Author Topic: How do you consider ratings? (Read 19025 times)

Kairon · « **Reply #25 on:** September 18, 2007, 10:58:43 AM »

That's why I believe in it! ^_^

Now, I know that Evan probably hates me for this, but I don't mean to say that we can't objectively look at these things and evaluate them. Merely that when recommending these things to other people, I believe in human emotional intelligence to be effective in describing the entertainment experience.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #26 on:** September 19, 2007, 09:47:38 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
IGN has both a number and a word rating (e.g. 9.5 & Incredible or 5.5 & Mediocre). Why not just dump the numerical score and simply go with the word? Good and Passable tell you more than a number does (which can be ambiguous and asinine at times). If a game is a good game, say so, rather than give it a 7.5 and force your audience to figure out for themselves whether a 7.5 is a good score or an average score.

Words don't have a fixed scale, when I say great I mean 90+% but someone else may thing 95+% or 80%.

SixthAngel · « **Reply #27 on:** September 20, 2007, 12:15:27 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
IGN has both a number and a word rating (e.g. 9.5 & Incredible or 5.5 & Mediocre). Why not just dump the numerical score and simply go with the word? Good and Passable tell you more than a number does (which can be ambiguous and asinine at times). If a game is a good game, say so, rather than give it a 7.5 and force your audience to figure out for themselves whether a 7.5 is a good score or an average score.

Words don't have a fixed scale, when I say great I mean 90+% but someone else may thing 95+% or 80%.

One persons 95 could be another's 96 and one persons 892 could be another persons 899. You have to stop little differences from mattering in an overall review. Especially since the small increments are so individual that they really shouldn't exist and only cause bickering that "game x got .1 higher then game y so it is better." A five point star system or even a 5 word system tells the overall quality of the game. If a person wants to judge the smaller likes and dislikes that vary from person to person they can read the review and get an actual comparison to their own likes and dislikes.

vudu · « **Reply #28 on:** September 20, 2007, 07:22:56 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Words don't have a fixed scale, when I say great I mean 90+% but someone else may thing 95+% or 80%.

That was my entire point.

It makes it so you're not looking at Metroid Prime scores and saying "they scored the first one a 95% but they scored the third one a 92% so the third one must not be as good as the first" and instead you say "both games are great, so if I enjoyed the first one chances are I'll enjoy the second one".

KDR_11k · « **Reply #29 on:** September 20, 2007, 08:03:44 AM »

It creates problems when you e.g. rate one game great and another excellent. To me excellent is above great but I've seen it the other way around in the labels on a rating system. Which word is better than which other word? What do the words mean for the play experience?

Kairon · « **Reply #30 on:** September 20, 2007, 08:07:42 AM »

*ahem*, that's why the San Francisco Chronicle system is so great.

vudu · « **Reply #31 on:** September 20, 2007, 08:18:13 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
It creates problems when you e.g. rate one game great and another excellent. To me excellent is above great but I've seen it the other way around in the labels on a rating system. Which word is better than which other word? What do the words mean for the play experience?

It's not hard to include a ratings scale.

UERD · « **Reply #32 on:** September 20, 2007, 08:38:05 AM »

What if games had 'recommended for' ratings? For example, instead of saying '8/10' (or in addition to saying that), reviewers explicitly recommended the game to target audiences.

For example,
'I recommend game X for sci-fi first-person shooter fans who like a frenetic experience.'
'I recommend game Y for anyone who likes RPGs and adventure games with an extensive plot.'
'I recommend game Z even for people who didn't like the prior game in the series.'

Conversely,
'I don't recommend game A for people who want online deathmatch mode.'
'I don't recommend game B for people who like RPGs with turn-based battle systems.'
'I don't recommend game C for people who are graphics whores.

Freyr · « **Reply #33 on:** October 24, 2007, 09:32:54 PM »

I've been think hard about what could be a good rating system. I came up with a mixture of the star and letter grade system(-/+). with a modifier(feelings).

Here are the ranks.

One Star

This game is beyond bad, to spend any time trying to comparing one star games, to give them a plus or minus will rot your brain. They are just bad, move along.

Two Star

or

These games have major flaws but there are some redeeming aspects. If your a fan of this genre, developer, series then give this a game a rent you might like it. No minus rating because if it's that close to a one star, it most likely is not worth saving.

Three Star

or

These games have some minor flaws, but overall they are good game. This is were the bulk of games will go, and it's not a bad things. Unless you totally dislike this type of game you should give it a try. Plus/Minus is for the reviewer to show if they game is closer to a two or a four but just not quite making it.
"It's barely a three or it's close to a four".

Four Star

or

This game's flaws are few, it is along the best games for it's system. This is a game that makes it worth buying the system it's on.

Five Star

This game is one of the best for this generation, even maybe of all time. To try and rank this game against other five star game is a disservice to this game and other games ranked the same. It stands among the few that will be remembered and played, years into the future. There is no 4star plus or 5star minus/plus, because it would become a pointless pissing match.

The modifier.
How did you personal feel when done playing the game. Need more possible answers but among them could be. Short but to the point
Really enjoyed it.
Angry about the game.
Relief that it's over.

Kairon · « **Reply #34 on:** October 24, 2007, 09:35:44 PM »

Wow, I really like how you selectively used + and - ratings, making the extreme ends of the scale require a real absolute commitment, as well as suggesting that most games rank towards the middle in a sort of bell curve.

Freyr · « **Reply #35 on:** October 24, 2007, 09:54:31 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Wow, I really like how you selectively used + and 1 ratings, making the extreme ends of the scale require a real absolute commitment, as well as suggesting that most games rank towards the middle in a sort of bell curve.

I think most rating system put people in the wrong frame of mind, my system most likely does too in a way I don't currently see. So give a shout if you see something that I can change.

A, B, C, D, F or 0%-100% systems are not great because most people went to school with a grading system using one or both of these ways to show how you did. Anything below C or 70% is considered terrible which on a percent scale leaves a huge part a barren wasteland from no use.

0.0 - 10.0 and 0-10 systems leaves a lot of room for nitpicking and most people change the score in their minds to a percent, which can leave a big part unused.

Edit Below:
I'm playing Breath of Fire II on the Wii at the moment. It has many flaws but is still a good game. Even for it's time the user interface was a few generations behind compared to other RPGs, but does work. Translation compared to most snes RPGs, is flawed but par, if you fill in the blanks with your imagination it's quite good. Combat options is a little light but there is still some strategy, mainly because the monsters/boss pull no punches. If this game was released with a better interface from even around the time of chrono trigger, a new translation that isn't limited by storage, and give the characters combat options a little more verity, it could be a really good game. It's a game that wants to be better then it is. Ranking

Modifier: Really enjoying it.

If it was released with the above comments it could be a

aka a competent game, not everyone will care for it and it won't be a system seller but it will have following that will love it for what it is, a good game.

Shift Key · « **Reply #36 on:** October 25, 2007, 02:27:43 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
It's either FIST or it's WEAK.

The rating system was perfected by the Romans. And it resulted in a lot more people being thrown to the lions than occurs these days. Bring back the thumbs up/thumbs down system, I say.

vudu · « **Reply #37 on:** October 25, 2007, 07:21:01 AM »

It's the Star w/ Moon/Sun modifiers really just a slightly disguised letter grade? Even if you didn't mean it to be, readers would see a

game as a B+. It doesn't solve the problem that anything below

would never get used by reviewers or purchased by consumers.

Kairon · « **Reply #38 on:** October 25, 2007, 07:27:40 AM »

But Vudu, ANYTHING can be converted to a letter grade if you think hard enough. The trick is to DISGUISE it such that casual readers won't automatically do it in their head. The perceptual gap between a pictorial rating system and a number rating system achieves that, as does the use of only 5 main tent poles instead of 10 (because most casual readers won't/can't/don't do math).

vudu · « **Reply #39 on:** October 25, 2007, 07:47:25 AM »

True, but some hide it better than others. 5 stars with modifiers barely even counts as trying to hide it.

5 stars; 5 letters (A, B, C, D, F)
Modifiers; +/-

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to translate 5 stars and a moon to an A-.

If you want to hide it better use words. And don't use 5 or 10, because those are easily translated; use 6 or 7. Also, words are a little more abstract and open to interpretation. Most people will infer that 4 stars is twice as good as 2 stars. But is "great" twice as good as "fair"?

Kairon · « **Reply #40 on:** October 25, 2007, 08:02:03 AM »

What do restuarants use? 4 stars? And do movies and TV ratings also use 4 stars?

vudu · « **Reply #41 on:** October 25, 2007, 08:34:57 AM »

Yes, yes and yes. But I think the whole point of this discussion (and Evan's editorial) is that a review system such as this isn't appropriate for games. A meal lasts an hour and while the cost is sometimes high, you would have had to eat anyway. A movie lasts a couple hours and doesn't cost very much. Television programs are short and generally don't cost you anything extra to watch any one particular program.

Games on the other hand are fairly expensive, especially for kids (who tend to be a major consumer of the product), generally last anywhere from 10 to 50 hours, and require a great deal of commitment on the part of the consumer because they're not passive in nature. They require you to put forth some effort to enjoy. I'd compare reviewing games more akin to reviewing books. Which makes it my turn to ask you a question; what do book reviews use?

that Baby guy · « **Reply #42 on:** October 25, 2007, 10:04:25 AM »

No, the whole point is that a 4 star system would work far better for games than the current system.

I don't know what books use for ratings, but if five or six people go to a movie, it's about the price of a game, and more than five or six people play games. The idea is that movie reviews and ratings want you to choose what you like, and don't do the choosing for you. A 2-star movie can be worthwhile to people who like that type of movie, whereas a game receiving about 50% is usually not worth anyone's time from most reviewers, and reviews won't even be read. The idea behind movie ratings is that the lowest rating means it really isn't worth it for anyone, and everything above that caters to an audience somewhere, and you have to decide if that audience is you.

With game ratings, it seems like a game is for everyone, for everyone with money to burn, or for no one, with no real distinguishing categories beyond that that scores can add. That's how I feel about things, at least.

Freyr · « **Reply #43 on:** October 25, 2007, 11:22:40 AM »

The uses of moon/sun in my example was just because I was limited by the message board in how I could nicely show the grading system. The -/+ lower/upper modifier could be displayed nicer in real use. Also there is no A- or B+ in the system I talked about before

. Here is the system displayed as a rough chart.

Version 1

that Baby guy · « **Reply #44 on:** October 25, 2007, 11:41:07 AM »

If you were to drop the lines, I think that might work alright. I don't like the lines in there, because there's too many ranges with that, IMO. The three star meaning average is nice, I like that. It makes a normal bell curve, in a way.

Freyr · « **Reply #45 on:** October 25, 2007, 01:06:34 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
If you were to drop the lines, I think that might work alright. I don't like the lines in there, because there's too many ranges with that, IMO. The three star meaning average is nice, I like that. It makes a normal bell curve, in a way.

How about this....
Version 2

KDR_11k · « **Reply #46 on:** October 25, 2007, 10:02:29 PM »

For some reason that rating looks like "rated Major General"

oohhboy · « **Reply #47 on:** October 25, 2007, 10:31:06 PM »

You guys do realize that Evan's editorial was well meaning, but fundamentally flawed. Regardless of much he would like to romanize that he is reviewing games for a higher purpose, at the end of the day, a review and it's attached score is a purchase recommendation.

Disguising or encoding the score is pointless and only serves to provide unnecessary confusion. It is all very pretty Freyr, but all that data can be expressed more effectively as a 7 bit number (128). It is a a lot more concise, direct. People my not like how a score should be a point or five higher or lower here and there, but they clearly missed the point. They should have asked themselves whether they were willing to buy the game at full price based on that review.

The score is a useful summing up that can be used at a multiplier against the going price of a game to see whether you might think it is worth your hard earn dollars. When you walk up to that counter to buy that game, you made an assessment as to whether the price your were paying is worth the utility (FUN) gained out of the product.

For those people with bell curve hard-ons, just because a curve does not sit on the magical number 5 make it any less invalid. It may very well be that 75% of games out there are not worth the time of day to play. Scaling it just so it sits center is just window dressing. Every system that some one has come up with in this thread is just more of the same window dressing.

UltimatePartyBear · « **Reply #48 on:** October 26, 2007, 05:58:02 AM »

It's impossible to come up with a rating system that people can't assign their own biases to. Maybe it would be a little more difficult if you made up your own terms, like "I rate this game treskelopf out of voondentor," but you'd have to define those terms in order to be able to communicate your meaning, and it is those definitions that people will map to other systems they already know. It would be hard enough for you not to do it for them just to write the definitions.

As for trying to come up with something that means something emotionally, that's just going to cause confusion. If people are free to assign their own ideas to the goofy pictures you use for ratings, they're not likely to assign the same meanings you do, and then you have failed to communicate at all.

Freyr · « **Reply #49 on:** October 26, 2007, 06:40:38 AM »

Newer Version
Version 3

News:

Author Topic: How do you consider ratings? (Read 19025 times)