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
Strangeluv
2787
Strangeluv
View playlists
CloseDo we really need it? What's everyone's thoughts about going "Youtube" and replacing stars with Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down?
Or if you all find the Star system fine, why not append it with "based on -X amount of- reviews"?
Or if you all find the Star system fine, why not append it with "based on -X amount of- reviews"?
I like the star system. But a thumbs up/down system not related to the review system would be nice. So people could rate the game without actually reviewing it. <3
I am in the camp of "the more information the better". I would rather see things like "Based on X reviews" or a true average score "Average: 3.7691 stars". (I'd also like to have things like pageviews and subscribers visible publicly, like download counts are).
as for Thumbs up/down, I think that I would NOT include a thumbs down option. A thumbs up/dig/favorite count could be informative or useful, I think. And if that could be tied into a user's personal "Favorites" list that'd be cool, too.
as for Thumbs up/down, I think that I would NOT include a thumbs down option. A thumbs up/dig/favorite count could be informative or useful, I think. And if that could be tied into a user's personal "Favorites" list that'd be cool, too.
Strangeluv
2787
author=JosephSeraph
But a thumbs up/down system not related to the review system would be nice. So people could rate the game without actually reviewing it. <3
I can see this being abused somehow.
Lennon
88
I think a 10 point system might work better, to be honest. Me and YDS briefly talked about this yesterday, and she brought up a good point that I hadn't considered before:
She mentioned how in a 5 point system, a 4 looks pretty great, but an 8(The equivalent rating) only looks good. I think having a 10 point system (Truth be told, a 20 point when you consider .5's) would open up a better way to rate the games. You could be more "honest" about it I guess.
Besides, a ton of other gaming sites gave up stars in favor of points a long time ago.
She mentioned how in a 5 point system, a 4 looks pretty great, but an 8(The equivalent rating) only looks good. I think having a 10 point system (Truth be told, a 20 point when you consider .5's) would open up a better way to rate the games. You could be more "honest" about it I guess.
Besides, a ton of other gaming sites gave up stars in favor of points a long time ago.
author=LennonWhat's your point?
I think a 10 point system might work better, to be honest. Me and YDS briefly talked about this yesterday, and she brought up a good point that I hadn't considered before:
She mentioned how in a 5 point system, a 4 looks pretty great, but an 8(The equivalent rating) only looks good. I think having a 10 point system (Truth be told, a 20 point when you consider .5's) would open up a better way to rate the games. You could be more "honest" about it I guess.
Besides, a ton of other gaming sites gave up stars in favor of points a long time ago.
:)
Yeah, I think that the rating system needs a rejiggering. I will investigate what it would take to implement it.
(how fine grained would you like to see it? I was thinking a 10 point + 1 decimal point system, but with reviewers only allowed to select .5 increments. Averages would be in .1 increments)
Lennon
88
Yeah, pretty much like any other 10 point system. It would be like the stars but with a wider array of choices. The average would be displayed as always. (It would allow for a better average as well, since you could get 8.7, 6.2, etc. instead of just .5's)
Darken
3952
Adding more points... doesn't really do anything. I honestly wish there wasn't .5 increments and actually having the whole system out of 5. There needs to be less dancing around what the game really is.
1- hated it
2- disliked but had potential
3- worth playing but there are still major flaws
4-Great
5- Perfect (or idk close to perfect for some people)
But idk, I don't mind keeping it the way it is. "based on -X amount of- reviews" really seems like the only change necessary.
1- hated it
2- disliked but had potential
3- worth playing but there are still major flaws
4-Great
5- Perfect (or idk close to perfect for some people)
But idk, I don't mind keeping it the way it is. "based on -X amount of- reviews" really seems like the only change necessary.
Strangeluv
2787
author=Darken
But idk, I don't mind keeping it the way it is. "based on -X amount of- reviews" really seems like the only change necessary.
Yeah, we don't need the rest except this. It's not fair that some good games have like 8 reviews and end up with 3 stars and one mediocre game might have 1 review of 4.5 stars and it would immediately be rated higher up.
Increasing the score granularity is pointless. There's no meaningful difference between scoring something 5.5 against 5.6 besides laughing at all those pitiful <= 5.5 ratings instead of <= 5.4. the current 1-10 system is fine and the highest number I'd support.
I like Like/Dislike ratings like Rotten Tomatoes but it only works with a huge sampling population. Assuming RMN has one (downloading, playing, and willing to rate, possibly leave a short comment) it should score games in conjunction with reviews instead of replace them. If you need to leave an acceptable review to rate a game using Like/Dislike you'll never get the sampling population you need and they shouldn't invalidate reviews.
*edit*
I like "based on x number of reviews" though.
I like Like/Dislike ratings like Rotten Tomatoes but it only works with a huge sampling population. Assuming RMN has one (downloading, playing, and willing to rate, possibly leave a short comment) it should score games in conjunction with reviews instead of replace them. If you need to leave an acceptable review to rate a game using Like/Dislike you'll never get the sampling population you need and they shouldn't invalidate reviews.
*edit*
I like "based on x number of reviews" though.
Lennon
88
I think showing the number of reviews is great feature, don't get me wrong. But adding more freedom to the score just seems smart to me. Maybe you think minor differences like .3/.4 of a point don't really matter, and that's fine, but I think it gives you a better idea of how good the game is just by looking at the score. I mean, right now there could be ten games rated 3, but they might not all be the same level of quality. Some might have been scored a 6 or a 4 on a bigger scale.
Darken
3952
Everyone rates games differently, how does one person calculate the difference between a game rated 86/100 and a game rated 83/100 between two different reviewers? There's also the fact some people believe 60/100 is a horrible score while 80 is like slightly above average or whatever. The less points there are, the more universal and simple the rating system becomes.
Remember that we don't have a 1-5 scale, we have a 1-10 scale. That 3 score game is a 6 score game, and a 2.5 score is a 5 score. (I'd bet dollars to donuts that the site stores scores as 1-10). I can't speak for WIP but I think it's a five star with half star score system so looking at the score of a game would be cleaner and easier to read. Reading 
is easier than 
(pretend all those stars are closer together, I can't slice 'em together at work). It's fewer stars, looks less messy, and easier to read at a glance and you still get a 1-10 score scale.
It is a 1-10 integer scale.
(the fact that it is an integer is what causes the truncation of averages, by the way. So if you had a game with ten 8 score reviews (4-star) and one 7 score review (3.5 star), the "average" is going to show up as 3.5 stars (7 score). Ankylo and I worked out a fix for this already, but it needs to be implemented in production still)
(the fact that it is an integer is what causes the truncation of averages, by the way. So if you had a game with ten 8 score reviews (4-star) and one 7 score review (3.5 star), the "average" is going to show up as 3.5 stars (7 score). Ankylo and I worked out a fix for this already, but it needs to be implemented in production still)
author=geodudehello geodude yes that is the debate.
why don't we just use a numbered score? PRECISION
Lennon
88
Yes, I forgot to mention that I am talking about a numbered 10 point system here, not ten stars. Why would I want ten stars?
