Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
SUGGESTION: RATINGS FOR EACH GAMES
Posts
thatbennyguy
1612
thatbennyguy
View playlists
CloseI suggest that we are able to quickly rate games without reviewing them. This will give a more accurate reflection of the game's quality rather than a few reviews that may not reflect the game fully. This will also provide us with a ranking system to rank the best RPG Maker games of the month, or year, or of all time. An example: newgrounds.com rating system. Provides much more easier and accurate indicator of how valuable a game is, and how generally well-accepted it is.
I suggest a scale of 0-5, where the scores are aggregated and placed somewhere on the game page.
I suggest a scale of 0-5, where the scores are aggregated and placed somewhere on the game page.
How about you just try the game out for yourself? I rarely ever go on what other people think when downloading an RM game. I check the screenshots and hit download if I like what I see.
I think this would be a bad idea in the long run.
I think this would be a bad idea in the long run.
Dyhalto
7536
The Newgrounds system is actually really shallow. The number of people willing to take the time to give a fair rating are grossly outnumbered by the people who just go "this sucks : 0" or "I like it : 5".
I say leave the ratings for people willing to write a review.
I say leave the ratings for people willing to write a review.
author=Dyhalto
The number of people willing to take the time to give a fair rating are grossly outnumbered by the people who just go "this sucks : 0" or "I like it : 5".
This is sadly true.. I think that's why five-star rating systems are often thrown out the window for a simple "that looks nice! Thumbs up!" or "like" system. I guess you don't have to play a game to know it looks good (from screenshots) and think more people should look at it/give it some hype, but you NEED to play it before you can review it. Like games that aren't out yet: before I even played the (very short) demo of World's Dawn, I'd still have thumbs-up'd the hell out of it, but I wouldn't be able to write a review for obvious reasons.
In that same respect, I'd probably buy a product depending on good reviews it had received instead of looking at how many likes it had on Facebook or whatever.
The other thing to keep in mind with Newgrounds's content is that it is usually quickly consumable. They are usually quick little games, short videos or songs and can be consumed in a matter of minutes. Compare that to even the shortest RPGs.
You're to young to RMN to not remember that rating style being here. Besides this would absolutely kill the amount of reviews that come in as well as encourage bias and ill will(lol) towards peoples games.
The problem with most rating systems is that they can be easily abused or manipulated or however you wanna call it, so the only possible thing left to do is to minimize the potential damages. The current rating system makes it easier to monitor these instances and to act in consequence. Remember the Final Tear 3 review fiasco? Revoking the dishonestly achieved rating of a game would have been a logistic nightmare with your average rating system in place.
...However, I still believe that leaving the rating of games only to reviewers sets the bar too high for most of us. I, for example, would rather prefer to write a text wall of feedback in the comments section of a game rather than write a review. I don't feel like I have the needed writing skills to make an interesting read for potential players, (A quality I believe is fundamental for reviews) but I don't think this makes me any less qualified to actually rate a game after playing it.
So, I think it's necessary to have a more accessible rating system. So, how about this? Allow testers to rate games. I always felt that a list of the games you've tested in your profile was silly, but this would actually expand the relevance of this feature. The cons are obvious but I think this is still a very controllable way to handle dubious ratings, eg. the staff can revoke ratings from duplicated accounts and such... Another idea is to extend this privilege to trusted users only or people in general that involve themselves with the community (testers, LPers, etc.) to prevent random people from rating games indiscriminately.
...However, I still believe that leaving the rating of games only to reviewers sets the bar too high for most of us. I, for example, would rather prefer to write a text wall of feedback in the comments section of a game rather than write a review. I don't feel like I have the needed writing skills to make an interesting read for potential players, (A quality I believe is fundamental for reviews) but I don't think this makes me any less qualified to actually rate a game after playing it.
So, I think it's necessary to have a more accessible rating system. So, how about this? Allow testers to rate games. I always felt that a list of the games you've tested in your profile was silly, but this would actually expand the relevance of this feature. The cons are obvious but I think this is still a very controllable way to handle dubious ratings, eg. the staff can revoke ratings from duplicated accounts and such... Another idea is to extend this privilege to trusted users only or people in general that involve themselves with the community (testers, LPers, etc.) to prevent random people from rating games indiscriminately.
Facebook status: "Hey all, could you go here and rate this game 5 for me? Thx (insert link)"
Incidentally, no one seems to care enough to do this with RRR lol
Incidentally, no one seems to care enough to do this with RRR lol
TheNecromancer
3160
author=alterego
I don't feel like I have the needed writing skills to make an interesting read for potential players, (A quality I believe is fundamental for reviews) but I don't think this makes me any less qualified to actually rate a game after playing it.
Someone should start a business to write up reviews based on the comments from users like you :p It's a good point, though.
Time is the biggest factor preventing me from writing reviews. The time it takes to write a good review and the time it takes to actually finish a game u.u something I rarely do any more. I would still like to rate a game.
eplipswich
2728
We can always use the "like or dislike" method. Of course, that only gauges the popularity and not the quality of the game, but hey, it's still a start.
If at any one point you don't like it anymore, maybe have the option to unlike/like at any one point instead of permanently liking it. Just saying.
If at any one point you don't like it anymore, maybe have the option to unlike/like at any one point instead of permanently liking it. Just saying.
Darken
3952
author=eplipswich
that only gauges the popularity and not the quality of the game, but hey, it's still a start.
its called buzz score. post on a gamepage saying you like it.
author=thatbennyguy
I suggest that we are able to quickly rate games without reviewing them. This will give a more accurate reflection of the game's quality rather than a few reviews that may not reflect the game fully. This will also provide us with a ranking system to rank the best RPG Maker games of the month, or year, or of all time. An example: newgrounds.com rating system. Provides much more easier and accurate indicator of how valuable a game is, and how generally well-accepted it is.
I suggest a scale of 0-5, where the scores are aggregated and placed somewhere on the game page.
This is a really terrible idea for all of the reasons that everyone has said. Sorry, benny.
We don't have a large enough community to prevent greifers from being statistically significant.
RMN isn't especially large, but I might argue that no one has a significantly large community to prevent griefers from being statistically significant...as the size of the community increases, so does the percentage of douchebags.
author=Fallen-Griever
Besides, if you aren't able to properly convey your thoughts in a form suitable for a review (or you don't have enough thoughts to make up a review) then you probably haven't thought about the game long enough to give it a score.
Heh; I agree to an extent with that, but the truth is that ratings and reviews are two different things. Is like if I asked someone to capture in a drawing the personality of a character. Maybe they have the right idea for it, but do they have the skills to put it on paper? Good writing is a skill too, and some people are better at it than others. The idea is to allow people to rate games for doing what they feel more comfortable with. (testing, LPing, etc.) ...Many would think that this will affect reviews and they're probably right, but overall I think we'd see an increase in people willing to involve themselves with the community in other ways.
