{"author_link":"\/users\/blubberquark","author_name":"blubberquark","author_uid":"blubberquark","comments":[],"epoch":1778572146,"event":"LD59","format":"md","ldjam_node_id":432712,"likes":10,"metadata":{"p_key":"97046","p_author":"blubberquark","p_authorkey":"1008003","p_urlkey":"312697","p_title":"I Don't Understand Theme Ratings","p_cat":"LDJam ","p_event":"LD59","p_time":"1778572146","p_likes":"10","p_comments":"0","p_status":"WAYBACK","us_key":"1008003","us_name":"blubberquark","us_username":"blubberquark","event_start":"1776470400","event_key":"113","event_name":"Ludum Dare 59"},"node":{"_collation":{"body_sanitizer":"TextUtils::SanitizeHTML via existing importer","event":"LD59","removed_author":false},"_superparent":424249,"_trust":9,"author":8003,"body":"This isn't the first time I'm saying this. I might even have said it on the old site.\n\nThere's a problem with the rating categories that Ludum Dare has. To a certain extent, all rating systems have this problem, but Ludum Dare is *especially* susceptible. If you look at \"Fun\", it's at least self-explanatory and obviously subjective. I might even call it intersubjectively subjective. My idea of fun is different from your idea of fun, but we all have an intuitive idea of fun. I use my fun, you use your fun, and then we vote. There's no objective measure of how much fun I had, and so I'll just wing it. Nobody would ever play a game and say: \"I had no fun at all, it was actually tedious, not merely boring, but a painful slog with no high points. Objectively speaking though, this game is high in fun, and I think I should rate it five out of five stars on the Fun scale.\"\n\nWith all due respect to Raph Koster, nobody thinks about fun that way, at least in Ludum Dare. Nobody applies *A Theory of Fun for Game Design* to game jam ratings. and I think, again, with all due respect and without trying to be presumptuous, that Raph Koster would agree. I mean, I don't know him personally, but his book communicates his idea really well, I think, and that should count for something.\n\n\"Overall\" is at the other end of the spectrum: It's not universal, but I think that when jammers rate a game in \"Overall\", they often disagree with one another about the rubric, but they *try* to apply an objective rubric. It could be either about balancing the parts of the whole, the graphics, audio, narrative, and so on, or it could be about all the effort put into the game, and all the game design that is apparent from playing, even if the game design didn't turn into fun, or it could be about an appreciation of the game even if you personally didn't like it and didn't have fun, because you personally hate management sims or horror games or visual novels and just can't get into them. It just feels to me, from my experience with Ludum Dare and from talking to other developers, that everybody is trying to be the most objective.\n\nThen there's \"Audio\", \"Graphics\", and \"Humour\". There is no clear rubric for grading, and some games have no audio, some games have no jokes, and some games even have no \"graphics\" in the narrow sense. Some people give low grades for simple, not very elaborate graphics, and some people give five stars if the simple graphics are what's called for. I am not griping about by own pixel art not getting high ratings here. I made simple pixel art on a white background to evoke a feeling of grid squares on a paper map. You're not looking at the battlefield. You're looking at a map in an office. If I had had a much, much bigger budget in terms of time\/money\/staffing than a solo jam allows, I could have beaten the player over the head with a view of the map in an office, with real people who look very different from the pixel art style, analysts and suits and ties. But I'm happy with my 3 stars. I put about 3 stars of work into my graphics, and I can see how others have made graphics deserving of 4 or 5 stars. But when I look at my game, I don't want to make the graphics better, you know? I think they are about as good as they need to be. I should really have been working on all the other stuff. I get it.\n\nBut his is not about me. Some people rate games with more elaborate graphics higher, and some people rate games five out of five when the graphics \"fit\". The same goes for music. Different people apply a different rubric to \"Audio\". Different people also apply a different rubric to \"Humour\". Does a game get more stars for having more jokes? Does a horror game with some subtle background jokes\/references get two stars? Is dry wit worth fewer stars than slapstick? Humour is highly subjective, but it's not really clear how you should rate a game on humour. I know that \"Mood\" and \"Humour\" are ways for games to be recognised for being engaging when they are well-made but aren't, strictly speaking, \"Fun\", but this creates problems. I always think I should just opt out of these categories, but I never do.\n\nAll of the above was just to give you some perspective. \"Fun\" is subjective, but there's a agreement about what it means and how you should rate it. \"Overall\" is tough to grasp, but the variance is probably on par with \"Fun\". The others all have their own corner cases.\n\nAnd then there's \"Theme\": Some people rate games highly for sticking close to the theme, and some people rate games highly for getting as far away from the theme as possible. If you're doing something \"clever\" with the theme, by interpreting the letters of the theme as a license plate or the designation of a robot, or by interpreting \"Beneath the Surface\" as \"Ben Eath, The Surf Ace\", you will win some favour with some people for being clever, creative, and unique, even though there were at least three games that used the exact name \"Ben Eath, The Surf Ace\" modulo punctuation and capitalisation (lord, afal, goerp), at least two more that had a variation on that title, and at least five just contained \"Surf Ace\". I picked that one in particular because it *is* a clever way to interpret it, it just turned out not to be very *unique*.\n\nThe \"Theme\" category, perhaps inevitably, sometimes rewards people for doing the most obvious thing, for sticking to the theme, at least if their take on the theme feels \"comprehensive\". It also rewards people for getting as far away from the theme as possible. I would expect some games to have a \"Theme\" ratings distribution with peaks at 5 and 2, because the game uses the theme as a loose inspiration for doing something unique.\n\nPersonally, I don't really like to participate when the theme is too similar to a theme I have already done, like Depths\/Beneath the Surface, Collector\/The More You Have, Tiny Creatures\/Tiny World, Limited Space\/Running Out Of Space or Delay the Inevitable\/Advancing Wall of Doom. But when I do, and I see a game that fits a *dissimilar* theme better then the current theme, for example when I see a game that fits the theme \"Unstable\" or \"Depths\" better than \"Signal\" for this Ludum Dare 59, then I deduct points.\n\nEvery time I do that, I see somebody else in the comments praising the game for doing something totally unexpected with the theme. They applaud the game and the dev for doing something nobody else thought of.\n\nMaybe I'm overthinking this. Maybe the rating categories aren't supposed to produce any kind of consensus. Maybe it's a good thing that the theme category has some people interpreting it the opposite way from the way I interpret it in some cases. Maybe the theme category is supposed to be polarising. Maybe this is all just in the comments, the part I see, and the ratings have less disagreement and less variance. Or maybe I'm the odd one out.\n\nThis time I have rated 6 games at or below 2 stars in \"Theme\", and one of the games I rated had opted out of the category completely. In every case when I rated a game really low, it wasn't because the game was a straightforward and boring take on the theme, like something about signal processing, but because it was a generic game that might not really have had a connection to the theme at all.","comments":14,"comments-timestamp":"2026-05-13T10:26:41Z","created":"2026-05-10T14:46:14Z","files":[],"files-timestamp":0,"id":432712,"love":10,"love-timestamp":"2026-05-16T18:56:55Z","meta":[],"modified":"2026-05-16T18:56:55Z","name":"I Don't Understand Theme Ratings","node-timestamp":"2026-05-12T07:49:06Z","parent":430551,"parents":[1,5,9,424249,430551],"path":"\/events\/ludum-dare\/59\/signals-intelligence\/i-dont-understand-theme-ratings","published":"2026-05-12T07:49:06Z","scope":"public","slug":"i-dont-understand-theme-ratings","subsubtype":"","subtype":"","type":"post","version":1375411},"node_metadata":{"n_key":"432712","n_urlkey":"312697","n_parent":"430551","n_path":"\/events\/ludum-dare\/59\/signals-intelligence\/i-dont-understand-theme-ratings","n_slug":"i-dont-understand-theme-ratings","n_type":"post","n_subtype":"","n_subsubtype":"","n_author":"8003","n_created":"1778424374","n_modified":"1778957815","n_version":"1375411","n_status":"WAYBACK"},"source_url":"https:\/\/ldjam.com\/events\/ludum-dare\/59\/signals-intelligence\/i-dont-understand-theme-ratings","text":"This isn't the first time I'm saying this. I might even have said it on the old site.\n\nThere's a problem with the rating categories that Ludum Dare has. To a certain extent, all rating systems have this problem, but Ludum Dare is *especially* susceptible. If you look at \"Fun\", it's at least self-explanatory and obviously subjective. I might even call it intersubjectively subjective. My idea of fun is different from your idea of fun, but we all have an intuitive idea of fun. I use my fun, you use your fun, and then we vote. There's no objective measure of how much fun I had, and so I'll just wing it. Nobody would ever play a game and say: \"I had no fun at all, it was actually tedious, not merely boring, but a painful slog with no high points. Objectively speaking though, this game is high in fun, and I think I should rate it five out of five stars on the Fun scale.\"\n\nWith all due respect to Raph Koster, nobody thinks about fun that way, at least in Ludum Dare. Nobody applies *A Theory of Fun for Game Design* to game jam ratings. and I think, again, with all due respect and without trying to be presumptuous, that Raph Koster would agree. I mean, I don't know him personally, but his book communicates his idea really well, I think, and that should count for something.\n\n\"Overall\" is at the other end of the spectrum: It's not universal, but I think that when jammers rate a game in \"Overall\", they often disagree with one another about the rubric, but they *try* to apply an objective rubric. It could be either about balancing the parts of the whole, the graphics, audio, narrative, and so on, or it could be about all the effort put into the game, and all the game design that is apparent from playing, even if the game design didn't turn into fun, or it could be about an appreciation of the game even if you personally didn't like it and didn't have fun, because you personally hate management sims or horror games or visual novels and just can't get into them. It just feels to me, from my experience with Ludum Dare and from talking to other developers, that everybody is trying to be the most objective.\n\nThen there's \"Audio\", \"Graphics\", and \"Humour\". There is no clear rubric for grading, and some games have no audio, some games have no jokes, and some games even have no \"graphics\" in the narrow sense. Some people give low grades for simple, not very elaborate graphics, and some people give five stars if the simple graphics are what's called for. I am not griping about by own pixel art not getting high ratings here. I made simple pixel art on a white background to evoke a feeling of grid squares on a paper map. You're not looking at the battlefield. You're looking at a map in an office. If I had had a much, much bigger budget in terms of time\/money\/staffing than a solo jam allows, I could have beaten the player over the head with a view of the map in an office, with real people who look very different from the pixel art style, analysts and suits and ties. But I'm happy with my 3 stars. I put about 3 stars of work into my graphics, and I can see how others have made graphics deserving of 4 or 5 stars. But when I look at my game, I don't want to make the graphics better, you know? I think they are about as good as they need to be. I should really have been working on all the other stuff. I get it.\n\nBut his is not about me. Some people rate games with more elaborate graphics higher, and some people rate games five out of five when the graphics \"fit\". The same goes for music. Different people apply a different rubric to \"Audio\". Different people also apply a different rubric to \"Humour\". Does a game get more stars for having more jokes? Does a horror game with some subtle background jokes\/references get two stars? Is dry wit worth fewer stars than slapstick? Humour is highly subjective, but it's not really clear how you should rate a game on humour. I know that \"Mood\" and \"Humour\" are ways for games to be recognised for being engaging when they are well-made but aren't, strictly speaking, \"Fun\", but this creates problems. I always think I should just opt out of these categories, but I never do.\n\nAll of the above was just to give you some perspective. \"Fun\" is subjective, but there's a agreement about what it means and how you should rate it. \"Overall\" is tough to grasp, but the variance is probably on par with \"Fun\". The others all have their own corner cases.\n\nAnd then there's \"Theme\": Some people rate games highly for sticking close to the theme, and some people rate games highly for getting as far away from the theme as possible. If you're doing something \"clever\" with the theme, by interpreting the letters of the theme as a license plate or the designation of a robot, or by interpreting \"Beneath the Surface\" as \"Ben Eath, The Surf Ace\", you will win some favour with some people for being clever, creative, and unique, even though there were at least three games that used the exact name \"Ben Eath, The Surf Ace\" modulo punctuation and capitalisation (lord, afal, goerp), at least two more that had a variation on that title, and at least five just contained \"Surf Ace\". I picked that one in particular because it *is* a clever way to interpret it, it just turned out not to be very *unique*.\n\nThe \"Theme\" category, perhaps inevitably, sometimes rewards people for doing the most obvious thing, for sticking to the theme, at least if their take on the theme feels \"comprehensive\". It also rewards people for getting as far away from the theme as possible. I would expect some games to have a \"Theme\" ratings distribution with peaks at 5 and 2, because the game uses the theme as a loose inspiration for doing something unique.\n\nPersonally, I don't really like to participate when the theme is too similar to a theme I have already done, like Depths\/Beneath the Surface, Collector\/The More You Have, Tiny Creatures\/Tiny World, Limited Space\/Running Out Of Space or Delay the Inevitable\/Advancing Wall of Doom. But when I do, and I see a game that fits a *dissimilar* theme better then the current theme, for example when I see a game that fits the theme \"Unstable\" or \"Depths\" better than \"Signal\" for this Ludum Dare 59, then I deduct points.\n\nEvery time I do that, I see somebody else in the comments praising the game for doing something totally unexpected with the theme. They applaud the game and the dev for doing something nobody else thought of.\n\nMaybe I'm overthinking this. Maybe the rating categories aren't supposed to produce any kind of consensus. Maybe it's a good thing that the theme category has some people interpreting it the opposite way from the way I interpret it in some cases. Maybe the theme category is supposed to be polarising. Maybe this is all just in the comments, the part I see, and the ratings have less disagreement and less variance. Or maybe I'm the odd one out.\n\nThis time I have rated 6 games at or below 2 stars in \"Theme\", and one of the games I rated had opted out of the category completely. In every case when I rated a game really low, it wasn't because the game was a straightforward and boring take on the theme, like something about signal processing, but because it was a generic game that might not really have had a connection to the theme at all.","title":"I Don't Understand Theme Ratings","wayback_source":[]}