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)
REVIEW SCORING: STANDARDIZATION, PROFESSIONALISM, ETC.
Posts
Sailerius
View playlists
Closeauthor=kentona
I hate simple thumb up/down. For one, there is no "mediocre" rating! This just leaves us with the ones most motivated to rate a game are those who either really loved it or really hated it - a kind of evangelize/trash dichotomy. This results in an artificial judgment gap, wherein the "meh" voice is lost and only the extreme views are written, posted and heard.
Also, we have too small a sample size to do this.
also also, in a land of worded scores, how would the game's overall rating be established? Right now it is an average score out of 10, rounded to the nearest whole number (and then represented as a out-of-5-star image)
Why does there have to be an overall rating? Make visitors look at the reviews instead of the consensus. If one reviewer calls a game Terrible and one calls it Outstanding, then averaging that and saying the game is Good is dishonest; no reviewer thinks that rating applies.
Irili
3198
author=kentona
I hate simple thumb up/down. For one, there is no "mediocre" rating! This just leaves us with the ones most motivated to rate a game are those who either really loved it or really hated it - a kind of evangelize/trash dichotomy. This results in an artificial judgment gap, wherein the "meh" voice is lost and only the extreme views are written, posted and heard.
Also, we have too small a sample size to do this.
also also, in a land of worded scores, how would the game's overall rating be established? Right now it is an average score out of 10, rounded to the nearest whole number (and then represented as a out-of-5-star image)
So basically, out with new and in with the old?
author=Fallen-GrieverSo the goal as a developer is to be affable and well-liked and respected?I expect to be judged according to the standard I attempt to meet.This is so ridiculously important it's not even funny. You should always, always, always write a review based on the aims and intent of the developer.
(Also, what if I intended to make a small game in a new engine in 2 weeks time? should I complain if the reviewer reviewed it in light of my past works? ;)
Perihelion
665
author=Feldschlacht IVauthor=SaliYes, the professionalism that entails that of a free hobby. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any standard for our craft, there should! But the standard of professional games, with million dollar budgets, expert teams (of people who get PAID TO DO THIS, MAKING GAMES PAYS THEIR BILLS), collective tons of resources, and all that jazz? Fuck no.
Whether you like it or not, RMN is the face of the RPG Maker community to the rest of the world and it should be treated with the sort of professionalism that that entails.
No one's saying you need to have a huge budget, but there are a lot of fantastic games made by one person out there. Fun is a much bigger issue than production value. There's also nothing wrong with doing this as a hobby, and no one is saying there is.
I still like Racheal's idea best.
Like I said, good (great, even) for them.
author=some dude
No one's saying you need to have a huge budget, but there are a lot of fantastic games made by one person out there.
Like I said, good (great, even) for them.
Rowan
131
There's a system on imdb.com where you can thumbs up/down a review according to whether you think the review was justified or not.
Just throwing that out there.
Just throwing that out there.
Irili
3198
author=Rowan
There's a system on imdb.com where you can thumbs up/down a review according to whether you think the review was justified or not.
Reviewing the reviewer? Not a bad idea.
author=SaileriusLike you suggested, visitors use metrics to choose games to play. The average score is one of those metrics.author=kentonaWhy does there have to be an overall rating? Make visitors look at the reviews instead of the consensus. If one reviewer calls a game Terrible and one calls it Outstanding, then averaging that and saying the game is Good is dishonest; no reviewer thinks that rating applies.
I hate simple thumb up/down. For one, there is no "mediocre" rating! This just leaves us with the ones most motivated to rate a game are those who either really loved it or really hated it - a kind of evangelize/trash dichotomy. This results in an artificial judgment gap, wherein the "meh" voice is lost and only the extreme views are written, posted and heard.
Also, we have too small a sample size to do this.
also also, in a land of worded scores, how would the game's overall rating be established? Right now it is an average score out of 10, rounded to the nearest whole number (and then represented as a out-of-5-star image)
I am of the opine that more information is better.
author=Rowan
There's a system on imdb.com where you can thumbs up/down a review according to whether you think the review was justified or not.
Just throwing that out there.
Eeeyyy, there's an idea.
author=Feldschlacht IVWe used to have that for everything, iirc! Reviews, articles, tutorials...author=RowanEeeyyy, there's an idea.
There's a system on imdb.com where you can thumbs up/down a review according to whether you think the review was justified or not.
Just throwing that out there.
author=Irili
Reviewing the reviewer? Not a bad idea.
I disagree. It'll encourage people to just thumbs down negative reviews of games they like.
author=kentonaauthor=SaileriusLike you suggested, visitors use metrics to choose games to play. The average score is one of those metrics.author=kentonaWhy does there have to be an overall rating? Make visitors look at the reviews instead of the consensus. If one reviewer calls a game Terrible and one calls it Outstanding, then averaging that and saying the game is Good is dishonest; no reviewer thinks that rating applies.
I hate simple thumb up/down. For one, there is no "mediocre" rating! This just leaves us with the ones most motivated to rate a game are those who either really loved it or really hated it - a kind of evangelize/trash dichotomy. This results in an artificial judgment gap, wherein the "meh" voice is lost and only the extreme views are written, posted and heard.
Also, we have too small a sample size to do this.
also also, in a land of worded scores, how would the game's overall rating be established? Right now it is an average score out of 10, rounded to the nearest whole number (and then represented as a out-of-5-star image)
I am of the opine that more information is better.
The more generalized information you give them, the more they'll depend on that instead of the details that really matter.
Perihelion
665
Perhaps instead of an average rating, there could be a breakdown by how many people gave a game what rating. This won't be too obnoxious if there are only five options. The site can use an invisible average for purposes of ranking.
I also don't like the idea of rating reviews. Too many people would downvote reviews they personally disagree with.
I also don't like the idea of rating reviews. Too many people would downvote reviews they personally disagree with.
Thumbs Up/Down is as broken as the current system. It can be abused and used to wrongly judge a review much like how the five stars can currently wrongly judge a game. The exclusion of a numerical system is the best as it can't be abused by the creator or his friends to wrongly promote a project. Leaving the players to read or skim over the reviews and use their own judgement to see if the game is worth it or not.
Also, reviews don't really matter, excepting to members here who use them as signs/prestige.
The trend in stats seems to say that it is more about word-of-mouth and outside-the-community advertising that drives, say, pageviews and downloads (vs. reivew scores or # of reviews)
(so in essence I am saying that what is said in reviews isn't the details that really matter (and that is lamentable)).
The trend in stats seems to say that it is more about word-of-mouth and outside-the-community advertising that drives, say, pageviews and downloads (vs. reivew scores or # of reviews)
(so in essence I am saying that what is said in reviews isn't the details that really matter (and that is lamentable)).
author=kentona
I hate simple thumb up/down. For one, there is no "mediocre" rating! This just leaves us with the ones most motivated to rate a game are those who either really loved it or really hated it - a kind of evangelize/trash dichotomy. This results in an artificial judgment gap, wherein the "meh" voice is lost and only the extreme views are written, posted and heard.
Also, we have too small a sample size to do this.
By the logic of extremes then a game's score should be the median or mode, not the average! I'd also argue that a two point scale devalues the extreme audience who cosplay as its characters or make a flag and burn it. A FUCKYEAH weighs the same as "eeeh it was alright" (I'd personally consider this a ThumbsUp) while a ten point FUCKYEAH means more to raising a game's score against the "eeeeh it was alright" 5 point.
(I totally agree that the sample population on RMN is way too small to do a two point scale effectively. It requires tons of reviews and the best way to get them is to make it small-effort reviews which generally makes the content of the review trivial because visibility of any individual review drops)
Reviewing the reviewer? Not a bad idea.Rating something without giving reason by just clicking on the "up" and "down" button kinda sucks. Also people will abuse that system to troll others (--> YouTube).
Rob_Riv
0
I try to review RM games relative to one another. The majority of games seem to be not good at all; this results in a low mean average score. I hope to have a good number of reviews in the future, so that someone could look a game up and see how I rated it in comparison to another game they might be familiar with.
Simply, I prefer using 2.5 as a quality average, not a numerical average.
Simply, I prefer using 2.5 as a quality average, not a numerical average.
Almost every star rating system in the history of the internet (ones where you can just click your star rating when reviewing something) have text underneath explaining what the rating means.
100% of the time 5 stars is amazing, 0 stars is abysmal. 4 is above average, 3 is good, 2 is below average, 1 is poor.
This system is used on every website I've ever visited that has a built-in star-rating system when reviewing anything ever.
My point is, there's no difference between a star system and a word system when the star system explains it's own terminology to the person using it.
100% of the time 5 stars is amazing, 0 stars is abysmal. 4 is above average, 3 is good, 2 is below average, 1 is poor.
This system is used on every website I've ever visited that has a built-in star-rating system when reviewing anything ever.
My point is, there's no difference between a star system and a word system when the star system explains it's own terminology to the person using it.
