Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
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
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsARIEDONUS'S PROFILE
ariedonus
41
Close
I have been fiddling with RPG Maker on and off for six or so years, and in becoming so accustomed to it, have been reluctant to learn to hard code anything. Despite that, I plan on going to school for Game Design, because I -love- making games (although I have yet to finish one, haha). I'm also pretty terrible at coming up with an interesting block of text about myself, so I am going to end this here! :D
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
dl050.jpg
Avatars you got tired of
Avatars you got tired of
post=156413
He said something she didn't like. :P
I am extremely tired of your avatar. Extremely.
(I mean this with love.)
The Problem with Reviews (and a new suggestion!)
post=156391
I'm just saying some changes may be very risky.
I'm not really seeing how adding more rating systems is at all risky. If anything, it's lowering any sort of risk there could be out there and will result to more games being played.
post=156391
Anything that sorts "good games" from "bad games" tend to exclude games, bury them into oblivion. Review ratings already does that, in a way. If you search games sorting by rates, you'll pretty much exclude a lot of bad-rated games. If you have lists like "top 10 games", or "top subscribed games", or "top favorite games", "top best-impression games" or anything like that, you'll just make it so that more people play the games that are being played more, and less people play the game that are being played less.
This is one of the problems the multiple ratings/Impressions would fix. A lot of games are being "buried into oblivion" right now, seeing as games are not getting enough reviews to really show how good or bad it is. Because of the ease of input that is available with quicker ratings options and options available to those who are not really capable of writing a top-caliber review, the input is more frequent and more varied. If anything, more ratings/feedback will pull games out of oblivion, not push them further down.
The point is not to make it so that every game on RMN is going to be played an equal amount, the point is to get more feedback, which is pretty sure fire when you make giving feedback easier. Yeah, the shitty games are not going to get played as much as the good ones; that's how it's supposed to be. What motivation would there be to make a good game if the shitty ones got played just as much? None, except for some sort of self-fulfillment.
The Problem with Reviews (and a new suggestion!)
post=156166
Honestly... I don't like any of those ideas, and I wouldn't change a thing about the current system.
So, yeah, people have bias and stuff, but hey, we're humans, that's something we can expect.
Saying "there's a problem with reviews, let's write more reviews" obviously doesn't make any sense.
Quick numerical ratings would be far more open to bias, and results could be tragic.
I don't like dichotomical "like-dislike" ratings, because a game with over 50% dislike would automatically be viewed as "do not play".
Also, we have comments on gameprofiles. People can leave quicker feedback there. I don't see a point in stuffing too many ratings and pieces of info in the gameprofile. Confusing. It's fine the way it is, really.
People do have bias, but if there are simple ways to lower the amount of bias occurring, why not? I find it hard to look at a problem, have all the resources to solve that problem, and leave it alone. It doesn't make much sense to me.
The problem isn't with the reviews, we still want reviews. Reviews are very helpful and should always be a part of the site. Kentona just explained, however, that we don't have enough of them, which is where the problem lies.
With the quick, numerical ratings, yeah some people are going to be ridiculous and vote in an extreme fashion, but reviewers do the exact same thing. The difference is that a lot more users are participating and the bias will be weighed out, because those who just feel like the game was "ok" will be more likely to input their feedback. I'm not exactly a fan of the like/dislike system, though, so we see eye-to-eye there.
You do have a good point about the commenting on profile pages, but the problem is that the feedback will likely go unnoticed by the players. We use comments on the profiles for many different things, such as asking questions, making silly jokes, etc. and the feedback is going to be harder to find. When players are looking over a game, chances are that they are going to look to the reviews, the stars, and whatever ratings are there.
The Problem with Reviews (and a new suggestion!)
post=156131
I don't really like this impression score idea. It seems superfluous, because it's what reviews are already supposed to do anyway. It's approached in the same way, gives the same general effect (feedback and a score) and will probably cause the exact same grievances reviews already do.
Review reviewers are fine as long as "your score is too low" isn't the basis of their entire argument.
It's what reviews are supposed to do, not always what they do, which is Kentona's point. The main problem is that not every game gets a review, so whatever they're supposed to do can't even have a chance at happening. Even when a game does get the reviews, chances are it isn't getting enough of them and the score is more likely to be skewed. Because of the format of this "Impression" system, more are likely to come in, therefore giving developers more feedback and players more viewpoints/opinions to decide whether or not to play.
post=156133
Honestly, I don't feel like the system of "big box of text + out of 5 rating" works that great for conveying quality. I am definitely for alternative ideas.
I agree that giving a a numerical value is a lot easier for one to do that to write up a review about everything specific. GameFAQs has a system in place, as most gaming sites do, that takes all of these factors into consideration. It has a score for user reviews, a score for user ratings, and then a third score that shows what the pro reviewers think. With all three ratings, it gives players three distinct points of view on the game and helps a lot when deciding whether they should buy it or not.
To try and apply it to what we have here, we could have a score for user-ratings (just a quick opinion that registered users can leave in numerical form), quick review scores (Kentona's "Impressions"), and then full review scores (our tradition review system). This gives everyone three scores to look at that each hold a different weight, but are all important. Other sites have the option to leave quick reviews that are very much like Kentona's new system, because more feedback is always good. Yeah, this doesn't always ensure the utmost quality, but reviews don't always ensure that either (I have seen reviews that would be much better served in "Impression" form).
post=156138
A while ago I pitched a Critique idea, where you get a series of ratings for various common categories like Graphics, Sound, Story, Character, Fun, etc... and a text block for misc notes. Then you can submit that to the gameprofile/creator.
But we got hung up on the name "Critique" and it didn't go anywhere.
Leave it to RMN to get sidetracked on semantics, haha.
You Decide - Stay or Go?
You Decide - Stay or Go?
post=155971post=155872I don't know about you but I use RPGMaker because I don't have a team of highly paid professionals to do a good deal of code work for me. That doesn't mean I am going to put jack shit effort into my game. No matter how easy the game making program is: making a full good game takes a lot of work and talent. Sorry to break it to you.post=155329Isn't this the reason we all use rpgmaker programs in the first place?
I want to make a RPG, but I don't want to invest any time or effort learning the myriad skills integral to RPG development..
He wasn't implying that people who use RPG Maker do it so they don't have to put any effort into their game, he was pointing out that there is a shit ton of work, effort, and talent that people don't ever put in/obtain by using the program. There are definitely a lot of exceptions to this, but considering that the majority of the community uses ripped resources, don't ever learn to hard-code, etc. he still has a point.
I'm not denying your main statement, though. I completely agree that a lot of work goes into projects, even when you take advantage of the program and all that is out there for it.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
