SILVIERA'S PROFILE

I'd just like to mention that staff have zero control over the Misaos. We do not nominate games nor control voting in any way.

Seems like in most people's opinion, average games are worth playing. As I see it, there are over 1800 games in RMN, and knowing that some of them may take me quite a few hours to finish, I'm kinda picky when chosing one to start playing. I mean... a 3 star review is not very appealing. If I'm looking for a game to play based only on reviews and stars (using the search engine, for instance), I usually look for something with at least 4 stars. So, unless the game has some specific element that catches my attention, 3-stars and 1-star have the same effect on me. I'm just saying this so people are really careful when writing reviews and rating the games.

Think about what you're saying here. You are ignoring games in this star range because you perceive them to be average or lower. Now if you search through the game listing and see that nearly all of the 1800 games now have a 4 star rating, what are you going to do? You're going to see that as the new average range and start looking for games above 4 stars. I really shouldn't have to explain that saying nearly every game is above average by default is a hilariously bad idea.

Calunio the reason I particularly stressed that 3-Star games and even 2-Star games SHOULD be worth playing is because I AM aware that a lot of people are setting their standards on games-worth-checking out at games with four stars and above. That is why the whole issue of the review system is such a huge deal to me. Because I think right now, basically 90% of games get a 3 or lower (which is pretty skewed I think) and I think 90% of users are only playing games with 4 or more stars. So unless one component of this situation changes, we have a situation where 90% of our users AREN'T playing 90% of the games on the site. Which seems...bad.

I'm not really sure where you're pulling this magical 90% statistic from, but from my personal experience with the user base on this site I wouldn't say the percentage of people who rely on star ratings alone is even remotely close to that. Additionally, most reviews are not 3 stars or lower, and in fact nearly 700 games on this site have a 4 star rating or higher. As for people not playing 90% of the games on the site, that one I'm inclined to agree with but for an entirely different reason. Namely that you'd probably be here for a decade if you attempted to play everything, not even including the fact that this is primarily a developer centric website where most people are more interested in making their own games rather than playing the projects of others.

Also I think it is probably ludicrous for anyone to review a complete game with the same standards as a demo. When you are harsh in reviewing a demo, the author can take your feedback into account and alter the game in production. In fact the point of reviewing a demo is to give the author feedback. Reviewing a complete game, on the other hand, the point seems to be to evaluate the author's accomplishment and act as a "reviewer" giving the community-as-audience an idea of the game's entertainment value. I think that perhaps if complete games- which generally can't be improved based on feedback anyway- were given a little bit more delicacy and respect from reviewers, we would have more of them.

There's nothing saying an author can't go back and improve a complete project (in fact, I've seen many people do this exact thing after receiving a scathing review). These games are not published and sold, they can be altered at any time as long as the author is willing to go back to them. If not, then they need to be given blunt and honest feedback so that they may improve future projects instead. In the case that the creator is uninterested in the review it's just as important that players know exactly what they're getting into when they download a game. The last thing I want to come across when I'm reading a review for something I'm interested in playing is a sentence like "This game might possibly be fun if you're in a good mood when you play it and you consider that the author tried really hard to make something playable."

In summary, trying to sugarcoat a review or giving a developer an A for effort is insulting to everyone involved. All a reviewer can do is give honest and detailed feedback of their own experience with a game.

As for the topic at hand, I personally think trying to standardize the review scale is a waste of time. Even if you somehow managed to get everyone to adhere to that specific scale you'd still end up with wildly different scores due to personal taste and experience. Someone who's only played 10 RPGs is going to have a completely different idea of what makes an 'average' game than someone who's been playing them for a decade. Not to mention anyone who's just passing through the site and browsing the game listings is going to see the star ratings and apply their own standard without looking any deeper.

Personally I would prefer a simple thumbs up/thumbs down system. The content and tone of a review should tell the reader everything they need to know without even looking at the score.