Normally, getting a lot of ratings from players should only affect how much feedback you receive. If your game can’t be played on the web, then naturally fewer people will try it, and you’ll get less feedback. That would make sense, because it would basically mean: “If you want feedback, you should make a game that people can easily access.”
But in this jam, ratings also affect your score. This shows two possible things:
-
“In Brackeys Game Jams, making your game easily accessible is an important part of the challenge, and if you can’t do that, it’s your problem.”
-
“The lack of a jury vote in Brackeys Game Jams is a flaw in the jam itself, and it should be fixed.”
So it all comes down to what the actual purpose of the jam is. If the goal is to have a fair rating system, then the current setup isn’t fair. If the goal is to encourage easily accessible games, then that logic doesn’t fully make sense either.
I think their main goal is to get people to interact with each other and try out each other’s games. That’s why, when joining this jam, making a web-playable version of your game is the smarter choice—if your aim is to get more ratings. And if your only aim is feedback, then making it playable on the web still makes the most sense.