A NEW WAY TO REVIEW

Posts

Pages: 1
I was thinking I might sign up for that Strawberry Review Jam and that got me thinking about how reviews on this site are structured.

Many sites give number scores for their reviews but some people on the internet are changing to different systems.
For example the youtube show GameExplain ranks there games by simply saying either they Loved it, Liked it, Disliked, or Hated it. (Thats not the exact lingo but essentially its like that.)
I wonder if a system like this has ever been considered for this site.
If I do a review I will use the score system but I feel like these number based reviews are becoming old fashioned.

I know there is an option to not put in a score but I don't think that helps the game dev much.
This should be in the appropriate area.

Oh, and numbers = NOT old fashioned, BUT more detailed and easily understood. I mean, 1-5 is a quantifiable score amount. Everyone knows that 5 is great. But Liked doesn't mean shit, if you think about it. It doesn't tell you anything about how it ranks - just that that person 'liked it'. But that's... it's... I don't even. It... I can't...


We've discussed this before. Please recheck the old topics. You can do so by using the handy-dandy Google Search bar at the top of the page, upper right. You will find various topics discussing such ideas and the reasons why they were put to death.

I'll move this topic to the correct location. For future reference, please remember that ideas, feedback and general thoughts about how to improve the site should be made in the Feedback forum area and not Game Discussion. Thank you and have a nice day.


Or not.

Happy Valentines~
Sorry I didn't mean to offend.

I was just wanting to hear people's opinions on the matter.
Anyway if this seemed like negative criticism that's not what I intended. I like RMN! I just wanted to know if you had heard about these new types of ranking systems and if you thought about using them.
I heard that one of the biggest gaming sites in Britain switched to a system similar to this. A friend of mine told me about it so unfortunately I don't have a link to it.
Please do not double post. It is against site rules. Instead, edit your previous post and add more content there. Thanks.
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
There will always be different ways to do reviews. There are merits to other ways and there are merits to the way we do them now. But even if there weren't a single merit to the way we do them now, it's not worth changing something so fundamental eight years into the website's life.

Anyway, I agree with Liberty that numbers are more precise. The system you're describing is far more subjective. I mean, most reviews are already written subjectively, but subjectivity in what the reader thinks the reviews mean would be an extra layer on top of that. That would make it much harder to discern how good a game actually is.

It's easier to get away with a system like that when you're a group like GameExplain and you've got a small number of reviewers on your staff who all are forced to follow the exact same criteria by an editor. Viewers can figure out what the terms mean over the course of multiple reviews. On a site like RMN, where we have hundreds (thousands?) of reviewers who mostly only ever submit one review each, the system has to be built to require a higher level of precision from them.

I think the consensus in past topics was that if we made any kind of change it would probably be to require more detail from reviewers, not less. But we already don't get enough reviews, and that would raise the level of effort they require, so it's unlikely to actually happen.
pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
32347
You can play a game, like it, review it, and still give a one star rating. While a rating usually suggests how much the reviewer liked a game, a more objective rating can also reflect how many problems the reviewer encountered while playing it, everything from glitches, to spelling errors, to the sprites just didn't look good, you'd have been better off doing this, that, and the other. Like and dislike aren't ratings; they're votes, and I think politics pretty much proves that anyone can vote for anything. Quality is not a prerequisite.
You all raise goods points.
I suppose I shouldn't have said the number system is old fashioned.
It's interesting listening to your reasons for the number system.
But still I think it's nice to explore and talk about different ways of doing things.

Another review system that I think works well is what the Completionist uses which if I remember correctly is a scale of: Complete it, Finish it, Play it, Look at it, Donate it, Burn it.
It's a bit comical of course but effective I think.
Thing is, as already stated, such a scale doesn't work when it comes to people and their opinions. A lot of the time reviews are just one-offs for people - they play a game and want to give their opinion, that's it. They might, months later, play another and write a review but the issue is that those suggestions don't give anyone a clear idea about how the game rates when stacked up to other games on the site.

And that's the main issue with your suggestions - numbers adds a curve, a natural order. Some games are better than others and the reviews reflect that. Your suggestions don't even touch on that, especially the last bunch.

What is the difference between complete and finish? People are already looking at games on the game pages so Look at doesn't count. Besides we should not be telling people what to play and what not to. If they want to play a game a review shouldn't tell them whether they should bother completing it or donating to it.

Each person likes different things - I've seen games that some have loved and others have hated: the numbers give a good indicator of where that game sits; some rate high, some rate low: it ends up as a mid-number game. Easy.
A game that one person deems unworthy while a host of others like will still maintain its' high scoring. And vice versa. Numbers tell you more and give a better indicator for the review writers themselves to push against.

You're suggesting we dumb them down, giving essentially less information. How would you balance seven people saying Complete while 6 say Burn? You can't. But 7 people giving a 4 and 6 giving a 2 will equate to around 3/3.5 stars which means it's a decent game all told.

Everyone can see - less equals bad, more equals good. It's easy to understand and allows for people to get more technical with their reviews if they want - giving each section points and then making an average of them for total star count of that review. You can't do that with what you suggest - Burn it for graphics but Donate it for Sound? Does not compute.

Numbers are the way to go and as was said before, if there is a change to be made it will be more towards extra detail than towards less. Because more detail is always a good thing for both the one wanting to play and the one who created the game.
Calling the numbers something else doesn't make them less of numbers. A system with "Complete it, Finish it, Play it, Look at it, Donate it, Burn it. " is still a 0-5 rating system. Just the numbers have names instead of being numbers. It's just a bit of obfuscating. Like how some games say you have a decent, high or little chance of hitting an enemy instead of giving a percentage number. The percentages are still there they're just words instead.

On a site like this every reviewer also has their own scale. Sometimes they provide the scale in the review or somewhere else that you can find it. Like how some people think 2.5 stars is an average game, where others go with 3 or 3.5 for the average. (like how gaming mags forever has gone with 7 is average so people get confused when someone has 5 as an average)

In the end naming your numbers isn't necessarily better or worse or anything. Except in one instance maybe. RMN is not terribly multilingual but we support games in other languages than English and thus also reviews written in these languages. Numbers do have the benefit of being a universal language.
Buy it, use it, break it, fix it, Trash it, change it, mail - upgrade it, Charge it, point it, zoom it, press it, Snap it, work it, quick - erase it
Well if I remember correctly, the reason that some reviewer have moved away from numbers is because some people will just look at a number and not bother to read/listen to the review. So by giving it a more vague rating of Like It. The potential player might ask themselves: Why do they like it? And, therefore be more willing to read the review instead of judging a game simply by its number.
Pretty sure that's the logic behind it.
I do think many people do read the whole review but there are definitely some players who just judge something based on the number alone.

author=Shinan
we support games in other languages than English and thus also reviews written in these languages. Numbers do have the benefit of being a universal language.

That's a very good point by the way I hadn't thought about that.
author=RedMask
Well if I remember correctly, the reason that some reviewer have moved away from numbers is because some people will just look at a number and not bother to read/listen to the review.

That's just it, though. When interested in a game, I don't want to spend a lot of time reading potentially spoiler-filled reviews. I just want to know what the "general consensus" is, and only read the reviews if I feel the need for more details. Assuming the reviews actually detail anything. Thankfully not so much of an issue on this site, given the few reviews I've read so far.


If anything about the site's scoring system were to change, I'd just want to get rid of the half-stars. Damn pedants and wishy-washy fence sitters! Obviously not going to happen, so I guess I'll just be thankful that it's only half-stars, and not simply allowing users to input any god damned number. The last thing the internet and video game reviewing world needs is more silliness like "9.88/10" scores.
author=turkeyDawg
If anything about the site's scoring system were to change, I'd just want to get rid of the half-stars. Damn pedants and wishy-washy fence sitters!


I'd be fine with getting rid of the 1/2 stars if we went to a 10-star rating. To me, there is a big difference between a 2.5, a 3, and a 3.5 star rating.

2.5 to me means subpar, not extremely terrible but not all that good.
3 to me means average. It's okay, not great, could have been much better.
3.5 means above average, far from bad, but there are things that could make it better.
I like half stars. :<
Because I am a pedantic wishy-washy fence-sitter~

But yeah, basically the scoring system is a 10 star system with 5 star visuals. That's all. So when you score something 3.5 you're really scoring it a 7. ^.^

Ten stars wouldn't fit, though, so five stars (and half-stars) it is. Besides, a change to the star ratings now would mean a literal fuckton of reviews would have to be edited for the rescore. 5 stars (with halves) work just fine for what it is.

(To me 2.5 is average. And I never give a 5 because there's always something to strive for. ^.^ )
Pages: 1