Newgrounds reviewsystem - Forskning - Det ...pure.iva.dk/files/35351111/Opgaven.docx · Web viewDa jeg begyndte vurderingen af reviewene brugte jeg den metode, jeg kom dog rimelig

IVA

Newgrounds reviewsystem

En kvalitetsundersøgelse

Kasper Schmidt Laugesen27-05-2013

In this paper I will study the review and rating systems of Newgrounds and perform a quantitative quality assessment of the reviews of the site, furthermore I will interview some of the best reviewers I can find on the site in order to determine why they make those reviews.

Ord: 6667 og 2 figurer

Vejleder: Lennart Björneborn

Kasper Schmidt LaugesenNewgrounds reviewsystem – En kvalitetsundersøgelse

Indhold1 Indledning.............................................................................................................................. 2

2 Problemformulering...............................................................................................................3

3 Metodeovervejelser...............................................................................................................3

3.1 Empiri..............................................................................................................................3

3.2 Teori................................................................................................................................ 4

4 Forklaring af Newgrounds......................................................................................................5

4.1 Definitioner.....................................................................................................................5

4.2 Baggrund om Newgrounds..............................................................................................6

4.3 Newgrounds.com’s review- og ratingsystemer...............................................................7

5 Dataindsamling......................................................................................................................8

5.1 Høstmetode.................................................................................................................... 8

5.2 Interviews........................................................................................................................9

5.2.1 Interview med forfatter............................................................................................9

5.2.2 Interviews med reviewere......................................................................................10

5.3 Fejlkilder........................................................................................................................11

6 Resultater og analyse...........................................................................................................11

6.1 Hvor mange gode reviews er der?................................................................................11

6.1.1 Systematik for kvalitetsvurdering af reviews..........................................................11

6.1.2 Resultater...............................................................................................................16

6.1.3 hvordan er procentdelene af gode og dårlige reviews...........................................16

6.2 Bliver reviewene egentlig brugt af forfatterne?............................................................19

6.3 Hvad motiverer brugerne til at reviewe spillene?........................................................19

6.3.1 Reviews.................................................................................................................. 19

6.3.2 Ratings....................................................................................................................21

7 Konklusion............................................................................................................................22

8 Perspektivering.................................................................................................................... 23

9 Metoderefleksion.................................................................................................................24

Litteraturliste.......................................................................................................................... 24

Bilag A..................................................................................................................................... 25

A.1 Interviewguide..............................................................................................................25

A.2 ConnorUllmann.............................................................................................................25

Bilag B..................................................................................................................................... 26

B.1 Interviewguide..............................................................................................................26

B.2 zag.................................................................................................................................26

1


B.3 Vert............................................................................................................................... 28

B.4 theplayer234.................................................................................................................30

B.5 Ericho........................................................................................................................... 31

B.6 Ryallen.......................................................................................................................... 32

B.7 M37h05........................................................................................................................ 34

B.8 CartoonWarStudios.......................................................................................................35

B.9 Nintendopowerman.......................................................................................................36

B.10 Nightstalker36.............................................................................................................36

B.11 danny4kk.....................................................................................................................37

B.12 THEDORE.....................................................................................................................38

Bilag C..................................................................................................................................... 39

Bilag D..................................................................................................................................... 47

D.1 Relive Your Life.............................................................................................................47

D.2 Pokemon Tower Defense 2...........................................................................................47

Bilag E......................................................................................................................................49

Bilag F......................................................................................................................................49

1 Indledning

I denne opgave vil jeg undersøge Newgrounds rating og reviewsystemer og foretage en

kvantitativ kvalitetsvurdering af reviewene på siden, derudover vil jeg foretage en række

interviews med nogle af de bedste reviewere jeg kan finde på siden, disse interviews vil have

til formål at finde ud af hvorfor de reviewer samt undersøge hvorvidt de har nogle andre

fællestræk.

Grunden til at jeg vælger at foretage disse undersøgelser er at jeg syntes at newgrounds er

en meget interessant side og at den har ry for at have gode reviews, jeg vil derfor søge at be-

eller afkræfte denne myte.

2


2 Problemformulering

1. Hvor mange gode reviews er der?

2. Bliver reviewene egentlig brugt af forfatterne?

3. Hvad motiverer brugerne til at reviewe spillene?

3 Metodeovervejelser

I dette afsnit vil jeg forklare hvilke empiriske og teoretiske værktøjer jeg vil bruge i denne

opgave, samt hvorfor jeg har valgt at benytte disse værktøjer.

3.1 Empiri

For at besvare de første tre spørgsmål af problemformuleringen planlagde jeg at foretage en

totalhøst af reviewene til fire spil i to kategorier (to spil i hver kategori), disse kategorier er:

Adventure og Strategy.

For at finde ud af hvad et godt review er, ville jeg interviewe forfatterne til disse spil om hvad

de syntes er et godt review og bruge deres svar til at lave kategorier for gode og dårlige

reviews.

Derefter planlagde jeg at sortere reviewene som jeg havde høstet tidligere, tælle dem op og

vurdere procentsatserne for gode og dårlige reviews,

For at finde ud af hvorvidt forfatterne bruger de reviews de modtager ville jeg også spørge

forfatterne om det i mine interviews af dem. Derudover ville jeg også analysere forfatternes

svar på reviewene med henblik på at opklare hvorvidt de tager kritikken til sig og bruger den,

både til fremtidige spil og til opdateringer af det spil der reviewes.

For at finde ud af hvad der motiverer Newgrounds brugere til at lave gode reviews ville jeg

interviewe de brugere som har lavet de bedste reviews til de fire spil og udspørge dem om

hvilke motiver de har for at reviewe spil på Newgrounds.

3


Grunden til at jeg valgte at foretage en totalhøst af fire spil, i stedet for f.eks stikprøver fra

flere spil er at jeg på denne måde kan sikre mig et komplet overblik over reviewfordelingen i

hvert spil og derved være i stand til at sammenligne spillene og se forskellene imellem dem.

Jeg kunne også have valgt at foretage interviewene som en slags gruppeinterviews, ved at

lave topics på Newgrounds forum og lade brugerne diskutere mine spørgsmål der, jeg valgte

ikke at gøre dette af fire årsager:

1. Fordi at jeg ikke følte at jeg ville have nok kontrol over interviewene til at jeg kunne

føle mig sikker på at jeg ville få de fornødne data.

2. Fordi at der var en alvorlig risiko for at der blev etableret nogle få synspunkter som

kunne skræmme brugere fra at komme med deres synspunkter.

3. Fordi at det ikke er alle brugere af Newgrounds som bruger dets forum, hvilket også

ville betyde at jeg ville gå glip af potentielt betydningsfulde synspunkter.

4. Og endelig fordi at jeg ikke ville have nogen kontrol over hvem der ville besvare mine

indlæg, hvilket ville betyde at der ville komme mange ubrugelige holdninger som det

ville være svært at frasortere.

3.2 Teori

Newgrounds er en web 2.0 side og review- og ratingsystemerne er web 2.0 systemer. Hele

denne opgave vil derfor skulle arbejde med web 2.0 logik.

Web 2.0 er kort fortalt sider hvor indholdet er produceret af brugerne og som i det hele

taget er bygget op omkring brugerinteraktion.1

Det eneste jeg kunne finde om kvalitetsvurdering af kommentarer på web 2.0 sider er: (Hsu,

Khabiri, & Caverlee) som nævner mange kriterier for vurdering af kommentarer. Problemet

med deres metoder er at der ikke er nogen af dem der beskæftiger sig med hvad der gør en

kommentar brugbar for forfatteren til et spil.

Af denne årsag valgte jeg at foretage interviews med forfatterne til de spil jeg høstede for at

finde ud af hvad de syntes er et godt review.1 Wikipedia (2013) Web 2.0 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedi

4


Interviewene er udforskende af natur og deres metodologi er grundlagt i teori fra Kvale,

2009 og Harboe 2010.

4 Forklaring af Newgrounds

I dette afsnit vil jeg forklare Newgrounds, dets ratingsystem og de centrale begreber fra

siden som jeg vil bruge i denne opgave

4.1 Definitioner

Jeg bruger i denne opgave en række udtryk og begreber som enten er unikke for

Newgrounds, eller har en speciel mening i web 2.0 sider. Jeg vil her forklare disse:

Review: et review er en kommentar som registrerede brugere på siden kan lave ved

dokumenter på siden, ifølge sidens retningslinjer bør brugerne bruge reviewfunktionen til at

kommentere på dokumenternes indhold.

Rating: rating er er en karakter som brugerne giver dokumenterne, brugerne kan give

dokumenterne karakterer fra 0 til 5 og ratingen er den gennemsnitlige karakter som et

dokument har fået.

Forfatter: en forfatter er en som har uploaded (og formodentlig produceret) et dokument.

PM: Personal Message eller Private Message er beskeder brugere kan sende til hinanden på

en side, fungerer generelt som et internt e-mail system.

Topic: et topic eller en thread er det laveste niveau af et forum og er det sted hvor brugerne

kan skrive med hinanden.2

Moderator: moderatorere er de medlemmer af et forum som har ansvaret for at regulere de

andre medlemmers opførsel.

2 Wikipedia (2013) Internet forum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia5


4.2 Baggrund om Newgrounds

Newgrounds.com er, som jeg beskrev i: Web 2.0 og digitale biblioteker: En analyse af

Newgrounds en side som kombinerer web 2.0’s brugerindvolvering og et digitalt biblioteks

fokuserede samling og kvalitetskontrol.

Newgrounds er en underholdningsside hvor brugerne oploader og deler dokumenter af fire

typer: spil, film, musik og billeder. Alle dokumenterne er lavet af brugerne og alt er gratis

tilgængeligt for offentligheden.

Siden er bygget op omkring deling af spil og film, musik og billeder kom til senere, musikken

kom for at gøre det lettere for spil og film producenterne at lave deres dokumenter uden at

komme på kant med copyrightlove.3

Siden har fire primære sektioner (en til hver dokumenttype) og tre yderligere sektioner til

henholdsvis samlinger, Community og en butik. Alle disse er tilgængelige i den globale

navigationsbar lige under sidebanneret.

Community sektionen giver adgang til: to former for social interaktion imellem sidens

brugere i form af et forum og en chatside; en kalender for events for siden; en wiki; en

sektion der giver overblik over nyheder fra alle forfatterne og et par andre småting.

De fire primære sektioner giver adgang til næsten alle dokumenter af de fire typer som er

tilgængelige på siden og giver mulighed for at sortere dem efter genre, aldersgrænse, hvor

gale dokumenterne er, hvilken rating dokumenterne har fået, hvor mange som har set

dokumenterne og alfabetisk efter titel. Genrerne er unikke for hver dokumenttype.

Siden har også et særligt system for kvalitetskontrol af nye film og spil, den rating

dokumentet får de første par timer efter det er blevet uploaded på siden bestemmer

hvorvidt det får lov til at blive på siden, hvis der er mellem 100 og 150 der stemmer på

dokumentet skal det optjene en rating på mindst 1 for at få lov til at blive på siden, hvis der

er mellem 150 og 200 er denne rating mindst 1,25 og hvis der er over 200 er det en

minimumsrating på 1,6.4,5

Alle kan få adgang til at se samtlige dokumenter på siden, rate dokumenterne, læse

forummet og chatten, samt foretage lignende ting. Hvis man ønsker at foretage sig mere skal

3 (Fulp, 2013)4 Wikipedia (2013) Newgrounds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia5 (Newgrounds)

6


man registrere sig som medlem, hvilket er gratis, hvorefter man har adgang til alle sidens

funktioner, hvilket inkluderer: brug af forum og chat, upload af dokumenter, højere

stemmevægt i rating af dokumenter (afhængig af hvor meget man rater forskellige

dokumenter), mulighed for at reviewe dokumenter, mulighed for at gemme en liste over ens

favoritdokumenter, brug af sidens PM system og en lang række andre, mindre ting.

4.3 Newgrounds.com’s review- og ratingsystemer

Newgrounds review- og ratingsystemer er primært designet for Newgrounds registrerede

brugere (ratingsystemet er dog delvist tilgængeligt for ikke-registrerede brugere).

Reviewsystemet fungerer ved at brugerne kan skrive reviews til dokumenterne på siden,

disse reviews opfordres (og gør for en stor dels vegne) til at beskæftige sig med indholdet af

dokumenterne, og ikke alle mulige andre ting. 6 Til disse reviews kan brugerne også give

dokumentet stjerner, fra 0 til 5, i intervaller af 0,5.

For at højne kvaliteten af reviewene kan brugerne stemme de individuelle reviews op eller

ned, alt efter hvorvidt de mener at reviewene er brugbare eller ubrugelige.

Ratingsystemet fungerer ved at brugerne kan give karakterer, fra 0 til 5 (intervaller af 1), til

de enkelte dokumenter på siden. Stemmekraften for de enkelte brugere varierer alt efter

hvor meget de har brugt systemet, uregistrerede brugere og medlemmer som ikke har ratet

særligt meget har en stemmekraft på 1, mens dem som har ratet meget har samlet meget

erfaring, hvilket giver en højere stemmekraft, den højeste stemmekraft som en bruger har

på Newgrounds for øjeblikket er 10,02.7

Erfaring indsamles primært ved at stemme på film og spil, brugere kan tjene 10

erfaringspoints om dagen ved at stemme på mindst 5 film eller spil.

Den anden store metode til at ens stemmekraft er ved at optjene blam og save points, disse

optjenes ved at stemme på nyoploadede spil og film.

6 Se Bilag C s. 417 Se Bilag C s. 45

7


5 Dataindsamling

Jeg vil her beskrive hvordan jeg indsamlede de data jeg har brugt i denne opgave, de

problemer jeg støtte ind i undervejs, samt hvilke fejlkilder jeg har bemærket i mine

indsamlingsmetoder.

5.1 Høstmetode

Min høst af reviews til denne opgave foregik som en totalhøst af fire spil i kategorierne

Adventure og Strategy (to spil i hver kategori).

Selve høsten foregik ved at jeg sorterede kommentarerne efter hvor mange stjerner de gav

spillet og derefter kopierede samtlige kommentarer over i et dokument.

Selve kvalitetsvurderingen af reviewene foregik efter den første interviewrunde og vil blive

behandlet nærmere i afsnit 6.1. jeg vil dog give en kort forklaring her:

Efter den første interviewrunde kom jeg frem til et vurderingssystem med fire kategorier:

1. Ubrugeligt reivew

2. Lettere brugbart review

3. Meget brugbart review

4. Review henvendt til spillerne

Da jeg analyserede de reviews jeg havde høstet løb jeg ind i tidsmæssige problemer, af

denne årsag endte jeg med kun at analysere reviewene fra tre af spillene. Det ene af disse

spil havde dog 1192 reviews, hvilket er mere end hvad alle de tre andre havde til sammen, af

denne årsag føler jeg at det kun påvirker min opgave i minimalt omfang når jeg kun har det

ene spil med den store mængde reviews fra Adventure kategorien og de to fra Strategy

kategorien at trække på i min empiri.

5.2 Interviews

8


Min plan for interviewene var at jeg ville bruge Newgrounds interne PM system til, først at

kontakte interviewpersonerne og derefter til at udføre selve interviewene.

Selve interviewene planlagde jeg at foretage ved at sende spørgsmålene et eller to ad

gangen og så enten stille uddybende spørgsmål til deres svar, eller fortsætte med de næste

spørgsmål fra interviewguiden.

Der er flere grunde til at jeg planlagde at foretage interviewene på denne måde:

Grunden til at jeg valgte at bruge PM systemet var at det var den eneste måde jeg

havde som jeg kunne kontakte samtlige personer som jeg var interesseret i at

interviewe med.

Der var tre grunde til at jeg valgte at fortsætte med at bruge PM systemet til

interviewene, i stedet for at skifte til et andet system som f.eks. Skype.

a. Der var en alvorlig risiko for at informanterne ikke ville være villige til at skifte

til et andet system, og at jeg derved ville have mistet informanter.

b. Ved at bruge et langsomt system som PM systemet gav jeg informanterne

bedre mulighed for at tænke over og uddybe deres svar.

c. Informanterne bor på alle dele af kloden, jeg ville have været nødt til at være

oppe døgnet rundt hvis jeg skulle have foretaget interviewene via en live

chatfunktion som Skype.

Muligheden for uddybning fra informanterne var også en af grundene til at jeg valgte

kun at sende et til to spørgsmål ad gangen, den anden var at det gjorde det lettere

for mig at stille uddybende spørgsmål når informanterne enten svarede for

overfladisk, eller misforstod det oprindelige spørgsmål.

5.2.1 Interview med forfatter

Den første interviewrunde havde et stort problem i form af alt for lidt respons fra

forfatterne, i et forsøg på at få mere respons valgte jeg at kontakte en moderator som havde

oploadet nogle spil og var online på det tidspunkt, desværre svarede hun aldrig tilbage.

Afslutningsvis var der kun en af forfatterne som valgte at svare.

Dette har naturligvis svækket mit vurderingssystem for reviewkvalitet, samt min evne til at

finde ud af hvorvidt forfatterne bruger reviewene.

Det interview som jeg fik foretaget, foretog jeg i to dele.9


I første del spurgte jeg om hvor ofte forfatteren læser reviews og hvad et (for forfatteren)

brugbart review indeholder. 8

I anden del spøger jeg til hvad forfatteren syntes er det vigtigste et review kan fokusere på.

5.2.2 Interviews med reviewere

Den anden interviewrunde var, ligesom den første, plaget af et lavt respons. I denne

interviewrunde forsøgte jeg at interviewe de 61 reviewere som havde lavet de bedste

reviews (kategori 3). Ud af de 61 jeg adspurgte var der kun 11 som svarede og af disse var

det kun 5 som blev færdige med interviewene, de resterende 6 har alle besvaret de første to

til fire spørgsmål og så har jeg ikke hørt mere fra dem.9

I denne interview interviewrunde havde jeg fire spørgsmålsgrupper som jeg gennemgik med

informanterne: den første, og så langt den vigtigste, gruppe spørgsmål er fem spørgsmål

som omhandler hvordan og hvorfor de reviewer; den anden gruppe er tre spørgsmål som

omhandler hvor meget de rater og hvorvidt de selv mener de lader sig påvirke af hvilken

rating et spil har på det tidspunkt hvor de rater det; den tredje gruppe er de spørgsmål som

jeg stillede i første interviewrunde, disse spørgsmål stillede jeg kun til en af de to

spilforfattere som gennemførte denne interviewrunde (jeg glemte at stille dem til den

anden); og den fjerde gruppe er et enkelt spørgsmål om hvad de mener der kan forbedres

ved Newgrounds nuværende review- og ratingsystemer. 10

5.3 Fejlkilder

Jeg har undervejs i dataindsamlingsforløbet bemærket en række problematikker som spår

tvivl om de resultater jeg kommer frem til i denne opgave.

Jeg mener personligt at det primære problem med min empiri er at jeg har fået for lidt

respons til mine interviews.

8 Se Bilag A.1 Interviewguide9 Se Bilag F10 Se Bilag B.1 Interviewguide

10


Den næststørste fejlkilde er delvist et resultat af dette, nemlig mit vurderingssystem for

reviewene som jeg var nødt til at bygge på baggrund af et enkelt interview.

Nummer tre på listen er mit personlige bias i forhold til den måde jeg har vurderet

reviewene på. Det forhold at jeg har været alene om at vurdere reviewene kan have

resulteret i at jeg har fejlvurderet kvaliteten af nogle af reviewene og sorteret dem i de

forkerte kategorier.

6 Resultater og analyse

I dette afsnit vil jeg gennemgå resultaterne af min undersøgelse og analysere dem ud fra

problemformuleringen.

6.1 Hvor mange gode reviews er der?

6.1.1 Systematik for kvalitetsvurdering af reviews

Der er mange meninger om hvad et godt review er. Da jeg begyndte denne opgave havde jeg

to systemer i tankerne, det ene system var en optælling af hvor mange reviews der var

markeret som brugbare i forhold til hvor mange der var markeret som ubrugelige, og hvor

mange der ikke var markerede.

Da jeg foretog totalhøsten observerede jeg dog hurtigt at dette system var ubrugeligt, idet

der var rigtig mange ubrugelige reviews som var markeret som brugbare og at der var nogle

detaljerede kritiske reviews som var markerede som værende ubrugelige.

Det andet system jeg kom på så således ud:

1. Værdiløse reviews der ikke kommer med nogle brugbare oplysninger.

2. Reviews som kommer med brugbare oplysninger.

Mit store problem med dette system var dog at jeg ikke vidste hvorvidt forfatterne har den

samme holdning, så for at finde ud af det, og komme frem til en god måde at vurdere

11


reviewene på foretog jeg, som nævnt i 3.1 og 5.2.1, et interview med en af forfatterne til et

af de spil som jeg høstede reviews fra.

Han beskriver et godt review således:

“What tends to make up a useful review is one that talks about what they liked about

the game, but also at least one or two things that they didn't like. Anything that is only

positive or only negative is not very useful.”(ConnorUllmann)

Og når han bliver spurgt om hvilke emner han personligt leder efter i reviews svarer han:

“Usually I tend to try and find info about how to improve gameplay--what people liked

and didn't like about the mechanics. After that, good criticisms about the art style are

nice, but they tend to be few and far between (usually more like "I don't like pixel art,"

which isn't a very useful criticism). Mechanics are the best criticisms to find.”

(ConnorUllmann)

Hvis jeg kun gik ud fra hans ord i mit system ville det se således ud:

Et system der deler reviewene op i tre kateogrier:


2. Reviews som udelukkende er positive eller negative, men som stadigvæk kommer

med noget brugbart feedback.

3. Reviews som både nævner ting som revieweren kan lide ved spillet og ting som

vedkommende ikke kan lide ved det.

Derudover har dette system det addendum at reviews som fokuserer på gameplayelementer

og de som giver en bare lettere reflekteret kritik af grafikken bliver vurderet mere positivt

end de andre.

Da jeg begyndte vurderingen af reviewene brugte jeg den metode, jeg kom dog rimelig

hurtigt frem til to mangler ved den, den første mangel jeg kom frem til var at den ikke tog

hensyn til eksistensen af reviews skrevet til andre brugere. Disse reviews tager generelt to

former.

Guides til at opnå noget i spillet, såsom dette:

Love at first fight is not realy an ending, but if you become the boy/girl halfthing and

wiggle too much, you get a figth with the bully. then when you do nothing you get the

archievment.

Og tips der gør spillet lettere at spille, såsom dette:

12


Fantastic game. For those who have issue with smashing the x button, don't smash it to

fast because it seem like you are holding it so going with a medium-fast speed will be

perfect. Look at the animation how fast it move it will indicate you if you smash too

fast or to slow

Den anden mangel jeg fandt frem til er at der er nogle der er udelukkende positive eller

negative som er så detaljerede at man bliver nødt til at betragte dem som værende meget

brugbare. Et eksempel på et sådan review er dette:

This great work. Especially for 24 days. The rhyming gives it this storybook feel (And

probably took a lot of time to perfect.), and the drastic changes from one simple action

really remind you of the Butterfly Effect, such as petting a puppy can decide whether

you go blind and become a hero or become a model. And the twists of how a good

action sometimes leads to a bad ending. (Such as winning 60,000 bucks from the lottery

and then getting stabbed.) and bad actions sometimes lead to good endings (Such as

stabbing the voo-doo doll in the heart and gaining a rich husband, or having your sister

die and say your life is horrible on Dr. Phil leads you to fame and fortune.) And such a

good story, with the plot-twists not too far-fetched, but not too boring.

På grund af disse observationer ændrede jeg systemet til følgende:


2. Reviews som udelukkende er positive eller negative, men som stadigvæk kommer

med noget brugbart feedback.

3. Reviews som både nævner ting som revieweren kan lide ved spillet og ting som

vedkommende ikke kan lide ved det; og reviews som kun nævner enten positive eller

negative ting ved spillet, men som nævner adskillige ting eller er ekstremt

detaljerede med de ting som de nævner.

4. Reviews som er henvendt til andre spillere.

Med de addendums at reviews som fokuserer på gameplayelementer og de som giver en

bare lettere reflekteret kritik af grafikken bliver vurderet mere positivt end de andre og at

der findes reviews som overlapper kategorierne for at være brugbare for forfatterne og

brugbare for andre spillere.

De reviews som overlapper mellem 2 og 4 vælger jeg at tælle som 4, mens de reviews som

overlapper mellem 3 og 4 bliver talt som 3. Den sidste del er dog fuldt ud teoretisk, idet der

13


ikke er nogle reviews som overlappede mellem 3 og 4 iblandt de reviews som jeg

analyserede.

Der er dog nogle reviews som overlapper mellem 2 og 4, grunden til at jeg vælger at lade

dem tælle som 4 er at den del af de reviews som er brugbare for forfatterne er stærkt

begrænsede, både i hvor stor en del af de individuelle reviews der er tale om og i hvor

brugbare datane er. Disse reviews er dog altid meget brugbare for andre spillere som de alle

tydeligvis er designet for. Et eksempel på et af disse reviews er dette:

I love the amount of detail put into this game!

The only drawback I could find is there isn't any info on the weakness of each type in-

game, except by trial and error.

I wish players could versus each other real-time, but I doubt that's possible, anyways

just hoping :)

Finally beat the cheating @#%^! in 1v1 mode (that guy with 6 Level 13 pokemon) after

many many tries. Experimented with various combinations until I finally beat him with

this:

Items: Buy as much berries and potions as possible. Equip each pokemon with a berry.

Eat potions at low hp. Antidotes may help against Ekans.

Pikachu x2 - Level 8 (For Thunder Wave. 1 to defeat Pidgey and another for Butterfree,

both weak against Electricity. If you use only 1 Pikachu it will get Blinded by Pidgey's

Sand Attack and will lose to Butterfree.)

Pidgey - Level 9 (For Gust to counter Bulbasaur and Ekans, both weak against Flying.

The max level reachable at this point is 10. Gust is the strongest flying skill obtainable

below level 10. After Ekans is defeated, use Pidgey to reduce Butterfree's Accuracy with

Sand Attack and weaken it a little with Gust, since Butterfree is also weak against

Flying.)

Diglett - Level 5 (teach Rock Tomb to it using the TM gotten from beating Brock. Rock

Tomb slows and deals Rock damage, which is super effective against Butterfree. Keep

using this and Sand Attack against Butterfree, while constantly eating potions to keep

14


Diglett alive. Once slow and blind have reached 6 stacks, let Diglett die and switch to

Pikachu to finish it off.)

Geodude - Level 5 (to counter Pikachu, since Geodude is immune to Electricity and

reduces Normal damage from Quick Attack by 1/2. Mud Slap greatly reduces Electricity

damage dealt in case Geodude fails to defeat it.)

Bulbasaur - Level 7 (For Leech Seed. Needs at least this to beat Brock. Good against

Pikachu, as Electricity is halved, in case Geodude fails to defeat it.)

-As for Ratata I used a combination to weaken it with Rock Tombs, Growls, Tail Whips,

before killing it.

I don't really get the difference of the Shadow Pidgey from a normal Pidgey tho... I've

leveled it a little and the move list seems to be the same...

I discovered an abusable bug. If you recall your pokemon after the opponent attacks,

but before the projectile hits, both yours and the opponent's attacks will disappear, but

yours will reappear (weirdly enough, from the corner of the screen) after resummoning

your pokemon. If your reflexes are fast enough, you can even completely avoid all of

your opponent's attack and still dish out damage in between attacks. Only a few moves

can't be avoided: Diglett's Arena Trap, Onix's Bind, most debuffing moves, Butterfree's

Confusion, etc.

Usually, if the opponent is already affected by Leech Seed, Bulbasaur will not cast it

anymore until it expires. However if you use the abuse above before the Leech Seed

projectile hits the opponent, you can stack multiple Leech Seeds on your opponent at

once. You can then recall Bulbasaur and wait for your opponent to die (which is

overpowered as hell).

Hvor den del som er relevant for forfatteren er de første to paragraffer, og resten kun er

brugbart for andre spillere.

6.1.2 Resultater

Efter at have talt reviewene til de tre spil op og sorteret dem er jeg kommet frem til at:

15


Spillet Ultimate Tank War havde 84 reviews på høsttidspunktet, af disse er 39 ubrugelige

(kategori 1), 37 er af begrænset nytte for forfatteren (kategori 2), 5 er gode reviews (kategori

3) og 3 er gode for andre spillere (kategori 4).

Spillet Relive Your Life havde 1196 reviews på høsttidspunktet, af disse er 757 ubrugelige

(kategori 1), 362 er af begrænset nytte for forfatteren (kategori 2), 51 er gode reviews

(kategori 3) og 26 er gode for andre spillere (kategori 4).

Spillet Pokemon Tower Defense 2 havde 420 reviews på høsttidspunktet, af disse er 286

ubrugelige (kategori 1), 113 er af begrænset nytte for forfatteren (kategori 2), 7 er gode

reviews (kategori 3) og 14 er gode for andre spillere (kategori 4).

Dette betyder at der samlet set var 1700 reviews til de tre spil på høsttidspunktet, af disse er

1082 ubrugelige (kategori 1), 512 er af begrænset nytte for forfatterne (kategori 2), 6311 er

gode reviews (kategori 3) og 43 er gode for andre spillere (kategori 4).12

6.1.3 hvordan er procentdelene af gode og dårlige reviews

Tallene som jeg viste i det tidligere afsnit viser tydeligt at der samlet set er flere ubrugelige

reviews end der er brugbare reviews, de viser dog også at forholdene mellem ubrugelige og

brugbare reviews varierer en del imellem de forskellige spil. For at tydeliggøre de forskellige

satser vil jeg her vise tallene i procent.

Spillet Ultimate Tank War havde 46,429 % ubrugelige reviews (kategori 1) på

høsttidspunktet, 44,048 % af begrænset nytte for forfatteren (kategori 2), 5,952 % gode

reviews (kategori 3) og 3,571 % reviews som er gode for andre spillere (kategori 4).

Spillet Relive Your Life havde 63,294 % ubrugelige reviews (kategori 1) på høsttidspunktet,

30,268 % af begrænset nytte for forfatteren (kategori 2), 4,264 % gode reviews (kategori 3)

og 2,174 % reviews som er gode for andre spillere (kategori 4).

Spillet Pokemon Tower Defense 2 havde 68,095 % ubrugelige reviews (kategori 1) på



11 Grunden til at jeg kun forsøgte at interviewe 62 i anden interviewrunde er at en af reviewerne reviewede to af spillene.12 Se Bilag E

16


Samlet set var der 63,647 % ubrugelige reviews (kategori 1) på høsttidspunktet, 30,118 % af

begrænset nytte for forfatterne (kategori 2), 3,706 % gode reviews (kategori 3) og 2,529 %

reviews som er gode for andre spillere (kategori 4).

Udtrykt grafisk ser det således ud:

1 2 3 40

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Ultimate Tank War

Relive Your Life

Pokemon Tower Defense 2

I alt

Figur 1 Procentsatser for fordelingen af reviewene i de enkelte spil og i alt.

Dette viser tydeligt at spillet Ultimate Tank War havde en abnormt lav mængde ubrugelige

reviews, samtidig med at det havde en abnormt høj mængde lettere brugbare reviews.

Hvorvidt dette var en statistisk tilfældighed bundet i det lave antal reviews som det spil

havde, eller hvorvidt det skyldtes en fejlvurdering fra min side står hen i det uvisse.

Derudover er det også klart at spillet Pokemon Tower Defense 2 havde en usædvanlig høj

mængde af ubrugelige reviews, kombineret med en lav mængde af lettere brugbare reviews

og en ekstremt lav mængde af meget brugbare reviews.

Grunden til at der er så mange ubrugelige reviews til dette spil er at spillet indeholder et

socialt handelselement og at der er nogle af spillerne der bruger reviewene til at reklamere

for sig selv. Jeg valgte at klarificere alle disse forsøg som ubrugelige reviews, idet de ikke

rigtigt var brugbare for nogle andre.

Den høje mængde af ubrugelige reivews forklarer for så vidt også den lave mængde af

lettere brugbare reviews, jeg har dog ikke været i stand til at finde en forklaring på den

ekstremt lave mængde af meget brugbare reviews.

17


En anden ting som skævvrider statestikken er det abnormt høje antal reviews ved spillet

Relive Your Life. For at gøre tallene mere sammenlignelige har jeg derfor også lagt tallene for

spillene Ultimate Tank War og Pokemon Tower Defense 2 sammen. Når jeg udregner

procenterne af dette får jeg følgende resultat: 64,484 % ubrugelige reviews (kategori 1) på



Udtrykt grafisk sammen med procentsatserne for Relive Your Life og de samlede procenter

ser det således ud:

1 2 3 40

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

UTW & PTD2Relive Your LifeI alt

Figur 2 Procentsatser for fordelingen af reviewene i de to genrer og i alt.

Alt i alt et langt mere ligeligt billede.

6.2 Bliver reviewene egentlig brugt af forfatterne?

For at undersøge hvorvidt forfatterne bruger reviewene ser jeg her på hvad de to forfattere

som jeg interviewede om dette svarede og på nogle af de svar som forfatterne til de tre spil

har givet til deres reviewere.

18


Begge de to forfattere bekræfter at de læser samtlige reviews til alle dokumenter som de

lægger op, ConnorUllmann giver kraftigere udtryk for at han leder efter reviews der enten

giver forbedringsforslag, eller inspirerer til forbedringer end zag gør. De gør det dog begge

klart at de på en eller anden måde gør brug af reviewene.13,14

Det er også klart at de andre forfattere gør brug af reviewene, det tydeligste eksempel på

dette kan ses i de svar som forfatteren FrozenFire giver til de reviews til spillet Relive Your

Life der beder ham om at tilføje en skip knap, i kronologisk orden er de:

“Im making the dang skip button hold your horses :)”

“Nice Review Thanks! I had a lot of suggestions for the skip button so I got right on it.”

“there's a skip button” FrozenFire

6.3 Hvad motiverer brugerne til at reviewe spillene?

For at finde ud af hvad der motiverer brugerne til at lave gode reviews valgte jeg at forsøge

at interviewe alle de brugere som havde produceret de bedste reviews iblandt de reviews

som jeg høstede. Jeg vil her præsentere og analysere de svar jeg fik.

6.3.1 Reviews

Der er mange forskellige ting som motiverer brugerne til at reviewe spillene.

zag giver to grunde: for det første for at give hendes mening om spillet til kende i et

offentligt rum, den anden grund er at det giver hende en alternativ måde at gemme spil på.15

Vert beskriver sine grunde således:

My review criteria normally fits into one of three categories and applies equally to

animations and games: I'll review something if it's I find to be excellent and I want to

convey to the author how much I liked it as a sign of appreciation, if I feel that the

13 Bilag A.214 Bilag B.215 Bilag B.2

19


author has produced something that's close to excellent, but lacks in some areas where

I can provide meaningful criticisms, or if the the game is poor, but I feel that the author

has potential to create great things in the future and I want to encourage them.

Having said all of that, because I spend a significant amount of time doing any single

review, I rarely have the necessary enthusiasm to write one up; in such cases, if I still

want to leave some message to the author, I'll do so via his own newgrounds page.

Vert er ikke den eneste som reviewer de bedste og de værste spil, han deler denne

fremgangsmåde med theplayer234 som ifølge hans egne ord reviewer de bedste og de

værste ting.

Ericho er noget anderledes, han reviewer alt hvad han spiller, men til gengæld spiller han

kun de ting som andre har givet udtryk for er gode.

Hans motivation for at reviewe er også usædvanlig, som han selv udtrykker det:

I was simply a fan of reviewers in general. I have Leonard Maltin's movie guide and

always watched Siskel and Ebert, as well as Internet critics like the Angry Video Game

Nerd and Nostalgia Critic. I was such a big fan of this site in general, I decided to have

my voice heard. In fact, I actually came here in 2004, but it wasn't until four years later,

I became more sociable and got an account. If you notice, I'm trying to catch up by

reviewing a lot of things I missed the first time around.

Grunden til at han reviewer på Newgrounds er at han forsøger at blive en etableret

spilanmelder.

Ryallen er igen anderledes, han reviewer kun de spil hvor han føler han har noget at sige om.

Samtidig reviewer han i håb om at det vil hjælpe forfatterne til at blive bedre.

Nintendopowerman har stort set den samme fremgangsmåde.

M37h05 har også stort set den samme fremgangsmåde, dog med den forskel at han primært

går efter nye spil.

CartoonWarStudios og danny4kk reviewer begge sjældent, men når de gør, går de begge

efter gode spil.

Jeg er ikke helt sikker på hvad THEDORE svarede, men jeg tror at han generelt går efter de

bedste og de værste spil.

20


De fleste af reviewerne henvender sig altid, eller næsten altid til forfatteren, de eneste som

ikke gør det er:

zag som primært skriver til sig selv og Ericho som skriver for at lave et navn for sig selv.

Samlet set kan det siges om reviewerne at de alle til en vis grad reviewer for at få forfatterne

til at producere dokumenter af en højere kvalitet.

6.3.2 Ratings

Jeg inkluderede spørgsmål om rating for at se hvorvidt gode reviewere ligner hinanden på

den måde, det har vist sig at de fleste af dem har stort set det samme mønster med at rate

alle, eller næsten alle. Af de fem som besvarede disse spørgsmål viste det sig at zag, Vert,

Ericho og Ryallen alle følger dette mønster.

Den eneste som ikke gør det er theplayer234, han beskriver sine ratingvaner således:

theplayer234 wrote:

I do not know the exact number of games that I play that I rate but I would say I play a

lot of games so I would say I reviewed about 40 or 50% of these games. It's still a lot in

my opinion. The ratings of the game do not influence the score I give it…

…Malagar wrote:

Are we still on the same page here? I am now asking about rating, not reviewing.

theplayer234 wrote:

Oh my bad, Well it's still the same, I rate the games when I felt like they deserved to be

rated. I do not rate other games because either I don't have the time for it or I felt like it

is best to let other people decide.

Hvilket jeg fortolker som at han også kun rater 40-50 % af de spil han spiller, når det kommer

til udvælgelsen beskriver han det således:

I decide which games deserve to be rated if the game is good enough and I have the

time for it. The same could be said if it's bad enough and I have the time for it.

Når det kommer til hvorvidt de selv syntes at de bliver påvirket af den rating et spil har på

det tidspunkt hvor de rater det mener tre af de adspurgte at de bliver påvirkede. Vert mener

at det får ham til at give spillet en score som er tættere på det nuværende gennemsnit, end

hvad han ellers havde tænkt sig; Ericho mener også at ratingen påvirker hans score, men han 21


siger ikke hvordan; endeligt mener Ryallen at spillets rating får ham til at give det en højere

rating end han ellers ville.

Den eneste som ikke mener at at spillets rating påvirker den score hun giver det er zag.

Af ukendte årsager fik jeg ikke spurgt theplayer234 om dette, jeg formoder at det var fordi at

vi lige havde været igennem en hel del forvirring om de tidligere spørgsmål.

7 Konklusion

Jeg har i denne opgave lavet et vurderingssystem for kvaliteten af reviews og brugt dette

sytstem til at fortage en optælling af hvor mange gode reviews der er til tre spil på siden

Newgrounds.

Jeg er i denne forbindelse kommet frem til at der blandt de 1700 reviews jeg høstede er

1082 ubrugelige reviews, 512 lettere brugbare reviews, 63 meget brugbare reviews og 43

reviews af varierende kvalitet som alle er henvendt til andre spillere. I procent er det 63,647

% ubrugelige reviews 30,118 % lettere brugbare reviews 3,706 % meget brugbare reviews og

2,529 % reviews som er henvendt til andre spillere.

Jeg er kommet frem til at stort set alle forfatterne læser reviewene og at i hvert fald de fleste

af forfatterne bruger reviewene, enten til at forbedre nuværende spil, eller til at lave bedre

spil fremover.

Jeg er kommet frem til at alle gode reviewere har deres egne motivationer til at reviewe og

at nogle af dem er meget usædvanelige, men at de dog alle har det til fælles at de prøver på

at få forfatterne til at lave bedre spil.

8 Perspektivering

22


Der er flere mulige måder som kan forsøges for at forbedre Newgrounds kommentarsystem.

Blandt de af de interviewede som havde idéer til forbedringer af systemet var der bred

konsensus om at en mulighed for at slette ens gamle reviews, enten selvstændigt eller via en

moderator ville være brugbart.

Derudover var der også en som ønskede evnen til at kommentere på andres reviews og at

gennemsnitsratingen fra reviewene blev offentliggjort på lige fod med den normale

gennemsnitsrating.

Personligt syntes jeg at idéen om en eller anden form for deletefunktion ville være brugbar.

Jeg tror dog ikke at idéen om at gøre det muligt for folk at kommentere på reviews vil hjælpe

systemet, idet jeg tror at det vil få reviewsektionerne til at udvikle sig til miniforums hvor

snakken tit ville gå på afveje, og derved begrave de gode reviews under endnu flere

meningsløse kommentarer. Offentliggørelsen af den alternative rating bør ikke skade noget,

men vil med al sandsynlighed ikke gøre noget for at højne kvaliteten.

Personligt har jeg to idéer som måske vil kunne højne kvaliteten af reviewene:

Den første er at lave en række kategorier af reviews og tvinge folk som skriver nye reviews til

at vælge hvilken kategori reviewet tilhører. Alle disse kategorier skal naturligvis være for ting

som er brugbare, enten for forfatteren eller for spillerne. Et par eksempler på sådanne

kategorier kunne være: bugrapport, gameplay og grafik

Den anden idé er et forsøg på at gøre brugernes mulighed for at stemme reviews op og ned

brugbart. Den går ud på to ting, et at gøre antallet af positive eller negative stemmer synligt

og to at give medlemmerne en vægtet stemmekraft som den de allerede har med

ratingsystemet. Medlemmerne vil her tjene stemmekraft ved at lave reviews der bliver stemt

meget op, og eventuelt også ved at stemme på andre reviews.

9 Metoderefleksion

23


Jeg har undervejs i dette opgaveforløb bemærket flere problemer med min metode. Det

primære problem som jeg har bemærket er at jeg aldrig havde nok informanter.

Mit andet store problem er at jeg undervurderede opgavens omfang og ikke gav mig selv

nok tid til at lave denne opgave.

Mit tredje og noget mindre problem er at jeg nogle gange glemte at stille nogle af

spørgsmålene til nogle af de informanter som faktisk svarede.

Litteraturliste

Fulp, T. (2013). Newgrounds Wiki - History. Retrieved from Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone: http://www.newgrounds.com/wiki/about-newgrounds/history

Harboe, T. (2010). Metode og projektskrivning - en introduktion. København: Samfundslitteratur.

Hsu, C.-F., Khabiri, E., & Caverlee, J. (n.d.). Ranking Comments on the Social Web. Retrieved Maj 12, 2013, from Department of Computer Science and Engineering at Texas A&M University: http://faculty.cs.tamu.edu/caverlee/pubs/hsu09socialcom.pdf

Kvale, S. o. (2009). InterView - Introduktion til et håndværk - 2. udgave. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Newgrounds. (2013, Maj 27). Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone. Retrieved from Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone: http://www.newgrounds.com/

Newgrounds. (n.d.). Newgrounds Wiki - Games and Movies. Retrieved from Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone: http://www.newgrounds.com/wiki/help-information/content-submission/games-and-movies

Wikipedia. (2013, April 14). Internet forum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Retrieved Maj 26, 2013, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum

Wikipedia. (2013, Maj 26). Newgrounds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved Maj 26, 2013, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgrounds

Wikipedia. (2013, Maj 08). Web 2.0 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Retrieved Maj 26, 2013, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

Bilag A

24


A.1 Interviewguide

How often do you read the reviews for your submissions?And what makes a review useful for you as an author?Do you generally look for reviews that focus on any specific parts of your games, and if so what kind of focus do you find to be the most important?

A.2 ConnorUllmann

Malagar wrote:Hello ConnorUllmann

I am doing a survey of the Newgrounds review system and would like to ask you a few questions about how you use the review system.ConnorUllmann wrote:Sure, no problem. Go ahead and shoot me the questions!Malagar wrote:Thank you, first off:How often do you read the reviews for your submissions?And what makes a review useful for you as an author?ConnorUllmann wrote:I check maybe once every 2-3 weeks, but I read every review for all my games. What tends to make up a useful review is one that talks about what they liked about the game, but also at least one or two things that they didn't like. Anything that is only positive or only negative is not very useful.Malagar wrote:Interesting, to follow up:

Do you generally look for reviews that focus on any specific parts of your games, and if so what kind of focus do you find to be the most important?ConnorUllmann wrote:Usually I tend to try and find info about how to improve gameplay--what people liked and didn't like about the mechanics. After that, good criticisms about the art style are nice, but they tend to be few and far between (usually more like "I don't like pixel art," which isn't a very useful criticism). Mechanics are the best criticisms to find.

Bilag B

25


B.1 Interviewguide

How many of the games you play do you review? And why do you review those games?Who do you make the reviews for? Who do you address in your reviews?Why do you review the games?How many of the games you play do you rate? And do you think a games current rating influences the score you give it?Do you ever rate a game without reviewing it?Would you say that you are more likely to adjust your rating closer to the current rating? Or further away?Evt. forfatterspørgsmålWays to improve the system?

B.2 zag

Malagar wrote:Hello zag

I am conducting a survey of the Newgrounds review system, would you be willing to answer a few questions about how and why you review games on this site?zag wrote: Sure, why not?Malagar wrote: Thank you, my first questions are:How many of the games you play do you review? And why do you review those games?zag wrote: Of the games that I play, I only review the ones that I'm particularly fond of, or the ones that I particularly dislike. And, I review those for two reasons. The first reason being to state my thoughts on the game in a public venue. The second reason is for the sake of tracking a flash that I like, but don't like enough to add to my favorites.Malagar wrote: Thank you, to follow up:Witch games do you review more, the good or the bad? Also do you have a rough idea of what kind of percentage of the games you play that you review?zag wrote: I more frequently review good games.Also, I would say that I review roughly 40% of the games that I play, if I had to take a guess.Malagar wrote: OK, moving on, who do you make the reviews for?zag wrote:Mostly for myself.As I stated, being able to find a submission that I once played but didn't feel like favoriting is probably my primary motive.There is part of me that posts for the sake of letting others know what they're getting into before they press play though. I often read reviews before I watch or play a submission, so I imagine others do the same.Malagar wrote:

26


So, when you write reviews for others, would you say that you primarily address the general audience of a game? Not the author or some subgroup of the audience?zag wrote:When writing for the sake of others, I sometimes write to the actual author, but more frequently, I write for the sake of the general audience.Malagar wrote:Thank you, moving on:How many of the games you play do you rate? And do you think a games current rating influences the score you give it?zag wrote:I rate about 95% of the games I play, and previous rating doesn't effect the score that I give.The score I give is based entirely on my experiences with the game.Malagar wrote:Okay, moving on to your perspective as an author.Do you read all the reviews on your submissions? And what makes a review useful for you as an author?zag wrote:I read and respond to all of the reviews that others leave for my submissions.I don't particularly have a preference as to what kind of reviews are left, though I appreciate the ones that are either particularly amusing or particularly insightful. It's quite rare that I receive one of the latter.Malagar wrote:Are there any special characteristics that you find in most/all of the insightful reviews?zag wrote:If someone can properly analyze the work at its core, or give any constructive criticism really, then I'm impressed.Malagar wrote:Thank you, you have been most helpful, to finish of I would like to know, is there anything you can think of that would improve the review and rating system?zag wrote:Nothing in particular.Actually, I'm quite happy with the review/rating system on Newgrounds. It's one of the more efficient I've seen.If anything, I would make it so an individual could more easily report their own past submission to a review moderator for the sake of deletion.

B.3 Vert

Malagar wrote: Hello Vert

I am conducting a survey of the Newgrounds review system, would you be willing to answer a few questions about how and why you review games on this site?

Vert wrote: Sure. But could I enquire as to what purpose you're conducting these interviews?Malagar wrote:

27


Certainly, this interview is to be part of my bachelor in library and information science.So to start of:How many of the games you play do you review? And why do you review those games?Vert wrote:Because I like to give out long, detailed reviews, I only review a small minority of games I play, probably between 1% to 5%.

My review criteria normally fits into one of three categories and applies equally to animations and games: I'll review something if it's I find to be excellent and I want to convey to the author how much I liked it as a sign of appreciation, if I feel that the author has produced something that's close to excellent, but lacks in some areas where I can provide meaningful criticisms, or if the the game is poor, but I feel that the author has potential to create great things in the future and I want to encourage them.

Having said all of that, because I spend a significant amount of time doing any single review, I rarely have the necessary enthusiasm to write one up; in such cases, if I still want to leave some message to the author, I'll do so via his own newgrounds page.Malagar wrote:Do you always write the reviews for the authors?Vert wrote:What do you mean? As in adressing the reviews towards the authors, as opposed to a general audience?

If so, then yes, for the most part.Malagar wrote:Yes, general audience, or other authors, or whatever other subcategories that you can think of. So when you aren’t talking to the author then who are you addressing, and what kind of things do you tell them?Vert wrote:I won't address anyone specifically, but make the review akin to that of a professional reviewer, so I might differ in tone a bit. But, as I said, for the most part, I'm addressing the creator.Malagar wrote:So I take it that you aren't one to make walkthroughs and stuff like that?

Moving on to the second part:How many of the games you play do you rate? And do you think a games current rating influences the score you give it?Vert wrote:No, never done a walkthrough or the like, I feel I can do more to help by providing critiques.

I rate virtually all the games I play. And yes, there's the current score probably has a small but significant influence on the score I give a game.Malagar wrote:In what way does it influence you? Would you say that you are more likely to adjust your rating closer to the current rating? Or further away?Vert wrote:Closer, I'll more likely give a score closer to whatever the current average is.

28


Malagar wrote:Okay, moving on to your perspective as an author.Do you read all the reviews on your submissions? And what makes a review useful for you as an author?Vert wrote:Hmm, yes! Somehow the answer didn't come through.

What I said, roughly, was that I'd like a system that encourages more people to leave reviews, as opposed to mere comments, but I wouldn't be able to say what that would entail and that, compared to something youtube, Newgrounds already does this, at least better than average.

I also asked if it would be possible for me to see the end result of the questionnaire, because, as someone from academia, I'd be very curious to see what conclusions you reach.

Yes, I've read every review of things that I've submitted as the primary creator; for things where my role has been that of a voice actor, I've not done so.As an author, what really helps me is to receive detailed critique. I want to know where my mistakes are, where my strengths lie, where I can improve and how to improve. Any review that contains these basic elements is a good one to me. Praise by itself is nice too, but in terms of usefulness, those are the 4 key elements, I think. Oh, and dissecting what I've created into parts and analysing it bit by bit is also pretty helpful.Malagar wrote:Thank you for your assistance, you have given me some very useful data.I will gladly share my conclusion with you, the assignment is due Monday the 27th, if I have not sent it to you by the middle of that week you are welcome to remind me and I will translate and send it to you.Out of curiosity, what field of academia are you in?Finally if you come up with anything else to say about the comments and rating system, before the due day, you are welcome to send it to me.Vert wrote:I'm a PhD student in economics.And sure, if anything comes up, I'll let you know.

B.4 theplayer234

Malagar wrote: Hello theplayer234

I am conducting a survey of the Newgrounds review system, would you be willing to answer a few questions about how and why you review games on this site?theplayer234 wrote: Sure, Ask away.Malagar wrote:

29


Thank you, my first questions are:How many of the games you play do you review? And why do you review those games?theplayer234 wrote: It is unknown how many games I review but I have to say a lot. However, Recently don't do it as often because I was busy. I review these games to show the maker of this game either my appreciation, my feedback, or why the game isn't really good.Malagar wrote: Can you give any kind of percentage of how many of the games you play that you review? And if it is not all of them, what makes you review those games and not the others?theplayer234 wrote: I would have to say probably 60%. However, due to busy schedules, it's now as low as 1%. What makes me review those games is either how good or how bad it is or I just felt like I should Review it.Malagar wrote: Who do you make the reviews for? Who do you address in your reviews?theplayer234 wrote: I make the reviews for people who make the game I'm playing. I don't know what you mean by who do I address in my reviews.Malagar wrote:Basically the same thing, there were some people who misunderstood it when it was just the first question.Moving on to the second part:How many of the games you play do you rate? And do you think a games current rating influences the score you give it?theplayer234 wrote:I do not know the exact number of games that I play that I rate but I would say I play a lot of games so I would say I reviewed about 40 or 50% of these games. It's still a lot in my opinion. The ratings of the game do not influence the score I give it.Malagar wrote: What makes you rate the games that you do, and not the others?theplayer234 wrote:I just felt like reviewing certain games and not others.Malagar wrote:Are we still on the same page here? I am now asking about rating, not reviewing.theplayer234 wrote:Oh my bad, Well it's still the same, I rate the games when I felt like they deserved to be rated. I do not rate other games because either I don't have the time for it or I felt like it is best to let other people decide.Malagar wrote:How do you decide witch games deserve to be rated?theplayer234 wrote:I decide which games deserve to be rated if the game is good enough and I have the time for it. The same could be said if it's bad enough and I have the time for it.Malagar wrote:Thank you, you have been most helpful, to finish of I would like to know, is there anything you can think of that would improve the review and rating system?theplayer234 wrote:You're welcome good sir.The review systems can be improved if you could delete the review instead of just once you post the review you cannot edit or delete it. This is because sometimes, say you play one game and you didn't like it so you made a review saying the game is terrible. Then later on you play the same game and you actually liked the game, I would like to change my negative

30


review to a positive one or vise versa.

As for the rating system, no improvements are needed.

Malagar wrote:Thank you for your assistance, you have given me some very useful data.If you come up with anything else to say about the comments and rating system you are welcome to send it to me.

B.5 Ericho

Malagar wrote: Hello Ericho


Ericho wrote:

Sure.

Malagar wrote:

Thank you, my first questions are:How many of the games you play do you review? And why do you review those games?

Ericho wrote:

I pretty much review everything I play. I play games based on if they're either by someone who I favorited (or am simply a fan of), or if they have medals, or if they have a high score, or were favorited by one of my favorite users.

Malagar wrote:

Why do you review? What is it that makes you want to review games and other submissions on Newgrounds?

Ericho wrote:

I was simply a fan of reviewers in general. I have Leonard Maltin's movie guide and always watched Siskel and Ebert, as well as Internet critics like the Angry Video Game Nerd and Nostalgia Critic. I was such a big fan of this site in general, I decided to have my voice heard. In fact, I actually came here in 2004, but it wasn't until four years later, I became more sociable and got an account. If you notice, I'm trying to catch up by reviewing a lot of things I missed the first time around.

Malagar wrote:

Who do you make the reviews for? Who do you address in your reviews?

31


Ericho wrote:

I guess I make the reviews somewhat for myself or at least because I want to become accomplished on this site like Cyberdevil or XwaynecoltX (who often give me good feedback). I just want other people to be entertained by them or give advice to the authors on how to make something better. I do admit it probably is mostly to establish myself.

Malagar wrote:

Thank you, moving on to the second part:How many of the games you play do you rate? And do you think a games current rating influences the score you give it?

Ericho wrote:

I rate pretty much everything I review too. Yes, their rating does affect my score.

Malagar wrote:

Thank you, you have been most helpful, to finish of I would like to know, is there anything you can think of that would improve the review and rating system?

Ericho wrote:I can't seem to think of anything, no.

B.6 Ryallen

Malagar wrote: Hello Ryallen


Ryallen wrote: Sure. Okay, I will.

Malagar wrote: Thank you, to start of:How many of the games you play do you review? And why do you review those games?

Ryallen wrote: Alright. I don't review a lot, but I review some. Not all of them, by a wide margin, but enough so that I am not just playing them. I review those games if I have something to say. If not, I just play the game and enjoy everything, from it's mistakes to it's money makers.

Malagar wrote:


32


Ryallen wrote:

I usually, if not always, make the reviews for the creator of the game, and I always address the creator of the game if I made the review for the game.

Malagar wrote:

Why do you review games?

Ryallen wrote:

In hope that the maker of the game will see it and make the desired change, or heed the advice that I give to improve a future game that they might make.

Malagar wrote:


Ryallen wrote:

Rate as in use the Pico meter thing? i would say the majority of them. And, yes, the current score of the game usually influences the score that I give it.

Malagar wrote:

Yes, that.How would you say that the current rating influences what you give it? Do you think it generally makes you score the games higher or lower? Also do you generally give them scores close to the current rating, or far away?

Ryallen wrote:

The current score of the game will usually make me give it a higher score, mostly because whenever I see other people's opinions, I think to myself "Hey, there must be a reason why so many people like it so much, and I'm just too dense to see it." I usually give a score that's closer to the average score. If I see nothing wrong with it, or only a little, then it's a 5. If I see only a few glitches, a 4, and so on.

Malagar wrote:

Thank you, you have been most helpful, to finish of I would like to know, is there anything you can think of that would improve the review and rating system?

Ryallen wrote:

Allow people to reply to other people's reviews. Such as when someone writes a review, someone else can click a button and write a reply. Other than that, there isn't anything that I can think of to improve the review system. Although, I do think it would be interesting to see the average score of written reviews vs. the average scores of ones from the meter. Mostly just to see which form of critiquing that people use more.

33


Also, I am happy to help!

Malagar wrote:

Thank you for your assistance, you have given me some very useful data.If you come up with anything else to say about the comments and rating system you are welcome to send it to me.

Ryallen wrote:

Alright, I will. And you are welcome.

B.7 M37h05Malagar wrote:

Hello M37h05


M37h05 wrote:

Sure! Ask away

Malagar wrote:

How many of the games you play do you review? And why do you review those games?

M37h05 wrote:

I review only a select few that I feel compelled to give feedback on, usually a new game just starting out or something that truly moves me to compliment that person.

Malagar wrote:

What is it that moves you to compliment someone?

B.8 CartoonWarStudios

Malagar wrote:

Hello CartoonWarStudios


34


CartoonWarStudios wrote:

Sure thing. Message me the questions when you can.

Malagar wrote:

Thank you, to start with:How many of the games you play do you review? And why do you review those games?


I don't tend to review games that often, but when I do, it's usually because I believe the game deserves praise, or if the creator of the game has asked for feedback and I have a few things to say about what could be improved.

Malagar wrote:



I usually tend to address the uploader/publisher of the game, but if there is a specific aspect of the game I want to talk about, e.g. voice acting I will address the part to the voice actor(s).

Malagar wrote:


B.9 Nintendopowerman

Malagar wrote:

Hello Nintendopowerman


Nintendopowerman wrote:

Sure, ask away.

Malagar wrote:

Thank you, my first questions are:How many of the games you play do you review? And why do you review those games?


35


Well, I review games that I think need to be reviewed, if I have things to say about them, constructive criticism, etc. As I've less time to sit down and play most games, the ones I review are few and far between. I plan to do more, but I focus more on trying to finish a game than critiquing it.Malagar wrote:



I don't make reviews for anyone in particular, and I occasionally address the creator/s.

Malagar wrote:

Do you always focus on criticising the game, or do you ever branch out into other stuff like, for example, walkthroughs or tips for the players?

B.10 Nightstalker36

Malagar wrote:Hello Nightstalker36

I am conducting a survey of the Newgrounds review system, would you be willing to answer a few questions about how and why you review games on this site?Nightstalker36 wrote:

Sure. I'd love to.

Malagar wrote:

Thank you, to start of:How many of the games you play do you review? And why do you review those games?

Nightstalker36 wrote:

I try to review all the games I play to give my two cents and let the designer know the quality of his work. i hate when people are rude in reviews. it's uncalled for.

Malagar wrote:


B.11 danny4kk

Malagar wrote:Hello danny4kk

36


I am conducting a survey of the Newgrounds review system, would you be willing to answer a few questions about how and why you review games on this site?danny4kk wrote:

might I ask what it is for?

But yer shouldn't be a problem :)

Malagar wrote:

Certainly, this interview is to be part of my bachelor in library and information science. So please, give as well thought out and in depth answers as you can.My first questions are:How many of the games you play do you review? And why do you review those games?

danny4kk wrote:

Not many at all, I mostly view and rate, art and audio. I find myself rating games either, when I have uploaded content and desire to compare my upload to that of other peoples at the present time (new content). Or in a situation where I have looked for a specific game in which I desire to play or have thought about implementing similar mechanics in my games during these times I feel it is of little effort to vote and so I do.

When I first joined Newgrounds I went on a voting spree on the art and Audio portals, however, when I discovered your voting power doesn't increase on voting on such content I began voting on a few games but mostly Videos. The reason in which I voted on videos more was the fact that they are much quicker to watch in order to place a fair vote, where as a game requires a lot more testing to do so.

The reason why I vote on such games and videos was because I wanted more voting power, I stopped voting as much when Levels started getting too hard to work through and I didn't have enough time on my hands but also my voting power was barely increasing.

In general, I review games that friends have made, games that I feel are so close to a higher standard margin, games that amaze me, unique games, or addictive games. If I am offended by a game I also rate and comment.

out of the number of games I play which I vote on I would say 3/10 and games I comment & review on 2/10

Malagar wrote:

Who do you make the reviews for? (the author? the general audience? some subgroup of the audience?)

B.12 THEDORE

Malagar wrote:Hello THEDORE

37


I am conducting a survey of the Newgrounds review system, would you be willing to answer a few questions about how and why you review games on this site?Your reply will of course be rendered anonymous.THEDORE wrote:i do it to let everyone know why i think there games rock/suck. people need to know how to make their games not shit.Malagar wrote:Thank you for giving your overall motivation, now:How many of the games you play do you review? And why do you review those games?THEDORE wrote:47, by my channel. games must be known by how cool they are. so i, the red power ranger, will review the FUCk outa those games.Malagar wrote:47, I take it that is the number of game reviews you have made? roughly how many games have you played? And if you have played more than 47 games, then why did you review those games?

Bilag C

38


En række screenshots af Newgrounds, bemærk de er alle, på nær det sidste beskåret for øget læsevenlighed.

39


40


41


42


43


44


45


46


Bilag DCiterede reviews

D.1 Relive Your Life

MissCupcakesRated 5 / 5 stars May 26, 2012

Love at first fight is not realy an ending, but if you become the boy/girl halfthing and wiggle too much, you get a figth with the bully. then when you do nothing you get the archievment.

DoomGalufRated 5 / 5 stars May 23, 2012

Fantastic game. For those who have issue with smashing the x button, don't smash it to fast because it seem like you are holding it so going with a medium-fast speed will be perfect. Look at the animation how fast it move it will indicate you if you smash too fast or to slow

Darkness787Rated 4.5 / 5 stars June 17, 2012

This great work. Especially for 24 days. The rhyming gives it this storybook feel (And probably took a lot of time to perfect.), and the drastic changes from one simple action really remind you of the Butterfly Effect, such as petting a puppy can decide whether you go blind and become a hero or become a model. And the twists of how a good action sometimes leads to a bad ending. (Such as winning 60,000 bucks from the lottery and then getting stabbed.) and bad actions sometimes lead to good endings (Such as stabbing the voo-doo doll in the heart and gaining a rich husband, or having your sister die and say your life is horrible on Dr. Phil leads you to fame and fortune.) And such a good story, with the plot-twists not too far-fetched, but not too boring.

D.2 Pokemon Tower Defense 2

knurdbobRated 5 / 5 stars December 4, 2012

I love the amount of detail put into this game!

47


The only drawback I could find is there isn't any info on the weakness of each type in-game, except by trial and error.

I wish players could versus each other real-time, but I doubt that's possible, anyways just hoping :)

Finally beat the cheating @#%^! in 1v1 mode (that guy with 6 Level 13 pokemon) after many many tries. Experimented with various combinations until I finally beat him with this:Items: Buy as much berries and potions as possible. Equip each pokemon with a berry. Eat potions at low hp. Antidotes may help against Ekans.Pikachu x2 - Level 8 (For Thunder Wave. 1 to defeat Pidgey and another for Butterfree, both weak against Electricity. If you use only 1 Pikachu it will get Blinded by Pidgey's Sand Attack and will lose to Butterfree.)Pidgey - Level 9 (For Gust to counter Bulbasaur and Ekans, both weak against Flying. The max level reachable at this point is 10. Gust is the strongest flying skill obtainable below level 10. After Ekans is defeated, use Pidgey to reduce Butterfree's Accuracy with Sand Attack and weaken it a little with Gust, since Butterfree is also weak against Flying.)Diglett - Level 5 (teach Rock Tomb to it using the TM gotten from beating Brock. Rock Tomb slows and deals Rock damage, which is super effective against Butterfree. Keep using this and Sand Attack against Butterfree, while constantly eating potions to keep Diglett alive. Once slow and blind have reached 6 stacks, let Diglett die and switch to Pikachu to finish it off.)Geodude - Level 5 (to counter Pikachu, since Geodude is immune to Electricity and reduces Normal damage from Quick Attack by 1/2. Mud Slap greatly reduces Electricity damage dealt in case Geodude fails to defeat it.)Bulbasaur - Level 7 (For Leech Seed. Needs at least this to beat Brock. Good against Pikachu, as Electricity is halved, in case Geodude fails to defeat it.)-As for Ratata I used a combination to weaken it with Rock Tombs, Growls, Tail Whips, before killing it.

I don't really get the difference of the Shadow Pidgey from a normal Pidgey tho... I've leveled it a little and the move list seems to be the same...

I discovered an abusable bug. If you recall your pokemon after the opponent attacks, but before the projectile hits, both yours and the opponent's attacks will disappear, but yours will reappear (weirdly enough, from the corner of the screen) after resummoning your pokemon. If your reflexes are fast enough, you can even completely avoid all of your opponent's attack and still dish out damage in between attacks. Only a few moves can't be avoided: Diglett's Arena Trap, Onix's Bind, most debuffing moves, Butterfree's Confusion, etc.

Usually, if the opponent is already affected by Leech Seed, Bulbasaur will not cast it anymore until it expires. However if you use the abuse above before the Leech Seed projectile hits the opponent, you can stack multiple Leech Seeds on your opponent at once. You can then recall Bulbasaur and wait for your opponent to die (which is overpowered as hell).

48


Bilag E

Tabel over resultater af reviewoptælling.

Spil: Reviews 1 2 3 4 2 og 3 2, 3 og 4Ultimate Tank War 84 39 37 5 3 84 42 45Relive Your Life 1196 757 362 51 26 1196 413 439Pokemon Tower Defense 2 420 286 113 7 14 420 120 134UTW & PTD2 504 325 150 12 17 504 162 179I alt 1700 1082 512 63 43 1700

1 2 3 4 2 og 3 2, 3 og 4Ultimate Tank War 84 46.4286 44.0476 5.9524 3.5714 50 53.5714Relive Your Life 1196 63.2943 30.2676 4.2642 2.1739 34.5318 36.7057Pokemon Tower Defense 2 420 68.0952 26.9048 1.6667 3.3333 28.5714 31.9048UTW & PTD2 504 64.4841 29.7619 2.381 3.373 32.1429 35.5159

Bilag FTabel over statistiske oplysninger om de interviewede

49


Forfattere Alder Lokalitet Køn Spilreviews Samlede reviewsthegames8 N/A Ukendt Mand 0 0FrozenFire 21 College Station, Tx Mand 122 704Olmate N/A Ukendt Mand 0 0ConnorUllmann 20 Michigan, US Mand 1 1rekcahdam N/A Ukendt Mand 0 0poxpower 28 Quebec Kvinde 24 90

Gennemsnit 23 24.5 132.5

Reviewere Alder Lokalitet Køn Spilreviews Samlede reviewsShade1337 N/A Ukendt Ukendt 12 12TimLaJoh N/A Ukendt Mand 32 57danny4kk 19 Waels Mand 2 23mitleachim N/A Ukendt Mand 39 39FriendlyGuns N/A Ukendt Ukendt 1 2

legoboy7 N/A Ukendt Mand 1 1VillifiedMofo 20 Ukendt Mand 6 6Vert 30 Ukendt Mand 51 252CartoonWarStudios 14 London, England Mand 65 250Tollo79 19 England Mand 28 107Kenxeus 27 Puerto Rico Mand 218 256THEDORE 25 thortonCO Mand 47 153vegasvlad N/A Ukendt Mand 6 10Bidunke N/A Ukendt Mand 7 49drgcommander N/A Ukendt Mand 6 9bbrake N/A Ukendt Mand 116 132DerTimme 23 Tyskland Mand 4 4Jayu223 N/A Toronto Kvinde 28 43M37h05 20 Ukendt Mand 3 8Troanova 26 Murfreesboro, TN Mand 38 53coolTYLERXXX 16 Ukendt Mand 7 19theplayer234 N/A Ukendt Mand 99 152GameGuy88 N/A Ukendt Mand 3 3Synchr0nized N/A Ukendt Mand 1 3zag 21 Syracuse, NY Kvinde 139 407Shorii 21 Richmond, TX Mand 12 35Darkness787 15 Anchorage, Alaska Mand 1 9NicoSW 14 Santa Fé, Argentina Mand 16 18Th-e N/A Ukendt Mand 212 831markdumanon N/A Ukendt Mand 4 5KaosKahn 29 Londrina, Brazil Mand 12 14Ericho 23 532 Wahoo Road Mand 3652 10083DMTucker N/A Ukendt Mand 1 4MonathinReplis 20 Akron, OH, USA Mand 2 3Shadenius 21 Finland Mand 7 17 50


Spil favorites Samlede favorites Erfaring Stemme kraft Spil udgivet Film udgivet0 0 10 1.5 33 0

26 407 11980 7.48 7 260 0 20 1.98 4 00 0 1090 5.26 9 01 1 10 1.5 1 0

17 81 38021 9.95 36 7

7.333333333 81.5 8521.833333 4.6116666667 15 5.5

Spil favorites Samlede favorites Erfaring Stemme kraft Spil udgivet Film udgivet4 5 20 1.98 0 04 9 280 4.52 0 00 13 280 4.52 2 00 0 40 2.55 0 00 0 10 1.5 0 0

1 1 20 1.98 0 01 1 110 3.6 0 0

118 708 36110 9.81 1 481 1001 5100 6.37 10 2317 34 580 5 0 031 54 6220 6.59 0 061 197 70 3.11 0 0

7 7 110 3.6 0 01 1 260 4.45 0 03 3 30 2.27 0 01 1 10 1.5 0 02 2 40 2.55 0 0

17 28 480 4.92 0 078 753 1400 5.39 0 0

2 4 140 3.82 0 08 8 20 1.98 0 02 13 480 4.92 0 07 7 10 1.5 0 01 1 20 1.98 0 0

32 121 7520 6.82 3 327 71 660 5.05 0 0

1 26 50 2.82 0 025 71 110 3.6 0 0

5 17 5460 6.44 0 00 1 390 4.8 0 00 1 320 4.64 0 0

246 1165 15720 7.94 0 00 0 10 1.5 0 00 0 20 1.98 0 0

23 51 440 4.88 0 0

51


Kunst udgiMusik udgivet Scouted? Svaret0 0 Nej4 2 Ja Nej0 0 Nej3 1 Nej Fuldendt0 1 Nej

31 0 Ja Nej

6.333333 0.6666666667

Kunst udgiMusik udgivet Scouted? Svaret0 0 Nej0 0 Nej

13 0 Nej Delvis0 0 Nej0 0 Nej

0 0 Nej0 0 Nej7 6 Nej Fuldendt9 0 Ja Delvis4 0 Nej Nej0 0 Nej

20 0 Nej Delvis0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Delvis0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Fuldendt0 0 Nej0 0 Nej6 0 Nej Fuldendt0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 1 Fuldendt0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej

52


HareTrinity N/A Ukendt Kvinde 181 286Vorpike N/A Ukendt Mand 253 315Nightstalker36 31 New York Mand 28 54Sp00nKiller N/A Ukendt Mand 1 1CassieRayAnne N/A Ukendt Kvinde 1 1KosovoJeSrbija 33 South Yorkshire Mand 17 17Nintendopowerman N/A Ukendt Mand 11 19MonkeyLaffs N/A Ukendt Mand 1 1flashplayer5 19 Cumbernauld,Scotl and. Mand 16 74lacesoutvic N/A Ukendt Mand 6 7Lolcomputer N/A Ukendt Ukendt 3 7TheSaxSmoker N/A Ukendt Mand 3 12KamenRiderStick 27 United States Mand 49 70Airette 18 Ukendt Kvinde 45 57AZINYE 25 Alabaster. Ala. Mand 158 326TheReviewanator 17 United Kingdom Mand 13 13TitanAura 23 Ukendt Mand 16 87kmg90 23 Wisconsin Mand 7 31LeroyThad N/A Ukendt Mand 10 11trampus N/A Ukendt Mand 26 29

ShadowofSin 28 Pennsylvania, USA Mand 5 9Ryallen 17 Ukendt Mand 21 146IcYPyRo23 20 Ukendt Mand 23 23SharpNomo N/A Ukendt Mand 61 77QueenOfTheTwinTails N/A Ukendt Kvinde 2 3batosuai 23 Fort Myers, FL Mand 40 66

Gennemsnit 22.09 94.774 238.919

53


6 12 560 4.99 0 0119 173 1115 5.27 0 0

19 58 1550 5.44 0 00 0 10 1.5 0 01 2 10 1.5 0 0

39 41 290 4.55 0 012 22 160 3.96 0 0

0 0 10 1.5 0 03 11 2170 5.65 0 60 8 60 2.97 0 08 16 50 2.82 0 0

10 10 10 1.5 0 051 458 170 4.03 0 0

0 0 80 3.25 0 02 35 740 5.09 0 00 0 20 1.98 0 05 73 26480 9.02 0 0

12 24 3600 6.04 0 010 10 30 2.27 0 0

0 0 10 1.5 0 0

0 2 60 2.97 0 028 71 215 4.26 0 0

3 3 10 1.5 0 020 43 290 4.55 0 0

1 18 20 1.98 0 015 53 1260 5.33 0 0

54


0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Delvis0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Delvis0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 1 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej

0 0 Nej0 0 Fuldendt0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej0 0 Nej

55


56


57


58


59


60

Documents

Newgrounds reviewsystem - Forskning - Det ...pure.iva.dk/files/35351111/Opgaven.docx · Web viewDa jeg begyndte vurderingen af reviewene brugte jeg den metode, jeg kom dog rimelig