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)
WHAT MAKES A GAME RATE 5 OUT OF 5 STARS?
Posts
chana
View playlists
Close
author=chana
So what do you call gameplay, pyrodoom ?
Being 100% easy and passable without any effort. :\
author=Adon237author=chanaBeing 100% easy and passable without any effort. :\
So what do you call gameplay, pyrodoom ?
No, gameplay would be pretty much the opposite of posture, it's when a game has more elements than just the normal game play will allow, or very special things like an abs system, running system, spell, all the way down to the simplest puzzle.
author=pyrodoomauthor=Adon237No, gameplay would be pretty much the opposite of posture, it's when a game has more elements than just the normal game play will allow, or very special things like an abs system, running system, spell, all the way down to the simplest puzzle.author=chanaBeing 100% easy and passable without any effort. :\
So what do you call gameplay, pyrodoom ?
I thought that was part of gameplay. :\
author=chana
"I thought that was part of gameplay", yes that's what I meant, pyrodoom.
I am pyrodoom now :\? lol
All of those things you listed would fall under gameplay. This posture sounds like a different name for gameplay. Which would be worthless in a review if you have 2 of the same categories.
author=chana
No, I was posting to pyrodoom, agreeing with you Adon.
Ohh, still. I was thinking if you were going to have posture, it shouldn't be a separate review category, it should be how OVERALL the game was to you. Not gameplay. :#
I've posted my thoughts on what a five star game means to me elsewhere, but why not copy-paste?
5/5 -> Excellent. Among the paragons of gaming experiences, and instant feature material in my humble opinion (if it wasn't featured already).
author=Marrend
I've posted my thoughts on what a five star game means to me elsewhere, but why not copy-paste?
5/5 -> Excellent. Among the paragons of gaming experiences, and instant feature material in my humble opinion (if it wasn't featured already).
Wow. I actually have that exact sentence with all of your other review scores in my game's notes.
I've given 5/5 twice in reviews. Games don't have to be perfect. I think I base it in:
1 - The game is overall a very enjoyable experience, I don't have to force myself to play it anytime, I find myself wanting to play more of it when I'm not on the computer.
2 - There's this one thing about the game that makes it clever and brilliant.
3 - No major flaws (like ABL's graphics).
1 - The game is overall a very enjoyable experience, I don't have to force myself to play it anytime, I find myself wanting to play more of it when I'm not on the computer.
2 - There's this one thing about the game that makes it clever and brilliant.
3 - No major flaws (like ABL's graphics).
author=Adon237author=MarrendWow. I actually have that exact sentence with all of your other review scores in my game's notes.
I've posted my thoughts on what a five star game means to me elsewhere, but why not copy-paste?
5/5 -> Excellent. Among the paragons of gaming experiences, and instant feature material in my humble opinion (if it wasn't featured already).
It's called a "copy-paste" for a reason...
Illustrious
520
You have earned 5 stars.
"I was very caught up in the game having a blast. I can tell you that some years from now I will still remember this game fondly. I can imagine revisiting it."
If I can say this about a game, it's about the highest compliment I can give. And really, it would be the most important thing that has to be said to feel a 5 is valid.
Scores are the bottom line, and in them I make sure to tell the creator how much I enjoyed a game. This is what both the game creator and viewing public wish to get out of a review score. I do not see it as a statement of "This is how much room you have for improvement". If you are trying to say that, it can just be told in the constructive body of your review.
"I was very caught up in the game having a blast. I can tell you that some years from now I will still remember this game fondly. I can imagine revisiting it."
If I can say this about a game, it's about the highest compliment I can give. And really, it would be the most important thing that has to be said to feel a 5 is valid.
Scores are the bottom line, and in them I make sure to tell the creator how much I enjoyed a game. This is what both the game creator and viewing public wish to get out of a review score. I do not see it as a statement of "This is how much room you have for improvement". If you are trying to say that, it can just be told in the constructive body of your review.
First of all, thanks everyone for the feedback.
What I think is, to get 5 stars from me all you need to do is make a really fun game.
If the game proposes great fun and doesn't get boring with time,
it deserves 5 stars. No fancy graphic and shit, just fun to play.
I can give an example, hmmm Super Mario World lol.
I rate that 5/5 because it's simply fun, and I could play it for hours without getting bored of it :)
What I think is, to get 5 stars from me all you need to do is make a really fun game.
If the game proposes great fun and doesn't get boring with time,
it deserves 5 stars. No fancy graphic and shit, just fun to play.
I can give an example, hmmm Super Mario World lol.
I rate that 5/5 because it's simply fun, and I could play it for hours without getting bored of it :)
Honestly, I am not a fan of rating systems that are any more complex than a binary metric -- thumbs up or thumbs down. Is it important that there be a distinction between 1 star and 2 stars? Would you recommend to a friend a game that you rated 2 stars? I doubt it.
When ratings are an aggregate of many critics or many users, I like them even less, because aggregate rating systems are biased towards the mainstream. A niche game created for a niche audience could be exactly what certain players are looking for, but because it isn't enjoyable to a wide swath of players, it gets a low aggregate rating. I don't like to see quality equated with popularity.
When ratings are an aggregate of many critics or many users, I like them even less, because aggregate rating systems are biased towards the mainstream. A niche game created for a niche audience could be exactly what certain players are looking for, but because it isn't enjoyable to a wide swath of players, it gets a low aggregate rating. I don't like to see quality equated with popularity.
True, and that's why single critics who have a known bias (or, more flatteringly, frame of reference) are still worthwhile in an age of aggregate reviews. Such reviewers allow a niche audience to know if something will appeal to them or not.
Deadly Premonition is a good example; it got very mixed results from reviewers, because it is so unusual a game. Without those individual reviews, the game may have avoided public attention entirely, which would have been a real shame since I consider that game to be brilliant.
In general, there is no hard and fast rule of what is objectively good or bad. What makes a work of fiction succeed or fail is by how well it is received by its intended audience, and how will it uses the conventions of its genre and its medium to its advantage. I don't think that an aggregate user base by necessity plays only to the mainstream, since the people making the reviews are still people who took the time to see the movie or play the game in the first place, meaning that they ARE the intended audience, and the aggregate review reflects their consensus. Someone who hates romantic comedies isn't likely to go see one, for example, and if they do see one and take the time to give it a negative review, that review will be balanced out by reviews from fans of the genre who know what is good or bad about its use of conventions.
Deadly Premonition is a good example; it got very mixed results from reviewers, because it is so unusual a game. Without those individual reviews, the game may have avoided public attention entirely, which would have been a real shame since I consider that game to be brilliant.
In general, there is no hard and fast rule of what is objectively good or bad. What makes a work of fiction succeed or fail is by how well it is received by its intended audience, and how will it uses the conventions of its genre and its medium to its advantage. I don't think that an aggregate user base by necessity plays only to the mainstream, since the people making the reviews are still people who took the time to see the movie or play the game in the first place, meaning that they ARE the intended audience, and the aggregate review reflects their consensus. Someone who hates romantic comedies isn't likely to go see one, for example, and if they do see one and take the time to give it a negative review, that review will be balanced out by reviews from fans of the genre who know what is good or bad about its use of conventions.
Deadly Premonition...I really need to play that.
Funny that I also had survival horror in mind. The example I was thinking of was (Forbidden) Siren which gave me one of the most unforgettable gaming experiences I've ever had. Many critics were not able to look past its real flaws, and the super high difficulty/frustration factor didn't help endear it to them either. Not even all survival horror fans rated it highly. You had to not only be a survival horror fan, you also had to have vast reserves of patience to get far enough to see what a masterpiece imo it was. If you were its target audience, as I was, the prominent lukewarm ratings and reviews were an obstacle to discovering that gem.
I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes a title can be so niche that even the people who think they are its intended audience are actually outside of it, and they are apt to rate it more poorly than it deserves.
Funny that I also had survival horror in mind. The example I was thinking of was (Forbidden) Siren which gave me one of the most unforgettable gaming experiences I've ever had. Many critics were not able to look past its real flaws, and the super high difficulty/frustration factor didn't help endear it to them either. Not even all survival horror fans rated it highly. You had to not only be a survival horror fan, you also had to have vast reserves of patience to get far enough to see what a masterpiece imo it was. If you were its target audience, as I was, the prominent lukewarm ratings and reviews were an obstacle to discovering that gem.
I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes a title can be so niche that even the people who think they are its intended audience are actually outside of it, and they are apt to rate it more poorly than it deserves.
obsorber
50
If I could see no flaws with the game and found everything about it good such as the mapping, level design, gameplay, battling, story, characters, music and cutscenes all rated relatively high or 5/5, then I would give it a 5 straight.
Even with small flaws I would still give it a 5 as long as those flaws didn't affect the game professionally like the odd grammar mistake every few hours or 1 or 2 map glitches in the whole game that didn't ruin the whole experience. The way I see it is that every game even professional ones have their own flaws and some errors. You always find glitches in various games and I could name a few. For example you'll notice in Armoured Core 4 Answer, it lags at certain missions because so many events are running. If I was rating the game as an amateur game then that would instantly hit 5/5. I'd rate that game 4/5 for professionalism.
Even with small flaws I would still give it a 5 as long as those flaws didn't affect the game professionally like the odd grammar mistake every few hours or 1 or 2 map glitches in the whole game that didn't ruin the whole experience. The way I see it is that every game even professional ones have their own flaws and some errors. You always find glitches in various games and I could name a few. For example you'll notice in Armoured Core 4 Answer, it lags at certain missions because so many events are running. If I was rating the game as an amateur game then that would instantly hit 5/5. I'd rate that game 4/5 for professionalism.
Radnen
1806
author=halibabica
There are very few games I would award 5 out of 5 to, commercial or otherwise. When I'm rating a game, I try to take everything into consideration. Literally, everything. Graphics, music, sound, mechanics, playability...and those are just the major groupings. It's tough to say what exactly would earn such a score out of me. It's more like a really long list of things you shouldn't do as opposed to things you should. It's a semi-logical affair on a very broad scale that only gets more complicated the more people you ask.
It's easier to just make the game as best you can and take feedback into consideration for improvement.
I far too often give a game (personally) 5/10 stars even commercial. If you don't you're generally thinking too hard about it. I set a criteria that's basically this:
1. Goal?
2. Met?
If both are answered and effort was seen put into it then a 5 star is no-brainer. Also scope. Ex: "The games graphics are bad, but do they convey their purpose?" If yes, 5 stars. If no, lower stars. Does the sound fit? It sounds awful - is it intentional? If I were the developer would this fly? Yes, there is some subjectivity, but at least I'm keeping it fairly straightforward.
Take Torchlight, it got 8.0/10 quite often. I give it a 10, why?
Goal: A simplistic A-RPG that's single player only that offers 3 character classes with loot skills and items.
Met? Absolutely.
Graphics: Simplistic, but well defined. 10/10.
Sound: Not memorable, but does it need to be? No, therefore 10/10.
Playability: Controls work flawlessly, for an ARPG (as in they didn't screw up anything fundamental) They may not have pushed the tech forward but being perfect is also about being safe.
etc.
author=Radnen
I far too often give a game (personally) 5/10 stars even commercial. If you don't you're generally thinking too hard about it.
author=Radnen
I set a criteria that's basically this: 1. Goal? 2. Met? If both are answered and effort was seen put into it then a 5 star is no-brainer.
You seem to be making it out to be like anyone putting more thought on a review than that is going way out of its way about it.
If anybody were to rate my game with such little thought put on it I'd feel bad. =( ...Is it too much to ask to put that lazy brain of us to work a little more, and try to rate things as objectively as we possibly could? - We owe that much to all the people sharing this hobby with us.
Seriously, I can see how a game's "achievements", its "fun-factor", or whatever else can be part of a review, even a decisive one if the reviewer so desires. But to completely disregard every other aspect of the game because of it? - No wonder why things are as they are. =/
