On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Doug Orleans
<dougorleans@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here's their suggested labels (originally due to Aaron Fuegi, I
believe):
* 10 - Outstanding. Always want to play and expect this will never change.
* 9 - Excellent game. Always want to play it.
* 8 - Very good game. I like to play. Probably I'll suggest it and
will never turn down a game.
* 7 - Good game, usually willing to play.
* 6 - Ok game, some fun or challenge at least, will play
sporadically if in the right mood.
* 5 - Average game, slightly boring, take it or leave it.
* 4 - Not so good, it doesn't get me but could be talked into it
on occasion.
* 3 - Likely won't play this again although could be convinced. Bad.
* 2 - Extremely annoying game, won't play this ever again.
* 1 - Defies description of a game. You won't catch me dead
playing this. Clearly broken.
So this sort of thing makes me think it might be good to have the points system I mentioned earlier, to help a judge break down a score (now going back to 0 - 100):
* Presentation - Clarity of writing, authorial style, organization and visual aids - up to 15 points
* Innovation - Unique play, unique setup or board, atypical extra equipment - up to 15 points
* (Re)Playability - Delivers the goods time and time again; folks will be playing it in 2100 - up to 25 points
* Fun Factor - Even a total non-gamer, boring accountant digs it - up to 25
points
*
Use Of Restriction - A mere nod towards the restriction, or was it so
tightly integrated that you couldn't play the game without it? - up to 20 points
That avoid the tie-risk from a low range like 0 to 10, but it also gives guidance as to how to score, rather than wallowing in a huge range from 0 to 100.
Of course, I can go with 0 - 20, also--decent range (can borrow the BGG qualifiers, just x2) to avoid ties but not such a huge range as to make the values arbitrary (i.e. what make an 88 better than an 85?).