ARE WE TOO GENEROUS WITH GAME REVIEWS?

I give this game an ESby out of ESBY

author=PentagonBuddy
I went through the list of full games, sorted them by score (from 5 to 0.5), and did some counting. I counted 1572 reviews scored 5 to 0.5 and here were the results:

This was very informal so I would not be surprised if my numbers are a little off.

Only 28.3% are scored 4 stars or higher, and 48.16% lie between 2.5 and 3.5 (so a little below average, average, and a little above average)

That being said, the amount of 3, 3.5, and 4 star reviews are very similar, so I could see why it might seem that 4 star reviews are especially common.

Most games have 1 review or less, which means that the opinion of 1 particular reviewer can determine...well, the entirety of a game's score, if it even gets one. I think people who have strong opinions are more likely to bother contributing a review, too. (These are numbers I found out previously but am too lazy to get the spreadsheet atm...)

Personally, I tend to leave unrated reviews, but this is something I'm trying to change when I review a game with no previous reviews/I actually have feelings about some kind of score. It's kinder to the developer's makerscore (though probably not their feelings if it's a low rating).

God bless you, Penta, and your extreme number nerdery. <3

Another thing to consider is experience when reviewing. How many games has that person played before? How many Good/Bad games have they played before? How fresh are the ideas that that particular game has presented to that reviewer?

If someone's played a lot of games they're going to have a bit more of a defined curve than someone who has played very few games, and it also depends on what they expect out of a game made in the engine. I've seen reviews on Steam about RM games that praised the 'unique' graphics and awesome gameplay - games which wouldn't even get past our standards. I've also seen reviews condemning games for certain aspects that can't be helped if you're using RPG Maker to create a game (for example, slower battle speeds in 2k3 games) - things that someone who knows the engines would allow to slide because they understand that the creator of the game doesn't have as much control over that aspect.

There is, of course, also the aspect of people writing about games they enjoy, as stated before.

Honestly, I'm not afraid to give harsher scores but I'm a bit of a softy so if I see that someone has tried hard, I'll give them a decent enough score as long as nothing is too bad with the game. Then again, I've played some truly terrible games in my time, so my experience is skewed towards .5 being almost unplayable and littered with bugs, 3 to being decent enough and 5 being impossible to reach unless it's highly polished and very enjoyable (I don't give 5s often).

There's also the fact that we do ask people to make a case for why they give the scores they give - which is a lot more than other sites do. This makes the writer think about the different aspects of the game whilst writing and they might go into the review thinking of giving one score, but reminiscing has helped them get a clearer image and change the score. There's been a few times I've went into a review going to give a 3 and changed it to 3.5, or vice-versa.



Also, for future reference, please don't double post. Instead, use the handy edit button below your previous post and add more to it. It clutters the topic up and is against site rules. Thanks! >.<)b

We do have a sort-of reference to what scores mean. When you pick a score it has a descriptor next to it...



We've talked about getting rid of stars so many times that it's stupid. We end up deciding to keep them each and every time because there's no good reason to get rid of them. People bring up the same arguments that keep getting shot down because they're not good arguments to do so.

There's no such thing as being 'too generous'. Also, I got whiplashed by reviewing a game despite it being my own opinion (and as a reviewer, the critical analysis). Still, you can call it a review if it combines critical analysis alongside fairness and your opinion. If it is not, it's called a mood whiplash towards a game that you hated or unfair praise towards one.

Problem for me is that if a game is so bad that I won't even give it 3 stars, then I'll just not play it. And it feels unfair giving a bad review without having played the game.

Most people don't feel it proper to review a game they've only played a bit of and then stopped because it was so damn shite.

author=Pancaek

author=KatanaHiroshi
There's no such thing as being 'too generous'. Also, I got whiplashed by reviewing a game despite it being my own opinion (and as a reviewer, the critical analysis). Still, you can call it a review if it combines critical analysis alongside fairness and your opinion. If it is not, it's called a mood whiplash towards a game that you hated or unfair praise towards one.

Perhaps generous wasn't the right word to use. I more or less just meant: "Do some people give better reviews than what they actually think the game is worth just to be nice?"

Although that'd be one hell of a title.

Giving extra points on a review just to be nice isn't much of an issue in this community, and those who go out of their way to give, say, 5 stars to a game that is clearly 2 stars get called out pretty fast.