Game Tunnel: May Round-up

By: Derek Yu

On: May 23rd, 2007

Game Tunnel

Game Tunnel’s latest monthly round-up has been rounded up, and as usual, it’s an entertaining read. Great to see Chocolate Castle get the number one spot! ’Tis a deserving game.

But man, oh man, I just need to get something off my chest. William Usher, what planet are you from that Civil Disturbance is a 9 (scored 4, 4, and 2 by the other reviewers), Hard Time is a frickin’ 10 (I think Hard Time is fun, actually, but a 10?!), and Cave Story gets a minus for graphics and a “try” recommendation? Sir, you are entitled to your opinion, but straight up… your opinions are terrible. And that’s a fact.

Which would be fine, except for the fact that Game Tunnel is a fairly widely read website, and is one of the more prominent representatives of the independent game community.

Reputation

I’ve never been a huge fan of giving number ratings to games, and I’m even less fond of the practice of creating arbitrary “awards” on the internet to hand out, but if you’re going to do it, then the numbers and awards should mean something, there should be a consistent idea of what the ratings represent. If it’s just going to be a bunch of guys giving their opinion, then let’s just leave it at that, and that’s great! Why do we have to tack a number to it? And then tack an award onto the numbers?

I dunno, the whole “Game of the Month” thing has struck me as odd, because there seems to be no regard to which games are chosen each month. So what does “Game of the Month” really mean? It means a game has scored the highest out of a random selection of 10 games, using a completely arbitrary rating system. In the end, it just feels like “it’s just one of those things” that indie people do, without giving any consideration to how or why.

I actually really enjoy reading the round-up. I like seeing new games, and I like reading the reviews. Overall, I think it’s a great thing to have. But there seems to be a certain amount of thoughtlessness to how things are handled that I would love to see changed. And Mr. Usher should not be a part of the process in the future, but that’s just my opinion.

  • http://www.mawsoft.com/blog Impossible

    The Cave Story “try” rating really pissed me off at first also, but in all fairness Cave Story is a freeware game, so you can’t buy it anyway. Also according to the Pixelation critique of the game the “sprites aren’t that good” so a minus for graphics isn’t out of line.

    The Game Tunnel round up always felt like Ludumdare 48 voting. Same critiques same guys (PoV, Hamumu) rating the games, same stupid shit like entries getting “NA – couldn’t get it to run on my 5 yearold computer” and a very casual “Soccer dad”indiegamer bias (due to Russ.) Overall it is kind of amateur some of the time.

  • Derek

    It’s not out of line until you compare it to other reviews on the site, where crappy 3d games get a “+” by virtue of their being 3d. Are the standards for indie games so low? No, they’re not… but when you read certain Game Tunnel reviews sometimes it feels like they are…

  • J.B.

    I find it hard to take gametunnel too seriously. I mean, even their basic site design makes things fundamentally unreadable — like, I go there and my eyes just get confused and want to leave. And these guys are judging the functional aesthetics of video games?

  • Kev

    I know you said you don’t like awards etc on the internet, but to combat this rubbish how about a tig-source review system and round up. I’d much rather read it here than there – I least my eyes can cope with this site.

  • PoV

    I can’t actually tell if that was a bash against me or not, but I’ll take it either way. It’s nice to be mentioned. :)

  • Pyabo

    Heh… well, I had the same thought about Mr. Usher this month, but in his defense, I can’t remember any time in the past where I felt like that. Maybe he got high before this month’s reviews. Come on, you know how that is… “oh man… these are the BEST CORN CHIPS EVER!!!”

  • Dan

    The GameTunnel Roundups are the worst set on reviews out there; in many cases it’s painfully clear that all some of the reviewers have done is boot up the game, pissed about with the first level and thought ‘ooh, this is the sort of game I’d like…. 8/10!’ and then got on with something more important rather than devoting the time necessary to properly experience and rate a game.

    William Usher, I have to say, strikes me as the one among them that genuinely plays the games relatively thoroughly…

  • PoV

    Dan’s still pissed that I didn’t enjoy Gibbage. :)

  • http://www.mawsoft.com/blog Impossible

    PoV: it wasn’t a bash. I don’t dislike Game Tunnel that much, (as anti-game tunnel as that might have sounded) although time and time again I’ve looked at the round-up and just gone “huh?”

  • PoV

    Hey that’s fine either way. It’d be silly for us to think that we do a good job. My only point ever on the topic is, at least we do (did) the job.

  • Cas

    I pride myself on being merciless and consistent. No one is safe from my reviews. Unfortunately it might be at odds with what Russell wants for Gametunnel so he might not have me on the panel much longer :(

  • Anthony Flack

    Is that just messin’, or for reals? Because I find your mercilism fairly reliable, and quite justified.

  • Russell Carroll

    I think the panel does have some inconsistencies, it is afterall people working for free. Having done a panel or two I can say it is absolutely exhausting, there are a lot of games and no matter what you do, you never feel like you’ve done enough, and before one month is finished, the next has started. It’s far from perfect, certainly, but I’m glad we are doing it.

    William, btw, I think does play the games more thoroughly than most of us. I don’t agree with his scores either, and I can never predict them, other than thinking they will be opposite what I would score…which in my mind makes him an interesting member of the panel.

    Mike will be stepping out next month, having done the panel since the beginning (I’m going to get together a count, but the number of games he has reviewed is 400+). So we will be looking for a new member…open invitation Derek… ;)

  • http://www.g4g.it FireSword

    Every opinion (review) is opinable, so no big deal for me, i always try demo or watch video.. the review is just one point of view. When the game is freeware, well the review is quite useless cause i can download it and try for myself.

  • Hamumu

    Uh, Impossible… what score would be better than N/A for a game that doesn’t work on my (much more than 5 year old – but I got a new one at last!) computer? You would prefer I did score it? Or you would prefer I buy a new PC on the huge salary I get paid for reviewing? Same goes for the LD48. What the hell kind of complaint is “Gives N/A to games they can’t run”. How is that ‘stupid shit’?

    And on the Usher topic, yeah. He’s smoking something, and it is not legal in ANY country. I predict (if he stays on for a long time) a gradual decline in his ratings until he is as disgruntled as any Hamumu. He strikes me as someone who is fresh and excited about games, and the round-up will fix that right up.

    Oh, and one more bitch: No, Dan, I play all the games for a couple of hours at least. Some all the way through, but all plenty enough to get a completely solid feel for my take on them. If I don’t, I don’t score them. See Venture The Void – I DID play it, for about half an hour, at the library. I can’t play it at home (satellite internet – should I move to the city so I can do better reviews, Impossible?), so I can’t review it. Just because your opinion is different from ours doesn’t mean ours is uninformed. It means you have shitty taste! Besides, I wouldn’t have to quit if all it took was booting up the game and going “YAY GAME!”

  • Common Sense Brigade

    If you’re going to review games, invest in hardware that can play those games.

    If you’re not interested in playing the latest games, don’t become a reviewer of them!

  • balls

    common sense – er… does that apply to TIGSource editors as well?

  • http://www.mawsoft.com/blog Impossible

    Hamumu: Its your only option, but it just re-enforces the amateur nature of the Game Tunnel round up. I have no problem with NA in LD48, but the NA scores on Game Tunnel seem sloppy to me. You don’t go to IGN or Gamespot and see “Sorry I couldn’t give this game a review because I couldn’t get it to run on my personal computer out of the box.”

    A better alternative might be to drop the game from the round up entirely and not mention it unless the author can give you a version that works on all of the panelist’s computers.

    Common Sense Brigade has a point, but asking people to buy new hardware or significantly change the setup of their machine inorder to do free game reviews is asking a little bit much.

  • Pyabo

    Impossible, you *definitely* see that kind of thing at IGN or Gamespot and even in print mags. I’ve seen plenty of games where the reviewer specifically points out having a hard time getting the game to run, or that it crashes quite often. How is this different?

    And I’ll take the GT roundup any day over the print mags and their online ilk that constantly hype the latest AAA game before it’s released. At least the roundup panel *plays* the game.

    Who else is doing actual REVIEWS of indie games?

  • http://www.mawsoft.com/blog Impossible

    The difference is that buggy games still get scores, and reviewers still try their best to actually play through the game, barring any game stopping bugs.

    I knew it was a bad idea to mention any kind of mainstream anything… because it gives people an excuse to say “they fuck up even worse” but that still doesn’t change my minor complaints about GT.

  • PoV

    > “If you’re going to review games, invest in hardware that can play those games.”

    I had a dual core PC and 6000 series NVidia card at the time. Some games don’t work on new hardware. Respectfully, if we ran in to compatibility issues, that should be a clear indication that the developers didn’t do their homework. End users aren’t going to buy a new PC to play your random downloadable game.

    Most games came to us with zero to no QA. How is that our fault when it doesn’t run?

  • PoV

    Impossible: Really? You’d honestly be happier to see 3 reviewers on a game, instead of 4, with one pointing out that the game didn’t run for him?

    I think it’s a mistake to ignore compatibility problems. We hear over and over again “Oh I’m sorry, I have a newer version now, 1 month later” or something to that affect. As I see it, you should wait to submit until after your public release, where nice people point out bugs for you. Or if this is a concern at all, ask the panel to check if the game runs everywhere before going ahead this month.

  • PoV

    And on the topic of amateurity, is it really us that are amateur in the situation, or is it indie gaming?

    Explain to me how lacking QA, cloning and copying overly done games and business models is professional at all?

  • Macafan

    Imposble, I think PoV has a really good point because I would not wanna play a game with problems running.

    I donno if those game should get a score because if its a paint to run then it will kill whatever fun I have playing it.

    Also, if they have old machines, and they wanna say the game does not run that is valid too because the game should work on most if not all pcs by now, otherwise they should say that it does not work with certain pcs and be very open about it.

  • http://www.mawsoft.com/blog Impossible

    PoV: Its mostly the rare situation where all or most of the reviewers cannot run the game. One NA doesn’t bother me as much. I don’t think compatibility problems should be ignored, but I also don’t think “couldn’t run it” is a valid game review…

  • http://www.jrnetwork.co.uk Jimbob

    Yeh, we want to know ‘exactly’ how you couldn’t run it. The time and resources taken at finding the problem, how much monkey porn you browsed while waiting for it to load. Exactly what words you used to describe it out loud with increased intensity… that sort of thing…

    Seriously though, I like the little ‘bio’ for Mr. Usher. Whether it’s pulling our leg or not, it probably adds a bit of explanation to his madness…

  • PoV

    Impossible: Ah. I actually thought we intentionally stopped doing that before I left. Has it happened again in the last year?

    Jimbob: Well, if we click on the game, and nothing happens, you tend to get the “could not run” reviews. If there was anything more to it, as in I couldn’t play ’cause it was ignoring my inputs or running too fast out of control, I’m pretty sure we were always good in stating those such cases.

  • Alex

    Actually I thought one of the main focuses (foci?) of the article was the Silver/Gold awards given out each month. Basically it seems like the top couple average scores each month get “awards” – why not just rank them by average score? As it is it leads to ridiculous situations where 2 reviewers can’t get it to run, one gives it a high score and one gives it a medium score and it gets a “gold” award (actually happened awhile ago, I think).

    IMHO giving out specific types of awards would mean more anyway – say an award for innovation, or for graphics, or sound or whatever. Celebrate the games that do something really well, not that just happen to be the best of a relatively crappy month.

  • Hamumu

    That did indeed happen once, Alex. Once. Also they are ranked by average score.

  • Cas

    Oh and I think we could be clear on something too: the GT roundup is by its very nature “amateur”. That’s because WE DON’T GET PAID TO DO IT! It’s all for the love of it.

    If we got paid, it’d be professional, by its very definition. And we don’t, so it ain’t.

    BTW I concur that showing an N/A rating for a review is probably pointless and they might as well just not publish an N/A score.

  • Prio

    I really think “number ratings” should either be ditched or specifically noted as “not to be taken very seriously”. I mean, I guess they give you a rough idea of the reviewer’s overall “attitude” about the game, but there should never, ever be any pretense that it’s anything more than that.

    Incidentally, something being “amateur” in the “not getting paid” sense of the word does not automatically translate to being “amateurish” in the “slapadash and without much thought” sense of the word. I hope that’s not what you meant to imply.

  • http://josephkingworks.blogspot.com Joseph

    Usher got BURNED!!!!

  • PHeMoX

    _If we got paid, it’d be professional, by its very definition. And we don’t, so it ain’t._

    That’s a pretty stupid excuse actually.
    There’s a difference between not taking things seriously and not handling things professionally. Either shouldn’t be done, whether you get paid for it or not is 100% irrelevant.

    Professional by it’s definition means ‘experienced and having the proper knowledge about’ more so than ‘we get paid for what we’re doing’.

    You’re not going to do a sloppy review hiding behind an excuse saying ‘yeah, sorry guys, I don’t get paid, so therefore this is all you get’.

  • PHeMoX

    _the GT roundup is by its very nature “amateur”._

    Amateur? In the same comment you said ‘professional’ would be when you would ‘get paid for it’, well, you must be aware of the fact that many indie developers actually get money out of what they are doing (although not much for sure if their work is not very good).

    I think you’re well aware of the fact that professionalism has to do with true quality, not with how much you earn, but you seem to be simply looking for a way out.

  • PHeMoX

    _Well, if we click on the game, and nothing happens, you tend to get the “could not run” reviews._

    Okey, but you’ve got to agree that in terms of equal treatment and rating it’s strange to simply have one reviewer less in case of such an N/A and then use only 3 out of x reviewers ratings to come to an average rating. Mathematically speaking that’s somewhat unfair, don’t you think? (An average of 3 figures or an average of 4 figures actually matters quite a bit.)

    I totally agree with the others here, reviews should mean something, figures should have a legit backbone to them.

    Opinions are fine and I can relate to most of the reviews on GT though, so I would basically want to encourage you people to continue your stuff there too.

  • PHeMoX

    _how lacking QA, cloning and copying overly done games_

    Lacking quality assurance is something you can blame the indie developers for yes, these (we) guys should be the ones having no deadlines to meet and having no need to hurry up and quickly release something when it’s not finished yet. That’s part of the good thing of the indie way.

  • Anthony Flack

    Sorry, but “professional” does literally mean “getting paid for it”. You can say that someone is being unprofessional, meaning that they are doing a job that is below the standard you should expect from someone who’s job it is to do this properly, but it really does have to do with whether something is your job or not.

    And I think that this is a distinction that is extremely relevant to the round-up. They are not getting paid for this, and I think it would be easy to underestimate just how much time and how much work it is to give all these games a reasonable playtest and review – and in a short space of time, as well. If they were getting paid for it, they could afford to spend more time on it. As it is, there’s only so much you can do.

    Now I guess this is all up to Russel, but perhaps what the round-up needs is a few more regular contributors so that the panelists aren’t under so much pressure to chew through so many games on their own every month. It’s one thing to say that people should be doing a better job, and there’s certainly plenty of room to improve, but frankly I’m amazed that they have been able to pull this off at all, and keep it going month after month. And they still do a better job than IGN.

  • Anthony Flack

    Damn, that second sentence was badly written. Sorry. But hey, I’m doing this on my own time.

  • PoV

    > “There’s a difference between not taking things seriously and not handling things professionally.”

    That’s fantastic. By not claiming what we do/did is up to professional standards, it’s deemed as garbage. Very good.

    > “you must be aware of the fact that many indie developers actually get money out of what they are doing”

    Just because you’re professional doesn’t mean you can’t fail.

    > “Mathematically speaking that’s somewhat unfair, don’t you think?”

    Given there used to only be 3 of us doing the round up, no, I don’t find that unfair. 2 was unfair.

    > “That’s part of the good thing of the indie way.”

    And because lacking QA is what makes indie great, it’s an excuse to submit broken games for review, and cry when they get bad reviews for being broken. Gotcha.

  • Derek

    Russ, how could I refuse an offer like that? ;)

  • Cas

    Well, call me a grammar and comprehension Nazi, but I like to use the correct words to describe something. If it was indeed the case that we were paid and were accused of not being professional about it, then I’d argue the case and there’d be something to yell about here.

    But it isn’t the case. We do it because we want to. If you don’t like it you don’t have to read it and you can’t complain and ask for your money back because you didn’t give us any. That’s not saying that Russ and the rest of us don’t listen to the feedback, because journalism in a vacuum is a waste of bandwidth for all concerned.

    We are amateurs. Period.

    With the possible exception of Russ, who makes some money out of GT I believe.

  • Russell Carroll

    Cool, Derek, drop me a line (webmaster at gt). Greg Micek (RIP DIYgames) was on the panel until life got in the way, I’m definitely a fan of a variety of viewpoints :).

    Interesting points on the scoring system. Over the last few years of the panel I’ve thought of those points and more, but as of yet I’m un-moved on having number scores. When/if the right argument comes along I’m sure we’ll change things (I did modify the main review scoring system on the site some years ago to much anguish, but two people liked the new system better ;)

  • http://www.greyaliengames.com Jake Birkett

    I think Game Tunnel is good – there I said it! I like the numbered system and the reviews on the whole seem fair. Even with one crazy reviewer the others average it out. I also like the variation of games presented, it’s not just a bunch of casual games.

    I personally know that writing reviews is pretty damn time consuming too. So anyway, please keep up the good work Game Tunnel.

  • PHeMoX

    “Sorry, but “professional” does literally mean “getting paid for it”.”

    Lol, don’t get mad, but nope, this is not true at all, even amateurs can deliver professional work. Doing something as a job doesn’t mean ‘you ARE professional’, it simply means ‘it’s your profession’ or ‘you work as a profesional’. The latter indicates and demands a certain level of quality work, which is not automatically true at all simply because you get paid. So again, I’m quite sure you’re wrong. :)

    Not getting paid can not be an excuse at all. Amateurs can get paid and still be just amateurs…

  • PHeMoX

    By the way, just to clarify, I do like GT a lot too, I really like the different opinions on the games. Bad opinions and good opinions a-like, because those opinions together give a very good idea about the good things ánd the bad things of the particular games and what we can expect.

    I’m usually mostly interested ‘why’ something is good or bad, and well, mostly the reviews do a good job at giving me that information. ^^

  • Prio

    The word “amateur” can have different possible meanings, and these meanings are *distinct* from one another. (The same is the case with “professional”, at least certainly in the adjective form.) Any good dictionary, a little common sense, and some experience with the language, will make this clear.

    The line of reasoning you’re using here appears to be: a) someone who is not paid is an amateur [which is one meaning of the word “amateur”], b) I am not paid, c) someone who does a less-than-stellar job is an amateur [a different meaning of the word “amateur”], therefore d) I do a less-than-stellar job, *by definition*.

    This doesn’t make any more sense than saying, for example, “everyone should fight for what they believe in; you disagree with my beliefs, so *by definition* I should punch you in the nose.”

    If you want to just say “look, we’re not being paid, that among other things is going to reduce our motivation to do an amazing super-polished job that would cause you to fall to your knees and weep with tears of stunned gratitude and joy every month,” or whatever, then sure, say that.

    But please don’t equivocate. That wakes the logic Nazi up, and the logic Nazi is an unfriendly creature.

  • Cas

    It’s gone one meaning but multiple semantics :)

    OK, we’re amateur and amateurish! But looking through a couple of the paper rags today hasn’t convinced me necessarily of the merits of trusting someone who is paid to write either…

  • http://josephkingworks.blogspot.com/ Joseph

    Anyways I enjoy GT.

  • PHeMoX

    @Prio: No, I never said (d.) actually, I agree that reasoning is partly wrong, bút it IS logically valid, yes. ^^

    In short; the people from GT said “well, we don’t get paid, so don’t expect professional work” (since this was all about the quality, they must have meant professional quality, right? no other meaning possible imho actually). I think that’s a lame and very weak excuse, especially because it’s simply wrong to use that kind of reasoning ánd more so being professional really has nothing to do with getting paid. CAS showed one of the reasons why, getting paid is by no means a guarantee for quality, that’s just not true… A dictionary would agree, I’m sure. ^^

  • PHeMoX

    (‘getting paid is no guarantee for quality is true’, should have been without the ‘that’s just not true’. lol ^^)