010 - Reply I'd say that speed-if is meant to be amusing to the authors themselves (and the judges), rather than the players at large. This is entirely legitimate, but it brings out the issue of reviewing speed-if. My expectations are very low when playing speed-if, but I still expect to be mildly amused for five minutes, and even that is too much to ask for a game that was developed in such a short time. BTW, I agree that we shouldn't draw a strong line between speed-if games and "regular" games, because as you said, some speed-if games are actually funny (and some "regular" games are even less polished than the average speed-if). Maybe the average speed-if author would be OK with getting low rates for low effort. After all, if they're really concerned about this, they can still develop speed-if under a pseudonym and avoid tainting their author page with low scores. |