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)
THE PROBLEM WITH REVIEWS (AND A NEW SUGGESTION!)
Posts
ariedonus
41
ariedonus
View playlists
Closepost=202753
RRR has a system exactly like this and there is not a single game with a higher average than 3/5. And there are only a few with an average that high.
RRR does not have as rigorous of an acceptance process as we do here, so a lot of the games there would very well deserve the bad rating right off the bat. Excluding those; however, you have to consider that we are two very different communities and also realize that the majority of games out there are just "ok." Not all games are going to get a good score, because not all of them deserve it.
Regardless, I looked at RRR myself and I haven't been able to find a highly rated game, so you definitely have a point there. I forgot to consider that these games are not commercial games, like they are on the sites I referred to, so the creators are involved in it. That certainly makes things a smidge more complicated, although I feel that fact doesn't completely prevent us from forming a system that could help combat those issues.
MakoInfused
210
I really like the ideas you've presented Kentona.
I think the problem with reviews is that: while there is more quality control, this kind of alienates people who are just "casual" members. Some people don't want to get fully invested in the website. The effect of this is that people either want to "join and participate fully" or "go somewhere else". While they certainly can go with the middle ground and just write a comment, their voice might go unheard (the game creator ignores you) and this makes it pointless (to those people). I think there should be reviews that are less important, but quicker to apply. I love the idea about adding the "page views" and "subscribers" amount to the game page as well.
BTW: I'm not just pulling rabbits out of a hat, I asked several friends to participate in the community, but they basically mentioned what I just detailed and they felt it was too "involved". Now, you can take that however you want, perhaps even saying: "well then we don't want them here anyway". Honestly though, that would be childish and in poor taste-- the goal of the website is to promote the games to everyone, not just people who want to become highly involved. The website should promote more players to join, not just creators. This would probably add more reviews in general too, since players would (in theory) have more time to write reviews, than game creators would.
In summary: I think we need a more"casual" reviewing styles for the players, and more ways to let the player judge whether they think it's worth their time. So, basically I agree with all points on Kentona. I was just hoping to help him drive the point with my example.
Idea: I believe that having a field which asks what brought the game to the players attention, might be very helpful for the other potential gamers AND the game creator/developer.
I think the problem with reviews is that: while there is more quality control, this kind of alienates people who are just "casual" members. Some people don't want to get fully invested in the website. The effect of this is that people either want to "join and participate fully" or "go somewhere else". While they certainly can go with the middle ground and just write a comment, their voice might go unheard (the game creator ignores you) and this makes it pointless (to those people). I think there should be reviews that are less important, but quicker to apply. I love the idea about adding the "page views" and "subscribers" amount to the game page as well.
BTW: I'm not just pulling rabbits out of a hat, I asked several friends to participate in the community, but they basically mentioned what I just detailed and they felt it was too "involved". Now, you can take that however you want, perhaps even saying: "well then we don't want them here anyway". Honestly though, that would be childish and in poor taste-- the goal of the website is to promote the games to everyone, not just people who want to become highly involved. The website should promote more players to join, not just creators. This would probably add more reviews in general too, since players would (in theory) have more time to write reviews, than game creators would.
In summary: I think we need a more"casual" reviewing styles for the players, and more ways to let the player judge whether they think it's worth their time. So, basically I agree with all points on Kentona. I was just hoping to help him drive the point with my example.
Idea: I believe that having a field which asks what brought the game to the players attention, might be very helpful for the other potential gamers AND the game creator/developer.
WolfCoder
3554
I think it would be cool if game page managers could create a custom impression form (to go with the overall rating) so that feedback can be more informative to the author and let them know what people think. Tons of Korean MMORPG game publishers do this (at least for the NA publisher website) where they have a poll of the week or something pertaining to some aspect of the game. It could just be five or so custom polls or one-line entry boxes.
ariedonus
41
post=203841
I think it would be cool if game page managers could create a custom impression form (to go with the overall rating) so that feedback can be more informative to the author and let them know what people think. Tons of Korean MMORPG game publishers do this (at least for the NA publisher website) where they have a poll of the week or something pertaining to some aspect of the game. It could just be five or so custom polls or one-line entry boxes.
That's actually a very interesting idea, and one that would be very easy to implement, from what I know about programming. I would definitely appreciate a feature like this if it were implemented, and I bet a lot of other developers would too.
But, while I do find that to be a great idea, I don't think it necessarily achieves one of the main goals of the OP. Without a feedback system that can be translated through a filter so that players can see the worthwhile games to play (from more than just the limited perspectives of the few reviews games get), we aren't really getting anywhere.
post=203765I wonder how we can facilitate a way for more casual interaction on the gameprofiles - but this is an interesting perspective! Thanks for posting. More food for thought...
I really like the ideas you've presented Kentona.
I think the problem with reviews is that: while there is more quality control, this kind of alienates people who are just "casual" members. Some people don't want to get fully invested in the website. The effect of this is that people either want to "join and participate fully" or "go somewhere else". While they certainly can go with the middle ground and just write a comment, their voice might go unheard (the game creator ignores you) and this makes it pointless (to those people). I think there should be reviews that are less important, but quicker to apply. I love the idea about adding the "page views" and "subscribers" amount to the game page as well.
BTW: I'm not just pulling rabbits out of a hat, I asked several friends to participate in the community, but they basically mentioned what I just detailed and they felt it was too "involved". Now, you can take that however you want, perhaps even saying: "well then we don't want them here anyway". Honestly though, that would be childish and in poor taste-- the goal of the website is to promote the games to everyone, not just people who want to become highly involved. The website should promote more players to join, not just creators. This would probably add more reviews in general too, since players would (in theory) have more time to write reviews, than game creators would.
In summary: I think we need a more"casual" reviewing styles for the players, and more ways to let the player judge whether they think it's worth their time. So, basically I agree with all points on Kentona. I was just hoping to help him drive the point with my example.
Idea: I believe that having a field which asks what brought the game to the players attention, might be very helpful for the other potential gamers AND the game creator/developer.
