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)
FOUR STARS...FOR WHAT ??
Posts
Desertopa
775
Desertopa
View playlists
Closeauthor=Raveauthor=LockeZLockez, learn basic statistics, mostly that funny thing called statistical significance so you can see why asking 1000 people to see which political party (example) is more popular is better than asking 10 people same thing.
That's not more accurate. That's just more people.
A survey population of ten people can be better than a population of a thousand, if the ten people are selected through a properly randomized process and the thousand people are subject to a sampling bias.
Randomization isn't the one and only magic ingredient here though. What you really want is to ensure that the overall results of your testing method are determined by the answer you're trying to discover (such as how popular a political candidate is, or how entertaining a video game is,) rather than something else.
With a large enough random sample size, noise tends to cancel out and you can extract a signal from the overall feedback. But in the case of most games on this site, decreasing the barrier to rating isn't going to net you a large sample size, random or otherwise. Requiring reviews is another method of filtering signal from noise, by blocking out ratings which are clearly given for some random dumb reason which won't apply to most players.
author=Raveauthor=LockeZLockez, learn basic statistics, mostly that funny thing called statistical significance so you can see why asking 1000 people to see which political party (example) is more popular is better than asking 10 people same thing.
That's not more accurate. That's just more people.
This always has been and always will be utter nonsense. Asking 1000 people instead of 10 is never better. 1) Such statistics are easily manipulated to suit the purposes of the study. This is regularly done. 2) If you're actually stupid enough to ask a cashier at McDonalds (who will be included in the larger statistical analysis) to give his educated opinion on foreign policy, you deserve whatever answer you get. There's a basic rule of thumb here. When we expand our statistical analysis on any topic, we make it harder to find people who have anything relevant to say, therefore we fill up the empty space with people who don't give two shits. This leads us to three. 3) People AREN'T smart. Have you ever read sites that gather up statistical analyses? Most American's can't even tell you who the first president of the United States is! This is according to statistics! Yet, I'll bet everyone on this thread could tell me.
You think getting a bunch of people is a good way to gauge anything? No! Getting educated people who understand what they're looking at is a good way. Just getting a bunch of people and asking their opinion...you do realize what would happen if you took 1000 random people, simply opened up your house to them, and ignored the consequences? The same with asking their opinion. The more people you ask, the dumber they are. "Statistical significance" is so much bullshit that creates false readings analysts can twist to suit their needs.
LockeZ is right, hands down.
pianotm is right. I'll be honest, most of the time on this forum I usually discredit the opinion of people that haven't made good games. Which means I also discredit myself.
author=CashmereCat
pianotm is right. I'll be honest, most of the time on this forum I usually discredit the opinion of people that haven't made good games. Which means I also discredit myself.
This is why the light bulb over my head is flashing :)
Let the people who actually make the games review them for the developer to get good feedback to improve on his/her game.
Let the summary, screen pics and post section help a player decide if he wants to try playing the game.
author=CashmereCat
pianotm is right. I'll be honest, most of the time on this forum I usually discredit the opinion of people that haven't made good games. Which means I also discredit myself.
Oh, old "If you can't make something better, shut up" bullshit? That's nice, that's really really nice.
The fact that there are people with uneducated opinions is, well, a fact. But this is something that has been acknowledged from the start. The purpose of this exchange -and something that everyone is so conveniently ignoring- is to figure out ways in which we can sweep those people under the rug and still benefit from having a wider pool of opinions. Quality control and accessibility are not mutually exclusive - We can have both. All I want is for you to lower your shields a little and entertain this idea.
Besides, pointing out the failure of such systems in other sites is not really evidence that the exact same thing will happen here. The thing about any big site you can think of is that, well, they're essentially big businesses. Rmn is more like a Mom and pop store; A close knitted community, not too big yet to be as apathetic, not too small not to take itself seriously. I truly believe we could pull something like that here... This "people aren't smart" approach is just not healthy, no matter how true it may be. =/
But what I find the oddest thing is that the argument against this idea is the prevention of something that already can and does happen. For example "I died to the X boss. Two stars!" is a review for Star Stealing Prince. The review paid marginal, begrudgingly attention to the game's merits and just larked on how the game was "unplayable" and stuff. Yet, despite this flaw, the review still got through. *shrug*
Now, the benefit of games like Star Stealing Prince is that they have reached a huge audience, and among all those people -among that sort of popularity- it's only natural that the number of people willing to review the game will statistically increase, and help offset the disagreeable opinions. But this is a luxury not every game can afford. And it has been tried and proved that neither you or I will go out of our ways to review every game we have played... So, I think there's something to be gained from this.
But anyway, I think I've already said everything I wanted to say at this point. We can always follow this discussion at a latter date... xD
Edit: "Count" yes, but that's not exactly review material. The idea is to allow more voices to "count" but without compromising reviews.
Edit: I just hope everyone can see the glaring discrepancy of saying reviews work as intended and then ignoring when they don't. =/
Besides, pointing out the failure of such systems in other sites is not really evidence that the exact same thing will happen here. The thing about any big site you can think of is that, well, they're essentially big businesses. Rmn is more like a Mom and pop store; A close knitted community, not too big yet to be as apathetic, not too small not to take itself seriously. I truly believe we could pull something like that here... This "people aren't smart" approach is just not healthy, no matter how true it may be. =/
But what I find the oddest thing is that the argument against this idea is the prevention of something that already can and does happen. For example "I died to the X boss. Two stars!" is a review for Star Stealing Prince. The review paid marginal, begrudgingly attention to the game's merits and just larked on how the game was "unplayable" and stuff. Yet, despite this flaw, the review still got through. *shrug*
Now, the benefit of games like Star Stealing Prince is that they have reached a huge audience, and among all those people -among that sort of popularity- it's only natural that the number of people willing to review the game will statistically increase, and help offset the disagreeable opinions. But this is a luxury not every game can afford. And it has been tried and proved that neither you or I will go out of our ways to review every game we have played... So, I think there's something to be gained from this.
But anyway, I think I've already said everything I wanted to say at this point. We can always follow this discussion at a latter date... xD
Edit: "Count" yes, but that's not exactly review material. The idea is to allow more voices to "count" but without compromising reviews.
Edit: I just hope everyone can see the glaring discrepancy of saying reviews work as intended and then ignoring when they don't. =/
RyaReisender
200
But even the opinion of "uneducated" people should count. If someone didn't like Star Stealing Prince because he couldn't beat the second boss that also has a meaning. And there are probably more than just that one person who had problems with the boss battles in the game.
author=RyaReisender
But even the opinion of "uneducated" people should count. If someone didn't like Star Stealing Prince because he couldn't beat the second boss that also has a meaning. And there are probably more than just that one person who had problems with the boss battles in the game.
Which they can do. By writing a review talking about their experience with the game and how hard it is. Someone just giving 2 stars without explanation when a lot of other people like the game would confuse the hell out of the creator. They'd want to know why. Why did someone not like the game? Why did they drag down the score with a click of a button? With an explanation comes understanding. Maybe the player didn't use certain skills that could have helped them in the fight. Maybe they were new to RPGs and thus weren't prepared for a challenging battle. Maybe they downloaded an older, unfixed copy of the game where a bug was present. Maybe they encountered a rare bug the creator didn't know about. Whatever the case, the creator has no idea as to why such a rating was given thus they cannot help that player in any way. They don't know there was a bug.
Perhaps because he got pissed at the game he gave a score that would have been lower than if he actually wrote a review and took into account more than just that frustrating battle which could have evened the score out. But no. He just got pissed and gave it a 2 star dragging it down with no explanation at all.
And yet, if he'd just written that small review explaining why, the creator could have fixed the issue or explained that a certain something else was required.
Now, if we could make sure that the people rating actually played the games in question perhaps that would be okay but we can't. Unlike DA or other sites like it, the content that they're rating is not on immediate display. There is no way to make sure that people aren't judging based on a game page presentation (perhaps we should just enable people to press a button if they like how a game is presented instead - it'd be the same fucking thing after all). Even restricting it to only those who have downloaded doesn't work because people don't always play the games they download after all (ask all the games chilling in my 'to play' folder that I've deleted over the years).
The question is Should we allow people to judge a game based on actually playing said game? The answer is yes. Only those who have played a game should be allowed to have some say on how it is rated.
Thus the question becomes, "How can we make sure that only those who play a game can rate it?"
The answer is to make them offer some proof of actually playing. Reviews are a simple answer to that - whether they be LPs or written. Hell, even image reviews should work (think screenshot LPs but with a more analytical bent.)
And no, I don't take people at their words. I used to before I saw just how stupid people act and what they will do to cheat a system or gain attention or just how lazy they can be.
Making people write reviews is a good way to not only gauge in informed opinion about a game but also to garner feedback. It's two-fold and it works.
Now I'm not coming back to this topic because we're saying the same thing over and over. No, your ideas about letting everybody and their pet llama score games won't work because if people have a choice they will - more often than not - choose to press a button and rate a game on how the game page looks.
Maybe we should make that a thing instead - give a game page up to 5 stars. You want to have a say as to what a game actually plays like? Write a damn review but at least you get to rate the presentation.
amerk
2539
And yet the bigger questions in all of this continue to remain unanswered. What can be done to encourage people to write more reviews? What can developers do to get their games reviewed? And why has the process of writing reviews dropped so drastically over the past couple years?
Question 1: What can be done to encourage people to write more reviews?
By motivating and encouraging them? Teaching them? Offering tools to make it easier? Nah, hell no. By calling them stupid and lazy for not writing enough reviews. Yeah, that'll teach them. If that doesn't raise the morale around here and encourage more reviews, I'm not sure what will.
News flash, I write more reviews than a lot of people, and the reviews I do write I put in a lot of thought and effort. But I don't have the patience nor the time to write a review for every game I play, especially when it takes 3 to 4 days just to get it approved.
Question 2: What can developers do to get their games reviewed?
Hmmm... by telling the developer to make better games that people will want to play and review. Wait, what? Aren't reviews intended to make developers better? So why are we telling them they need to make better games to get reviewed? What's the point of reviewing a game for a developer that doesn't need it?
Question 3: And why has the process of writing reviews dropped so drastically over the past couple years?
Take a look at RM2000, for example, and look at the games that were first added.
Sure, some of those games don't have reviews, but most have at least 1, and a good number have 2 or more.
Now take a look at the more recent games. Okay, in fairness, some are new, but not all. The majority of the games listed for about the first 4 pages don't even have a single review.
The days of writing reviews somehow ended in recent years. Maybe it has to do with the fact that people were writing them the most when RM was still a new tool, barely noticed outside of the community. Maybe it's because people are now more focused on making games rather than playing them. Maybe it's because after a dozen or so games, each game starts looking the same after awhile.
Putting myself in a developer's shoes, they're better off these days not getting a single review than they are getting just 1 from somebody who was biased about the game and scored it low for no other reason than just because they can.
And that single score will follow them years down the road when other games equally as bad if not worse will still outshine them because nobody bothered to review them, and all because we're too focused on how lazy and stupid everybody is rather than finding ways to encourage them and make the process more efficient.
Conclusion:
Whatever the reasons, reviews are all but non-existent compared to 4 or 5 years ago, and in a couple of years they'll probably be obsolete. If you're going to continue to tie the score of a game into the review then it should be expected that the majority of the games over the past couple of years won't have any scores, and most will probably never have a score.
But then that goes back to an earlier question: What's the point of including a tallied score for a game based on a review when nobody is even writing reviews?
You can brag about your review system all you want. You can blame the public for being dumb and lazy. But when I look at all the games that have yet to be reviewed and receive a rating, I see a system that is indeed flawed and not keeping up with the trend. You can say it's not broken and it's fine, but a system that's not being used is useless.
Question 1: What can be done to encourage people to write more reviews?
By motivating and encouraging them? Teaching them? Offering tools to make it easier? Nah, hell no. By calling them stupid and lazy for not writing enough reviews. Yeah, that'll teach them. If that doesn't raise the morale around here and encourage more reviews, I'm not sure what will.
News flash, I write more reviews than a lot of people, and the reviews I do write I put in a lot of thought and effort. But I don't have the patience nor the time to write a review for every game I play, especially when it takes 3 to 4 days just to get it approved.
Question 2: What can developers do to get their games reviewed?
Hmmm... by telling the developer to make better games that people will want to play and review. Wait, what? Aren't reviews intended to make developers better? So why are we telling them they need to make better games to get reviewed? What's the point of reviewing a game for a developer that doesn't need it?
Question 3: And why has the process of writing reviews dropped so drastically over the past couple years?
Take a look at RM2000, for example, and look at the games that were first added.
Sure, some of those games don't have reviews, but most have at least 1, and a good number have 2 or more.
Now take a look at the more recent games. Okay, in fairness, some are new, but not all. The majority of the games listed for about the first 4 pages don't even have a single review.
The days of writing reviews somehow ended in recent years. Maybe it has to do with the fact that people were writing them the most when RM was still a new tool, barely noticed outside of the community. Maybe it's because people are now more focused on making games rather than playing them. Maybe it's because after a dozen or so games, each game starts looking the same after awhile.
Putting myself in a developer's shoes, they're better off these days not getting a single review than they are getting just 1 from somebody who was biased about the game and scored it low for no other reason than just because they can.
And that single score will follow them years down the road when other games equally as bad if not worse will still outshine them because nobody bothered to review them, and all because we're too focused on how lazy and stupid everybody is rather than finding ways to encourage them and make the process more efficient.
Conclusion:
Whatever the reasons, reviews are all but non-existent compared to 4 or 5 years ago, and in a couple of years they'll probably be obsolete. If you're going to continue to tie the score of a game into the review then it should be expected that the majority of the games over the past couple of years won't have any scores, and most will probably never have a score.
But then that goes back to an earlier question: What's the point of including a tallied score for a game based on a review when nobody is even writing reviews?
You can brag about your review system all you want. You can blame the public for being dumb and lazy. But when I look at all the games that have yet to be reviewed and receive a rating, I see a system that is indeed flawed and not keeping up with the trend. You can say it's not broken and it's fine, but a system that's not being used is useless.
You know what? I'm starting to feel like with the amount of energy, time and words that have been put into this thread already, by now we could have written dozens of reviews instead. And that's what I'm going to try and do, anyway. RMN's reviewing system is not flawless, but it's a lot less bad than some of you guys make it sound. I think for the most part it gets the job done, and in this particular situation, radically changing everything would likely cause bigger damage than benefits. Going for some sort of "revolution" won't help, so let's try to improve the situation with the powers we have - that is, write more reviews and actively ask for them to be written, instead of fighting over how to make people write more reviews.
Yeah, guys, get a grip ok.
this thread still reminds me of "turn down for what" by lil jon tho. hashtag justsayin.
this thread still reminds me of "turn down for what" by lil jon tho. hashtag justsayin.
author=Raveauthor=CashmereCatOh, old "If you can't make something better, shut up" bullshit? That's nice, that's really really nice.
pianotm is right. I'll be honest, most of the time on this forum I usually discredit the opinion of people that haven't made good games. Which means I also discredit myself.
no! i'm just saying, SUBCONSCIOUSLY, i want to believe the advice of people who actually make good games, because I WANT to make good games. so i want to copy the formula or get into the mindset of the greats. it's nothing derogatory, it's just kind of logic for me.
author=RyaReisender
But even the opinion of "uneducated" people should count. If someone didn't like Star Stealing Prince because he couldn't beat the second boss that also has a meaning. And there are probably more than just that one person who had problems with the boss battles in the game.
Surely, it should, but balance needs to be taken into consideration. Rave's argument of "statistical significance" is an old one, but that theory should have actually gone out the door long ago. It's literally the notion of dismissing the guards and opening the palace gates. If you want a good idea of how effective statistical significance actually is, take 1000 random people and ask them a question. The next day, take those exact 1000 random people and ask them exact same question, and I guarantee you you will get a different result. It's very unscientific and empiric data really can't be effectively gleaned from it. It's like the question: "Who was the first president of the United States?" We all know that it was George Washington, but why does a significant number of us think it was Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson (or why does 2% think it was Jefferson Davis??? LOL WUT!!!)? If we believe in the value of statistical significance, then we're admitting that there's really a possibility that Jefferson Davis was the first president of the United States? (Do people just not understand the question? Are they too bothered with other issues to try to answer correctly, and if so, why participate in the survey?)
Here is a better way to be inclusive. The people who want to take the time to write a review have a system in place that works just fine. The people who don't want take this time can comment on the game page, but that's not quite the same. Games should come with a comments page with it's own star ranking system. This system should not affect the Makerscore (since this is little better than the substance of forums...again, I agree with LockeZ's reasoning for why forums shouldn't get MS anyway), or at least, should have nowhere near the same impact on Makerscore that reviews and ratings do. There: in that scenario, we have a review rating, and we have a user rating. Everyone can voice his or her opinion, but they don't just have the power to totally trash a game unfairly.
@Amerk How to entice reviews. The site already offers Makerscore and it offers a more than fair amount. Is it that people aren't reviewing anymore, or that the amount of games and developers has increased but the amount of reviewers hasn't? Before anyone can follow your suggestion, it needs to be established why this scenario has come up in the first place. Because I know there are review writers, and some continue to write regularly. I've been doing it too. Much of my MS comes from reviews, and I just did one for LockeZ's Vindication yesterday.
@Liberty, I so know what you are saying about games you download and never play. These games look like fun but there's just so damned many of them and there are seriously other things that need to be done with the day.
The review system is good. It's free to anyone who wants to use it, educated in games or otherwise. It's not inaccessible. It's not like you have to have some special status to use it. The only wall is that it requires 300 characters. Again, I ask, if 300 characters is too much for someone to have to write, then why do we need his opinion? He's much better off with a comments page for his 2 cents, and that doesn't deserve to have the power to affect a game's MS. Perhaps we should encourage people to use it. Perhaps there should be message on the Community page reminding people to review, telling them how much MS they get for approved reviews. That would be a start, right?
Alright, sit your asses down people and prepare to shut the fuck up.
The numbers have been crunched and I conclude that you're full of shit. Here's the approx (I may have missed one or two reviews in the count) review number by years:
2014 - 273 (so fucking far)
2013 - 322
2012 - 261
2011 - 228
2010 - 305
2009 - 288
2008 - 84
2007 - 36
What is this? WHAAAAAT IS THIS?!
Reviews are fucking UP. Holy hell in a nut basket, I wonder what that means?
Yes, currently we are halfway through the year with 273 reviews that have been accepted to the site. That is WITH more strict guidelines than back before 2011. It's looking to be a bumper year folks~
*drops the motherfucking mic*
The numbers have been crunched and I conclude that you're full of shit. Here's the approx (I may have missed one or two reviews in the count) review number by years:
2014 - 273 (so fucking far)
2013 - 322
2012 - 261
2011 - 228
2010 - 305
2009 - 288
2008 - 84
2007 - 36
What is this? WHAAAAAT IS THIS?!
Reviews are fucking UP. Holy hell in a nut basket, I wonder what that means?
Yes, currently we are halfway through the year with 273 reviews that have been accepted to the site. That is WITH more strict guidelines than back before 2011. It's looking to be a bumper year folks~
*drops the motherfucking mic*
amerk
2539
Probably a mixture of both, increase of games, less interest in reviews; however, reviews have definitely fallen short compared to what they once were. Take some of the better known titles of old. "A Blurred Line" and "Hero's Realm" have multiple reviews. Dragon Fantasy has 5 reviews. The majority of the reviews seemed to have come before 2012.
Now fast forward to today. Dragon Fantasy: Heroes of Tsufana has but 1 review, and it's just as good as the other DF games, if not better. And it's been around here for awhile, the last known update early in 2013.
Central Impulse, a game I recently reviewed, is a bit unheard of but fairly enjoyable for what it was. The developer had wondered if the game had been forgotten or abandoned until I reviewed it.
So developers do want the feedback, but for whatever reason the reviews aren't being written.
I suppose the only alternative is to get people to make more comments if they don't want to bother with a review. They could even state in the comments a score they'd be willing to give for the game.
Likewise, if we're going to continue to insist that scores be tied into the reviews, then a better criteria for accepting reviews is necessary, since chances of getting more than 1 review is slim, and that 1 review could negatively impact that game for months to come, especially if it's written by somebody who doesn't even know what they're talking about or is biased towards the genre.
Reviews should be written in the mindset of the targeted audience. Heck, even I have commented or reviewed games with mechanics I don't generally like or care for, but I always try to put myself into the shoes of the intended audience to see if it's something that works but is not for me, or if it's something that is truly broken.
My thoughts are: If we're going to continue to allow scores to be included with reviews, and if we're going to allow those scores to impact the overall score of the game, then those reviews need to be written in a way that fairly conveys all information rather than a single aspect that the player may or may not have liked, and that score needs to reflect the true ideals and problems of that game.
Simply slapping 300 words together shouldn't be enough. Explaining why a game is being graded the way it is, and what the developer did right, and what they can work on to improve - these are things that will give meaning to the game's rate.
The problem, though, is that a better criteria would potentially require extra scrutiny and approval of reviews might take even longer than the standard 3 to 4 days.
Back to another point, I really do like video reviews and find them sometimes more effective, since the viewer can see the game play for themselves. Plus, a lot of people already do LP's, so doing an actual video review might not be too difficult. However, until it was stated here, I was not aware that actual video reviews were allowed, and I'm sure others weren't either. Maybe if that point is driven home, more people would consider this as a potential way to increase reviews.
Now fast forward to today. Dragon Fantasy: Heroes of Tsufana has but 1 review, and it's just as good as the other DF games, if not better. And it's been around here for awhile, the last known update early in 2013.
Central Impulse, a game I recently reviewed, is a bit unheard of but fairly enjoyable for what it was. The developer had wondered if the game had been forgotten or abandoned until I reviewed it.
So developers do want the feedback, but for whatever reason the reviews aren't being written.
I suppose the only alternative is to get people to make more comments if they don't want to bother with a review. They could even state in the comments a score they'd be willing to give for the game.
Likewise, if we're going to continue to insist that scores be tied into the reviews, then a better criteria for accepting reviews is necessary, since chances of getting more than 1 review is slim, and that 1 review could negatively impact that game for months to come, especially if it's written by somebody who doesn't even know what they're talking about or is biased towards the genre.
Reviews should be written in the mindset of the targeted audience. Heck, even I have commented or reviewed games with mechanics I don't generally like or care for, but I always try to put myself into the shoes of the intended audience to see if it's something that works but is not for me, or if it's something that is truly broken.
My thoughts are: If we're going to continue to allow scores to be included with reviews, and if we're going to allow those scores to impact the overall score of the game, then those reviews need to be written in a way that fairly conveys all information rather than a single aspect that the player may or may not have liked, and that score needs to reflect the true ideals and problems of that game.
Simply slapping 300 words together shouldn't be enough. Explaining why a game is being graded the way it is, and what the developer did right, and what they can work on to improve - these are things that will give meaning to the game's rate.
The problem, though, is that a better criteria would potentially require extra scrutiny and approval of reviews might take even longer than the standard 3 to 4 days.
Back to another point, I really do like video reviews and find them sometimes more effective, since the viewer can see the game play for themselves. Plus, a lot of people already do LP's, so doing an actual video review might not be too difficult. However, until it was stated here, I was not aware that actual video reviews were allowed, and I'm sure others weren't either. Maybe if that point is driven home, more people would consider this as a potential way to increase reviews.
Uh, no actually. The only reason there are less review per game is because there are more fucking games to share the reviews around. Like a ton more. Even back then it was only a handful of games getting reviews. The amount has gone up, not down.
But you do hold that just allowing people to click a button is not the way to get a 'proper' rating, correct?
And as for low or high scores, we do require that there be more explanation as to why you give that score. It's not enough to say "5 stars for you because pretty" you have to actually make your case for top/bottom scoring. Anything in between? Well, 300 words can usually beget more as you think of more to say.
Anyway, I'm now gonna do some more number crunching. See you all on the other side...
But you do hold that just allowing people to click a button is not the way to get a 'proper' rating, correct?
And as for low or high scores, we do require that there be more explanation as to why you give that score. It's not enough to say "5 stars for you because pretty" you have to actually make your case for top/bottom scoring. Anything in between? Well, 300 words can usually beget more as you think of more to say.
Anyway, I'm now gonna do some more number crunching. See you all on the other side...
RyaReisender
200
So how about making two scores? A user score where everyone can rate (with option to write 0-299 words as comment) and a critic score that can only be done with 300+ word reviews. Then allow to sort for both.
Then everyone can decide himself which of the two scores he thinks is more meaningful and everyone is happy.
Then everyone can decide himself which of the two scores he thinks is more meaningful and everyone is happy.
Just write a damn review. Honestly...
Also, note, we will most likely be having another review drive event after either the indie game make contest or Halloween. That will most likely tip our numbers to new heights for the site. Now that? That's crazy~
(Not mentioning the Christmas Kringle where people tend to write reviews for their Secret Santa OR any random reviews written between now and the end of the year. Bumper fucking crop.)
Also, note, we will most likely be having another review drive event after either the indie game make contest or Halloween. That will most likely tip our numbers to new heights for the site. Now that? That's crazy~
(Not mentioning the Christmas Kringle where people tend to write reviews for their Secret Santa OR any random reviews written between now and the end of the year. Bumper fucking crop.)
