[Jihgfed Pumpkinhead]

     At what point of a game's development is it proper to write a review for it? And if a game is incomplete, do you give it a rating based on what you think the game will be when complete, or based on its current status? On the one hand, you want to review even a very incomplete game sometimes so that you can give the developer advice or ideas; on the other, it seems a little unfair to rate games that don't even have battle systems yet on the same scale as those which are finished products.
     Might it be possible to change the system so that we can review a game without rating it? Or are we expected to review/rate a game early on and then edit our review/rating with each subsequent version of the game?

[Y treefingers Y]

or make a "Send in 1st version" section ( for the developer to get tips if they need it)

[Bjorn]

Interesting questions. In my opinion, a game should be rated to it's current status, as that's what people are interested in when they are considering to download the game. Also, I think it's not right reviewing a game that is clearly lacking important parts and still in development. You will either rate it too high for its current status, or you will have rated it too low when the game is updated and you might not be around to adjust your review then.

There might indeed be cases where you want to comment on the game without adding a rating. There might also be cases in which the author of the game considers his game (still) unsuitable for rating. Because of this, I am now considering adding both a variable to each game indicating whether a rating can be given in a review and the possibily of reviewing without rating.

I would like more people's opinions and ideas about this though, so please comment.