Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
Tags
(1 edit)

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.

(3 edits)

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