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)
STAR RATING
Posts
tardis
View playlists
Closei think you've confused a a rhetorical statement about rhetorical questions with a point of discussion
edit: new page yeeaaaahhh ):
edit: new page yeeaaaahhh ):
TheNecromancer
3160
well played Tardis :D
With all the other stuff I like to put my time into(including making my own game) I find it hard to finish someones game in order to write a review. I've played a bunch of them but never more than an hour, I lose interest. Most of them need reviews because the game is kinda bad and that just makes it harder to want to continue to the end :/ Plus, more and more games are VXP which don't interest me at all.
I guess that's why I'm part of the problem u.u Hats off to those who write many reviews, unless your not actually finishing the games xD
I feel the star system is fine though. It's the quality of the information in a review that's usually the issue, no? Makes you wonder if the person accepting reviews actually reads them or holds them to any kind of standard. There have been some questionable reviews recently.
With all the other stuff I like to put my time into(including making my own game) I find it hard to finish someones game in order to write a review. I've played a bunch of them but never more than an hour, I lose interest. Most of them need reviews because the game is kinda bad and that just makes it harder to want to continue to the end :/ Plus, more and more games are VXP which don't interest me at all.
I guess that's why I'm part of the problem u.u Hats off to those who write many reviews, unless your not actually finishing the games xD
I feel the star system is fine though. It's the quality of the information in a review that's usually the issue, no? Makes you wonder if the person accepting reviews actually reads them or holds them to any kind of standard. There have been some questionable reviews recently.
In my experience, qualitative ratings have a high chance of being inaccurate with such a low sample population. For example, getting a 90% at RPGfan and getting a 3/5 stars on Gamezebo are apparently the same value, unless your reviewer at RPGfan was a different guy... and.... argh! Too many factors, too much subjectivity.
One person may give every game at least 3/5 stars, and most games 4 stars. 3 stars from that person = completely sucks. But then, on the same game, a different reviewer uses a more "grade on a curve" system, so 3 stars is average, 1/5sucks, and almost nothing gets 5/5 stars unless the game was a miracle that changed his life for the better or something. Should the carebear happen to be the only one reviewing X game, it'll receive 3 stars for massively sucking... and if the strict dude is the only one reviewing Y game, it will receive 3 stars for being competently made. Same rating, and, let's just assume, incredible disparity in quality.
That's not to say that situation happens all the time, but varying and subjective grading paradigms have always seemed unfair and easily manipulated. It is also easier to review a game based on your personal relationship to the author with qualitative, since the score has so much more weight than a like or dislike.
Anyway, not really throwing my hat into the ring, because I have found that reviews tend to have an inexplicably low effect on overall popularity. However, barring a purely quantitative system, I would support the idea of an algorithm that takes all factors into account and determines "popularity," much like the system at DeviantArt.
One person may give every game at least 3/5 stars, and most games 4 stars. 3 stars from that person = completely sucks. But then, on the same game, a different reviewer uses a more "grade on a curve" system, so 3 stars is average, 1/5sucks, and almost nothing gets 5/5 stars unless the game was a miracle that changed his life for the better or something. Should the carebear happen to be the only one reviewing X game, it'll receive 3 stars for massively sucking... and if the strict dude is the only one reviewing Y game, it will receive 3 stars for being competently made. Same rating, and, let's just assume, incredible disparity in quality.
That's not to say that situation happens all the time, but varying and subjective grading paradigms have always seemed unfair and easily manipulated. It is also easier to review a game based on your personal relationship to the author with qualitative, since the score has so much more weight than a like or dislike.
Anyway, not really throwing my hat into the ring, because I have found that reviews tend to have an inexplicably low effect on overall popularity. However, barring a purely quantitative system, I would support the idea of an algorithm that takes all factors into account and determines "popularity," much like the system at DeviantArt.
Honestly, I am of the opinion that any and all measures of game quality be completely eliminated and that RMN refocus its aim purely on being a site for hosting game projects.
As it stands, most people never write reviews. Rather than write constructively about the pros and cons of a game, we'd rather soapbox on the forums or remain silent. Even when encouraged, the turnout is less than pitifully ideal.
The user feedback (or lack thereof) can also be of a level that is simply stupid and/or unfair, as the recent debacle with LL and the Featured Games has shown.
In other words, the user feedback abilities of RMN suck.
So instead of trying to fix the problem and failing, why not just eliminate the problem wholesale and refocus that energy on what RMN actually excels at? It's pretty clear none of the people in this community are interested in objectively rating games, no matter how easy that system is, so why bother?
As it stands, most people never write reviews. Rather than write constructively about the pros and cons of a game, we'd rather soapbox on the forums or remain silent. Even when encouraged, the turnout is less than pitifully ideal.
The user feedback (or lack thereof) can also be of a level that is simply stupid and/or unfair, as the recent debacle with LL and the Featured Games has shown.
In other words, the user feedback abilities of RMN suck.
So instead of trying to fix the problem and failing, why not just eliminate the problem wholesale and refocus that energy on what RMN actually excels at? It's pretty clear none of the people in this community are interested in objectively rating games, no matter how easy that system is, so why bother?
author=undefined
Honestly, I am of the opinion that any and all measures of game quality be completely eliminated and that RMN refocus its aim purely on being a site for hosting game projects.
so you're okay with wide open RTP grass maps with nothing on them and no use of switches
open the floodgates, bros
Quality control by the staff isn't something I intended to include when I said that, primarily because the staff does a nice job of doing it. What I proposed was completely removing, instead of jury-rigging, the system that the community has repeatedly proven cannot, does not, and will not use.
meh, I still think it has value. But I think I see that it is given too much weight. I'll see what I can do to try to balance things out.
star ratings are completely meaningless to me, particularly on this site where one person will give a game 1 star and another gives it 5. i know i am not going to glean any useful information from an average rating because they are almost always middling. 'woah this game is considered to be of 3 star quality' does absolutely nothing to help me decide whether to click it. more useful would just be seeing how many people liked a game enough to give it a thumbs up. '784 people liked this game' would pique my interest, at least.
author=CielIndeed. A game could have a single five star rating and a single one star rating, resulting in a 3-star average. This is very deceptive since it implies that the average reviewer thought the game was a 3-star game, where in reality, none of the reviewers thought so.
star ratings are completely meaningless to me, particularly on this site where one person will give a game 1 star and another gives it 5. i know i am not going to glean any useful information from an average rating because they are almost always middling. 'woah this game is considered to be of 3 star quality' does absolutely nothing to help me decide whether to click it. more useful would just be seeing how many people liked a game enough to give it a thumbs up. '784 people liked this game' would pique my interest, at least.
author=tardisauthor=undefinedso you're okay with wide open RTP grass maps with nothing on them and no use of switches
Honestly, I am of the opinion that any and all measures of game quality be completely eliminated and that RMN refocus its aim purely on being a site for hosting game projects.
open the floodgates, bros
i also agree that wip should pay money from his own pocket to give frontpage exposure on his popular site to people with no development skills and those unwilling to invest a proper effort into a project wooo free bandwidth and server space for everyone to dump their trash into!
author=undefinedYes, that's all well and good, but the problem is that most players (not RMN users, but players who come here looking for games to play) don't care about the content of the reviews; they only look at the score. You're preaching to the choir here. We all know that's the wrong way to go about it and completely unfair, but it's not like we can change their mindset. The only way to remove that problem is to remove numerical score as a discriminant.star ratings are completely meaningless to me, particularly on this site where one person will give a game 1 star and another gives it 5. i know i am not going to glean any useful information from an average rating because they are almost always middling. 'woah this game is considered to be of 3 star quality' does absolutely nothing to help me decide whether to click it. more useful would just be seeing how many people liked a game enough to give it a thumbs up. '784 people liked this game' would pique my interest, at least.If you care only about the average score and not the content of the individual reviews then you're kinda doing it wrong. Review A written by terrible reviewer A is not worth shit compared to Review B written by awesome reviewer Brickroad.
EDIT: Although I do agree that a "like" system would be a good idea alongside reviews.
EDIT2: I do not agree with a "dislike" or "thumbs down" system, though. Makes it too easy for people to snipe people they don't like considering how small this community is.
EDIT: I share your opinions about like/dislike, though I personally think it should replace numerical score.
author=undefinedmost players (not RMN users, but players who come here looking for games to play) don't care about the content of the reviews; they only look at the score.We shouldn't stoop to catering for idiots; isn't that what people like to mock RRR for?
I wouldn't call it catering to idiots. The fact of the matter is that games with a higher review average, regardless of the content or author of those reviews, automatically and implicitly gain more exposure. There's no ignoring the fact that when people Google search "complete rpg maker games", this site is the top result. We have to consider that the games which have the most exposure here have the most exposure to those people, period. If you're just looking to download a couple games, you're just going to look for the highest-rated ones; you don't know which reviewers are or aren't trustworthy so rating is the only easily-accessible metric to determine which ones you'll download.
