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
RyaReisender
200
RyaReisender
View playlists
CloseI don't think it's so much about having to write a good review (not needed at all) but rather about having to write a review where the score actually reflects your true feelings about the game.
To clarify: The only reason why reviews are needed in order to score a game here is so that it doesn't get abused. It's not because we want people to write amazing reviews (people who can would do that anyway).
That's how I understand it.
To clarify: The only reason why reviews are needed in order to score a game here is so that it doesn't get abused. It's not because we want people to write amazing reviews (people who can would do that anyway).
That's how I understand it.
amerk
2539
Not every game will be reviewed the same. However, when it comes to traditional rpg's, I try to combine the elements into 3 categories in order to balance the score out:
Game Play includes the actual mechanics in the game, how linear or open the game is, side quests, the encounter/combat system, any other tools like crafting, hunting, etc, and whether or not the game is riddled with bugs.
Story is fairly obvious, but I also focus on the writing mechanics, whether or not it's full of writing mistakes or spelling errors.
Atmosphere - I recently started using this term rather than resources. Why? Because while the RTP gets old from one game to another, there are some games that still manage to impress with it. Also, because a majority of the games here seem to use either the RTP or rips, while a few are more custom. So I really don't care so much about what resources you are using (as long as they are consistent) so much as how they are used, and your ability to map with them.
Game Play includes the actual mechanics in the game, how linear or open the game is, side quests, the encounter/combat system, any other tools like crafting, hunting, etc, and whether or not the game is riddled with bugs.
Story is fairly obvious, but I also focus on the writing mechanics, whether or not it's full of writing mistakes or spelling errors.
Atmosphere - I recently started using this term rather than resources. Why? Because while the RTP gets old from one game to another, there are some games that still manage to impress with it. Also, because a majority of the games here seem to use either the RTP or rips, while a few are more custom. So I really don't care so much about what resources you are using (as long as they are consistent) so much as how they are used, and your ability to map with them.
Yes, we want people to write reviews that reflect the game but we want people to actually think before they put the words down so that their score reflects the game, not just 5 stars for every game they play because 'it was fun'.
And the chances of people actually writing a review that would not be lazy and 5-stars everywhere is low, low, low (as has already been seen).
Frankly, I'd personally like to revoke actual scoring privileges until you could prove to be at least a semi-decent reviewer. If that means until you write 5 reviews that are accepted to the site or have over 1000 MS, then fine. Thankfully for you lot, it's not up to me. Hell, thankfully for you lot I'm not the one in charge of accepting reviews. ;p
And for the record, 300 words is not much to ask for when it comes to a review (and yes, since that's what it was supposed to be on the submissions page, that's most likely going to change back to). Just write a few headings, ask yourself a few questions about the game and bam, done.
What was the story like? Was there something you liked in particular? Were there any issues with it that you thought could use changing? Did you like the characters? Was progression done well? Were there logical issues within the created world? Did everything make sense to you? Were you bored at some points? Were there any parts that particularly wowed you?
Was gameplay fun? Did it need more explanation as to how things worked? Which parts were better than others? Which areas needed more love? Were there any bugs you noticed?
Did you notice the sound and music? Did it stand out in any way, in any particular parts? Were some points jarring or memorable? Did it help the atmosphere in any way?
Were the graphics used well? Were there any graphical glitches you can recall? Were you wowed at any parts and was everything solid? Did you get lost at any point? Over or under mapping? Original or default graphics?
Summary - would you recommend this game to someone else to play and why? Is there anything you'd like the creator to know?
It is so easy to get 300 words out of that.
And the chances of people actually writing a review that would not be lazy and 5-stars everywhere is low, low, low (as has already been seen).
Frankly, I'd personally like to revoke actual scoring privileges until you could prove to be at least a semi-decent reviewer. If that means until you write 5 reviews that are accepted to the site or have over 1000 MS, then fine. Thankfully for you lot, it's not up to me. Hell, thankfully for you lot I'm not the one in charge of accepting reviews. ;p
And for the record, 300 words is not much to ask for when it comes to a review (and yes, since that's what it was supposed to be on the submissions page, that's most likely going to change back to). Just write a few headings, ask yourself a few questions about the game and bam, done.
What was the story like? Was there something you liked in particular? Were there any issues with it that you thought could use changing? Did you like the characters? Was progression done well? Were there logical issues within the created world? Did everything make sense to you? Were you bored at some points? Were there any parts that particularly wowed you?
Was gameplay fun? Did it need more explanation as to how things worked? Which parts were better than others? Which areas needed more love? Were there any bugs you noticed?
Did you notice the sound and music? Did it stand out in any way, in any particular parts? Were some points jarring or memorable? Did it help the atmosphere in any way?
Were the graphics used well? Were there any graphical glitches you can recall? Were you wowed at any parts and was everything solid? Did you get lost at any point? Over or under mapping? Original or default graphics?
Summary - would you recommend this game to someone else to play and why? Is there anything you'd like the creator to know?
It is so easy to get 300 words out of that.
The review system at RMN has long been a flawed concept. Simply put, it does not work in execution because people rarely put forth the effort to review a game they don't like, if at all, so bad games can get one review and end up with an average of a lukewarm 3-4 stars. The problem with this is that the bad floats up right next to the good, so anything below 4.5 stars ranges from decent game to horrible, without discretion.
I've long said people should simply be able to "recommend" or "like" or "+1" or whatever-social-media-buzzword-you'd-like a game, in lieu of bothering to write a review, and remove review scores all together. I know RMN hates it for whatever reason, or maybe it'd just be too much work, but it's the metric standard for how almost the entire rest of the internet determines the quality of a thing: public consensus.
Either that, or leave scoring to dedicated staff/reviewers whose scores are quantified and somewhat consistent. Unless there's some standard of quality set in place, review scores may as well be measured in butt-touches.
It's not too huge of a problem though, because getting a good review score on this site means almost diddly squat... good scores don't get you more downloads; it works the other way around.
I've long said people should simply be able to "recommend" or "like" or "+1" or whatever-social-media-buzzword-you'd-like a game, in lieu of bothering to write a review, and remove review scores all together. I know RMN hates it for whatever reason, or maybe it'd just be too much work, but it's the metric standard for how almost the entire rest of the internet determines the quality of a thing: public consensus.
Either that, or leave scoring to dedicated staff/reviewers whose scores are quantified and somewhat consistent. Unless there's some standard of quality set in place, review scores may as well be measured in butt-touches.
It's not too huge of a problem though, because getting a good review score on this site means almost diddly squat... good scores don't get you more downloads; it works the other way around.
I think that it's definitely something we're going to have to bring up at the next staff meeting - that's for sure. The system is flawed, we all recognise that, but the ways suggested so far don't really work in practise so we're going to have to look at a new way to do it...
Maybe it would be best to include a weighted feature for reviews - the person doing submission acceptance could tag reviews they think are of good quality and those reviews may have their score weigh more than other reviews, perhaps.
Maybe reduce the word count to 150* (seriously, anyone complaining about that can go fuck themselves. It's such a small amount of words.) as well as the amount of MS gained for adding a review - unless your review is picked as a weighted one, in which you get a bonus. Keep site standards, though - that is, reviews should have decent spelling, grammar and punctuation.
The whole above is 157 words. That ain't much to write about a game, for srs.
Maybe it would be best to include a weighted feature for reviews - the person doing submission acceptance could tag reviews they think are of good quality and those reviews may have their score weigh more than other reviews, perhaps.
Maybe reduce the word count to 150* (seriously, anyone complaining about that can go fuck themselves. It's such a small amount of words.) as well as the amount of MS gained for adding a review - unless your review is picked as a weighted one, in which you get a bonus. Keep site standards, though - that is, reviews should have decent spelling, grammar and punctuation.
The whole above is 157 words. That ain't much to write about a game, for srs.
amerk
2539
150+ words seems better than 300+ characters, and still doesn't require a lot. A weighted review where the better ones get higher MS sounds like an idea and rewards those for effort.
The problem with that is it then becomes a popularity contest of who can like/dislike a game the fastest. Of course, more people would probably jump at this, but it tells the developer nothing in terms of feedback if they're seeing a bunch of 2's with no comments on what failed.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the total score removed completely. People can still include them in their reviews, but there'd be no total average score. That way, people would then do what the review intended - for them to go and read the review rather than form an uneducated opinion by simply looking at the score.
author=narcodis
I've long said people should simply be able to "recommend" or "like" or "+1" or whatever-social-media-buzzword-you'd-like a game, in lieu of bothering to write a review, and remove review scores all together. I know RMN hates it for whatever reason, or maybe it'd just be too much work, but it's the metric standard for how almost the entire rest of the internet determines the quality of a thing: public consensus.
The problem with that is it then becomes a popularity contest of who can like/dislike a game the fastest. Of course, more people would probably jump at this, but it tells the developer nothing in terms of feedback if they're seeing a bunch of 2's with no comments on what failed.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the total score removed completely. People can still include them in their reviews, but there'd be no total average score. That way, people would then do what the review intended - for them to go and read the review rather than form an uneducated opinion by simply looking at the score.
Am I truly the only one here who actually likes RMN's review system? Maybe it's not perfect, and obviously there have been occasions where it had nasty side-effects, but it's a lot less prone to manipulation and watering down of quality standards than "public consencus".
As was said before, writing reviews is no Herculean task, but it requires at least some effort and sound argumentation, instead of just mindlessly clicking a button. If you feel a game is worth to be recommended or criticised, you can be expected to actually put some thought into it. This also tends to prevent crazy hypes or abuse, since trolls or extreme fanboys are more likely to just downvote everything they lay their eyes upon (except for the one game they adore) than bring up the effort to write hundreds of reviews.
And as a matter of fact, I usually do care enough to write reviews even if I didn't particularly enjoy a game but still feel like the community should be informed about ist existence - and given the amount of critical reviews on the site, I doubt I'm the only one. Also, I usually tend to take those reviews with a grain of salt that were written by someone whose only submission is that one review. And the amount of reviews for a game as well as the discussions on a gamepage or review's comment section can also influence how people percieve a game. We have many ways of informing ourselves.
Maybe it's just me, but I find that practically every alternative that has been suggested so far actually sounds like a step backwards, away from ensuring a reliable rating system. (Although I do commend the idea of providing a sort-of template for a review's content's minimum requirements.)
Edit:
I admit that does sound like a possible solution. The average score of a game would then be an invisible value, only used to determine Makerscore rewards for the developers.
As was said before, writing reviews is no Herculean task, but it requires at least some effort and sound argumentation, instead of just mindlessly clicking a button. If you feel a game is worth to be recommended or criticised, you can be expected to actually put some thought into it. This also tends to prevent crazy hypes or abuse, since trolls or extreme fanboys are more likely to just downvote everything they lay their eyes upon (except for the one game they adore) than bring up the effort to write hundreds of reviews.
And as a matter of fact, I usually do care enough to write reviews even if I didn't particularly enjoy a game but still feel like the community should be informed about ist existence - and given the amount of critical reviews on the site, I doubt I'm the only one. Also, I usually tend to take those reviews with a grain of salt that were written by someone whose only submission is that one review. And the amount of reviews for a game as well as the discussions on a gamepage or review's comment section can also influence how people percieve a game. We have many ways of informing ourselves.
Maybe it's just me, but I find that practically every alternative that has been suggested so far actually sounds like a step backwards, away from ensuring a reliable rating system. (Although I do commend the idea of providing a sort-of template for a review's content's minimum requirements.)
Edit:
author=amerk
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the total score removed completely. People can still include them in their reviews, but there'd be no total average score. That way, people would then do what the review intended - for them to go and read the review rather than form an uneducated opinion by simply looking at the score.
I admit that does sound like a possible solution. The average score of a game would then be an invisible value, only used to determine Makerscore rewards for the developers.
amerk
2539
Ah, hidden. Better option yet, NeverSilent.
Maybe make the total score only viewable by the developer for their own game, but not to the public.
Maybe make the total score only viewable by the developer for their own game, but not to the public.
author=amerk
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the total score removed completely. People can still include them in their reviews, but there'd be no total average score. That way, people would then do what the review intended - for them to go and read the review rather than form an uneducated opinion by simply looking at the score.
Buh, buh, buh I like it! It's usually a good indication of how good a game is at a glance. Granted, it's not completely accurate, but at least it's something. How else am I going to know at a glance if it's a 1 star game or a 4 star game? Usually I don't care if it has 3 stars, but I mean, you gotta be able to tell at a glance which are the really crap ones otherwise you're going to have to read in-depth into every review instead of just skimming.
Why are you so afraid of review scores anyway?
Also, looking at a score isn't an uneducated opinion. The score is educating you on how good reviewers think the game is. In my experience, it's usually a good indicator.
Please please don't remove review scores, please.
Cashmere, I think amerk (and I) didn't actually ask for the removal of review scores. Quite the opposite, I actually agree with your points. I think review scores are a great quality indicator if used well. We only discussed the option of removing the average score that is shown on the gamepage or in the list of games. That way, if a game sounds interesting to someone, they can still simply go to its review section and see what scores the individual reviews have given it, there just wouldn't be an avarage score displayed any more, and thus, less room for premature bias.
Average allows for the amount of MS to change depending on how good or bad a game is. It's to encourage people to make better games, to fix the issues in their current ones and to give people an idea as to what they're getting into with a game. It's there for a reason.
RyaReisender
200
What are MS points good for anyway? I always wrote reviews for the developers and not to get MS...
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I would rather have one review that's five paragraphs than fifty reviews that are each one.
I totally disagree that reviews are only there to make sure the scores are valid. The reviews are what is useful. The scores are only there to help you decide which reviews to read - some people like to read the best review of a game, some like to read both the best and the worst, some like to read middle-score reviews so they hear a balance of pros vs cons
I totally disagree that reviews are only there to make sure the scores are valid. The reviews are what is useful. The scores are only there to help you decide which reviews to read - some people like to read the best review of a game, some like to read both the best and the worst, some like to read middle-score reviews so they hear a balance of pros vs cons
I don't think I'm capable of writing less than 300 words in any given review, but I'm a long-winded blabbermouth anyway. More to the point, if a reviewer can't come up with more than 300 words, then should he really be reviewing? And this site doesn't even require that. It only requires 300 characters. I feel there's a reason for the limit and if you can't meet it, you shouldn't be venturing out of the comments section anyway.
So @Liberty, aside from more space in the locker, which I barely use anyway, and the obvious vague elitism (simply using the word as a descriptive term: no offense intended) of rank and file seniority it implies, what does Makerscore provide?
So @Liberty, aside from more space in the locker, which I barely use anyway, and the obvious vague elitism (simply using the word as a descriptive term: no offense intended) of rank and file seniority it implies, what does Makerscore provide?
author=LibertyMS IS LIFE!!!
Life. Life is what MS provides. Did you not see my previous post? o.O;
It's not about seniority but more a sign of how much you have added to the site and am a part of the community. That said, we have floated around ideas as to extras that could be added to gaining MS - special privileges to those above a certain level and the like. We're still trying to come up with something concrete, though, but the planning and ideas are there.
RyaReisender
200
author=LockeZ
I would rather have one review that's five paragraphs than fifty reviews that are each one.
I totally disagree that reviews are only there to make sure the scores are valid. The reviews are what is useful. The scores are only there to help you decide which reviews to read - some people like to read the best review of a game, some like to read both the best and the worst, some like to read middle-score reviews so they hear a balance of pros vs cons
Even though people SHOULD write reviews for information purposes, you have to follow the current discussion which is about "I want to rate a game without having to write a long review".
If only big reviews with a lot of information is what you want then rating a game should be possible without any review (not giving any MS or only 1 or something). In that case people would only write reviews if they really wanted to transmit information and not just to be able to rate the game (which is actually the case right now).
But it was already said that rating without review won't happen, so it will stay like this and in this situation the main purpose of reviews is to be allowed to rate the game rather than transmit information.
