134 replies to this topic

[LinktheMaster]

Yeah, that's still not a good idea. I mean, reviews are there for a reason. They're there to give people a good idea of how the quests are. While not everyone includes good backup for their suggestions, some people do, and that helps people pick what quests to play. I think if you remove any of that stuff, you're removing a big reasoning for having the reviews in the first place.

[SofaKing]

I just wish people would play enough to be able to fairly review and be fair and objective. There are WAY too many reviews that say things like "I've played through most of Level 1, it's pretty good, five stars." Hell, there are reviews based just on screenshots. That's ridiculous. I only rate quests I've finished, which is partly why I usually give four, and sometimes five. If I don't like a quest and it doesn't hold my interest, I only play the first level or two, and I end up not rating it.

[Omega]

Indeed LTM, that's why I said "Still think that's kinda stretching it"

@FerentzRocks: I agree. Some people rate quests early as if it cannot take a turn for the worse. I've already made an example to a few people but it's not really suitable for the forums. But yeah, rate the quest when you've stopped playing officially or when you've finished it.

Though that sorta seems like common sense? lol

[strike]

I think it would perhaps be beneficial to have the person rating the quest fill out a few checkboxes to show how far they actually played the quest. The boxes could go as follows:

Didn't play any of it, but I can judge it by the screen shots.

Played to, or slightly beyond, the first dungeon.

Got about halfway threw the quest.

Almost finished it.

Finished the entire game.

How far the quest player got threw the quest would affect how much the rating weighed compared to all the others. This would let the people who ACTUALLY PLAYED THE GAME to have more affect on the rating than those who played one or two levels and were quickly judgmental. This would make the ratings more fair and accurate.

Thoughts?


-Strike

[nicklegends]

I think it would perhaps be beneficial to have the person rating the quest fill out a few checkboxes to show how far they actually played the quest. The boxes could go as follows:

Didn't play any of it, but I can judge it by the screen shots.

Played to, or slightly beyond, the first dungeon.

Got about halfway threw the quest.

Almost finished it.

Finished the entire game.

How far the quest player got threw the quest would affect how much the rating weighed compared to all the others. This would let the people who ACTUALLY PLAYED THE GAME to have more affect on the rating than those who played one or two levels and were quickly judgmental. This would make the ratings more fair and accurate.

Thoughts?
-Strike

Yeah, but then what's to stop people from lying?

If it means anything, the new site allows you to edit your rating (both the text and the number of stars). If people play more of the quest and decide it isn't all it's cracked up to be, they can lower their rating as the quest goes on. Likewise if it ends up better than expected, they can raise it. Not really a solution, but something to keep in mind nonetheless.

Also, sometimes it is genuinely difficult or impossible to play the entire quest before giving a rating. If a game-stopping bug sends you into a wall every time you exit the third dungeon, then you shouldn't withhold your judgment of the quest in my opinion.

[Legen Dary]

I just wish people would play enough to be able to fairly review and be fair and objective. There are WAY too many reviews that say things like "I've played through most of Level 1, it's pretty good, five stars." Hell, there are reviews based just on screenshots. That's ridiculous. I only rate quests I've finished, which is partly why I usually give four, and sometimes five. If I don't like a quest and it doesn't hold my interest, I only play the first level or two, and I end up not rating it.

An opinion will never be objective, and the meaning of "fair" is something subjective too. Of course there are very bad reviews, but it's easy to identify them.

And, for me, it isn't necessary to finish a quest to rate it, but if you write a review without beating the quest it would be better to tell it in your review. And remember that it isn't the same to play a quest until the first dungeon than to finish three or four of them. Usually, gameplay mechanics don't change that much along the game.

Edited by Legen Dary, 06 April 2013 - 12:57 PM.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

Yeah, let's make one thing very clear: a review is not (supposed to be) objective, and if you're writing an objective review, you're doing it wrong!

I feel confident in saying that I know a bit about how reviews should be done, considering I wrote game reviews for a living for a few years. It's obvious to anyone with some common sense that objective elements should make it into a review - I mean, if there's a game breaking bug in there, it's not like someone's gonna say 'maybe you didn't, but I rather enjoyed that game breaking bug that made it so I couldn't finish the game', or at least if they do, you'll know they're either messing with you, or they have absolutely no idea what they're doing.

When I wrote reviews for Gamereactor, it was always important to consider that you're writing down your thoughts on the product in question - you're not writing a shopping guide. This is why I don't think the rating itself matters, because it's what's written in the text that truly conveys how the author feels about the game, not the silly number coupled with it. Objective reviews are bullshit, cause, just like with books or movies, or any other forms of entertainment, it all comes down to your personal taste.

That said, a poorly designed game is a poorly designed game. There is no getting around this. That doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed, but yeah, there it is.

[SofaKing]

I like the idea of being able to change a rating for those who might be too hasty. Also, as I said above, if the creator takes the time to polish and fix up bugs in response to comments and feedback, I'll take the courtesy to re-rate and re-review in response to the fixes if it is appropriate.

[aaa2]

I just had an idea. Why not give more free parameters for rating a quest. Like 0-5star rating on peak performance so a quest that has its moments can get 5 stars there. Then a rating for bottom performance so one can see how low a quest can sink. And a rating for average performance.If the numbers for those ratings can be set at seperate times that would be good also.

I ussually tend to rate games depending on the peak performance which means mostly 5 stars as i would find it unfair otherwise. If the rating system was adapted like that i and everyone else could rate quests in a very accurate way i suppose.

[nicklegends]

I ussually tend to rate games depending on the peak performance which means mostly 5 stars as i would find it unfair otherwise. If the rating system was adapted like that i and everyone else could rate quests in a very accurate way i suppose.

That's an interesting philosophy. When it comes to quests, I rate the package as a whole, factoring in highlights as well as lowlights. Using the peak might be a little misleading at times--I can think of games that had stellar moments but under-delivered everywhere else. A good example is the SNES Star Ocean: incredible graphics, a strong start to the story, fun gameplay... but then the pacing crashed and fights got so tedious at the end to fill in the lost time that the game suffered hugely as a whole. At its peak, Star Ocean was a 10, but overall I can't give it much more than a 7.5.

With this said, my philosophy changes when there are multiple files packaged together, such as for tiles and music. In these cases, I only rate the best item that was released. If a MIDI has two variations and I think one rocks and one stinks, I'll rate the submission based on the good one. It only seems fair to me because nobody should be penalized for providing supplemental, optional content. I made a point of this when I released an updated version of Fate's Footsteps to the site: "For your benefit, I included the original version of the song in the ZIP file as well as well as the new one. When leaving comments, please rate which you believe is the better of the two -- taking an average is unfair to me because I wasn't obligated to share both renditions with you in the first place. "

Of course, a rating is what you make of it. We all have one vote and it's all worth the same. Cast it as you see fit.

[aaa2]

I think because we get those quests for free we should judge them on their best parts not the average. I would definately judge a commercial game differently (probably judge it for its worst parts).

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

I think because we get those quests for free we should judge them on their best parts not the average. I would definately judge a commercial game differently (probably judge it for its worst parts).

That doesn't make any sense. Regardless of how much (or little) you gave for a product, that doesn't change the product itself. The cost has absolutely no impact on the experience within. It's not even the same as saying don't judge a book by its cover. I was under the impression that common sense dictates you shouldn't be judging it by its price, either.

I really just don't get the whole argument of why one shouldn't just give his honest reaction. I mean, complaining about a game is not the same as talking shit to the creator of said game - and if you can't criticize a game without doing that, it might be a good time to reconsider why you're criticizing it to begin with. I feel I can say this, because I've done my fair share of straight up unfair and bad reviews on this site myself. I don't think I need to list any specific quests, but the people I'm talking about... you know who you are, and I'm sorry.

No, judge the game for what it is, not for anything else. What the price is, who made it, what others have rated it... literally anything that isn't the experience itself, should have absolutely nothing to do with the final verdict.

[aaa2]

Oh i can elaborate it easily. If the game is free i can simply pick out the part of content that i enjoy from the product and dont need to depend on the content that i did not like as i can skip it with no monetary loss(cheating mostly). If i paid for the game not only so i get back the value i paid for i have to tediously play through all of it. But chances are i probably wont be able to skip crap because cheating is ussually made as hard as possible.

And yes that is what i do with games.

So if i only play the good parts obviously i only judge the good parts. And because its free i am not forced to go through the crap part to get back my value i spent.

[Shane]

I wouldn't be surprised if you gave Mario Quest a higher rating than Phantom Hourglass then.

[Hoff123]

Oh i can elaborate it easily. If the game is free i can simply pick out the part of content that i enjoy from the product and dont need to depend on the content that i did not like as i can skip it with no monetary loss(cheating mostly). If i paid for the game not only so i get back the value i paid for i have to tediously play through all of it. But chances are i probably wont be able to skip crap because cheating is ussually made as hard as possible.

And yes that is what i do with games.

So if i only play the good parts obviously i only judge the good parts. And because its free i am not forced to go through the crap part to get back my value i spent.

But if there were parts that you really didn't like and you actually cheated to get through, then does the quest really deserve a 5? Maybe a 4 then? I think, that even if people make quests as a hobby and put down A LOT of time, it still should be rated as a product. Only the absolute best quests should get a 5.

Edited by Hoff123, 17 April 2013 - 12:52 AM.