FOUR STARS...FOR WHAT ??

author=Liberty
Why not just use comments instead then? I mean, all that's different in your version is being able to rate a game - everything else (no MS, shorter reviews) is already included in comment sections.

It was more for a way to even out scores and encourage more feedback. Plus, the developer could easily view feedback via reviews (even if they were small) which is probably more efficient than digging through pages of comments.

But if the mods aren't on board with it, it'll probably never happen.

"Mini-reviews" sounds like a good idea. Most people want feedback, and thank people even for bad reviews. Making that easier should be encouraged. But there are possibilities for abuse, I guess.

author=kentona
Super Reviewers
While we love that a few of us have taken the time to write dozens of reviews, just try to keep in mind that what is being reflected here is an increase in enthusiasm, and not necessarily wisdom. Take any reviews from our super reviewers with a grain of salt, and don't get all up in arms if one of them gives you a poor review.

Lol. I love this piece of golden wisdom from kentona. Usually I equate lots of reviews to having been experienced in the genre and know what's good and bad, but I figure that sometimes even players who've played a lot of games don't even know what the heck a good game is. Rating games for "oh, this game had a nice battle system but x-and-y battle system I didn't like because personal preferences, or maybe it was OK, but idk. 3/5".

author=kentona
Deliberate Manipulation
Since we give any member the freedom to submit reviews, our site is prone to direct manipulation of scores. Members can get friends to give their games glowing reviews,

I know that one first-hand. I'm not gonna say who, but some people just aren't honest when it comes to this. Dear Lord, have mercy on these people.

author=kentona
1) More reviews
This one is pretty obvious, but it needs to be said. More reviews mitigate the inherent bias, especially the "merely satisfactory" reviews.

I agree. More reviews are better.

author=kentona
2) More Reviewers
Another "duh" suggestion, but also needs to be said. More reviewers will help reduce the misperception of super reviewers as de facto experts.

But the more reviewers there are, the more super reviewers they'll be, so that won't solve much. Some people just like to write a lot of reviews, OK? Next thing we'll be reviewing reviews and reviewers, and then reviewing the reviews of our reviews.

author=kentona
3) More ways or types of Feedback
We could use more ways to recommend games, or give our impression of games than just the two ways we have now.

Now this is a valid idea. This is why I think the user rating idea is so potent - is because it's another way to judge a game.

You might also have "sanctioned" reviews from dedicated reviewers that count as "critic scores" much like the review writers from several sites, and then aggregate those scores. Giving reviewers a more continuous scale for rating games might help, for example being able to give a game 3.8 instead of 3.5. It will create a more precise way of evaluating games imo.

An Impression is a watered down review with a score, a short blurb and an indication of how much you've experienced the game.

Can we please please please implement Impressions? This sounds like the answer to all things. Perhaps this was actually scoring for reviews, but maybe on a smaller scale. Something like an Amazon review or something, where you can write a short blurb but don't have to write a lot. It could be integrated into the comments section.

I just think we need a more flexible way of evaluating games than having to write gosh darn essays for your rating to count. People who can't "write" have just as valid an opinion as those who can. Let's give them a voice.

I know I'm sounding condescending but it's true.

...Which part of 'currently reviews are 300 characters' did you not understand? Do you know how long 300 characters is? It's about three sentences. If you can't be fucked to write three sentences about a game you just played why the hell are you even bothering to say anything?! That's just crazy, really.


See the above? 305 characters. Currently (and I'm working on getting that upped atm) that is how long a review legit has to be to make it onto the site. Seriously, all we ask is that you make an effort to write well and at least 300 characters worth of content. If you can't do that why bother?

Might as well get them in while they're viable, I guess. Pretty sure the amount will be upped pretty soon.

You know, knowing it's gonna get raised up, I might actually whip up a template so that people can actually write a semi-decent review when the limit is raised (I'm almost 100% sure it was supposed to be words but someone messed up ;p ) So yeah, I'll look into at least providing a template that people can fill instead of complaining. I mean, I write long-ass reviews when I do them, but even I use a template of sorts to do so.

It is supposed to be 300 words but no-one actually double-checked the description in the submission page which actually reads 300 characters. Of course, we only just twigged so submissions staff have been operating under the 300 words mark this whole time (since it's what was our ideal length in the times we've discussed reviews).

It'll probably be fixed within the next day or so, but for the moment 300 characters is what it says, so...


Oh, but before you go giving 5 stars to every project ever, do keep in mind that for high and low end scores you have to make your argument as to why you gave perfect/terrible scoring. We won't just accept a 5 star review that reads something like "this game is so great i love it to bits it really is cool and the graphics are awesome i wish i could make gam like dis yo"

You actually need to explain your reason for that high/low score otherwise, blasting will occur (uh, not by mods but by peers. Do we need more drama?) Please, do keep that in mind. (You have no idea how many reviews we get that are just like that, and most of the time they're 5-star ones, meaning that most games would be in excess of 4 stars if we let them through. No seriously, I'm not joking here. People do get lazy and just give the highest score just because it was the first game they played.)

ITT: People asking for the requirement to be lowered. Requirements gets raised instead.


On a more serious note, I think that rules about the length are a bit silly. Like if any reviewer that actually wants to seriously review a game would even count the number of characters/words. Only people wanting to abuse it will actually take care they are still within the rules.

Requirement should rather be about the content and not the length.

That's nice but we don't see any of these so-called great written reviews of 100-300 words in the queue. Only the lazy ones. Perhaps write some good short reviews and we'd consider lessening the amount necessary? You want to make a point? Prove it. Prove that -300 word reviews can be as good as those +300 words.

It's better to have objective rules instead of subjective ones, though, that way no one on staff can be accused of treating users unfairly or playing favorites.

It's possible to write a bad review of any length, but it's extremely difficult and bordering on impossible to write a good review of less than three paragraphs. There's a lot of information that needs to be conveyed in a review for it to actually be useful to anyone. Anyone who's a good enough writer to do so in less than half a page is also a good enough writer to write a little more.

If you're not a good enough communicator to express exactly why a game deserves the score you gave it, then no one cares what score you gave it, or benefits from knowing that score. Different players are looking for different things, and there are way more than enough people willing and able to clearly describe what makes a game good or bad in different areas.

I actually think it would be useful if each review were capable of giving a number of stars to graphics, story, gameplay, audio, and maybe interface, plus a final score that isn't an average. I mean, that's how most reviews actually give out scores, right? Clearly it's something a lot of people want to know. Why aren't all those numbers actually recorded separately by the site?

author=RyaReisender
What about my minimum acceptable example on page 2?

author=RyaReisender
Graphics 3.5/5 - Uses default RTP, but mapping is nice so I'll put it above average.
Music 1/5 - Game didn't have any music or sound effects and I felt it could really need some.
Gameplay 2/5 - Gameplay outside of combat is nice, but battles are really boring and the balance is horrible.
Story 4.5/5 - Really interesting story, it was probably the only thing that really kept me going.

Total 3/5 - Game is mostly ruined by lack of sound and really tedious and unbalanced battles, but the story is really good and the mapping is nice. Together it adds up to average.

This is more info than some reviews give, but I think people really want to know what makes each of these areas good or bad in more detail. If you can't at least write a paragraph for each one instead of just a sentence, you don't really have anything to say, and you aren't really conveying enough information to help anyone decide whether to try the game.

The text is way more important than the score. I've read reviews that gave games a score of 2.0 or less, yet still convinced me that I needed to play the game, because all the things they were complaining about were either things I didn't mind or actually enjoyed.