Witcher CRPG-Meter for The Witcher

Gorath said:

Creating a DB is a good idea. Unfortunately Myrthos doesn´t have much time to work on the site. For the time being you could of course create a thread for every RPG you want to discuss and come to a consensus.

Click to expand...

But the biggest problem with creating a database isn't the backend - it's the information. So, if you wish to add this to RPGWatch (and I figure it'd be a good idea, since it'll be a somewhat "unique" feature of the site), you should start scoring games right away and not worry at all about the backend (heck, for a database this size, a table on a wiki page is robust enough).

I agree with Lethal Weapon about averages doesn't say anything.

But the points in each category helps me to judge what i like the best.

Anyhow, i think its a great way on grading. I don't care if my mark is a 3 or a 1 or a 5. As long as i know what i like and can read it from the reviewers point of view.

I still think the grading should be adopted into every rpg review that the watch do!

VPeric said:

But the biggest problem with creating a database isn't the backend - it's the information. So, if you wish to add this to RPGWatch (and I figure it'd be a good idea, since it'll be a somewhat "unique" feature of the site), you should start scoring games right away and not worry at all about the backend (heck, for a database this size, a table on a wiki page is robust enough).

Click to expand...

We could only make the the CRPG-Meter score part of a review if our readers can find further information about the concept in an article. The two dozen people who know what it´s about don´t count in that context.
I can tell you for certain that no staff member has time to write such an article. We´re already heavily understaffed.

Furthermore we probably would only include the final score and link to the forum thread in which a consensus about the score has been established. The staff would not rate games, just include the result of the community discussion.
We´re usually not in a hurry with our reviews, so the discussion should be long over by then.

Well done, HiddenX.

I agree with Lethal Weapon about averages doesn't say anything.

Click to expand...

The final average is questionable and a bit dodgy from a mathematical point of view.
It's only purpose is to assign the game to "No CRPG", "CRPG ultra light", "CRPG light", "CRPG" or "CRPG Heavy".

The final vector of the categories (STORY, CHARACTER, NPC-INTERACTION, GAMEWORLD, MANIPULATION, COMBAT) is much more meaningful.

To the numbers:
We could have used A, B,C,D,E instead of 1,2,3,4,5 for the scoring system, but numbers have the advantage that you can use post decimal positions. So you are able to express in between values.

Open free world, open story, fully customizeable character is "best".
The group of people that developed the CRPG-Meter system favored games like Wizardry 8, Might & Magic 6, Albion, Realms of Arkania and Ultima 7, Gothic 1, Planescape Torment and of course pen & paper rpgs.

I am with Prime Junta when I claim:
Games with a good story and an open world design and a fully customizable character can be made and have been made. Good example: Avernum(=Exile) 1, 2 und 3.

In a good designed open gameworld borders are set with
a) strength of enemies (you have to slay this big bad guy 0815 to advance)
b) quests/story (this door is not open until event xyz has happened)
c) quests/items (this door is not open until you have required key abc)
d) skills of your character must be high enough (this door opens with a thieving skill of 333)

... so everything fits together - just my opion.

HiddenX said:

The final vector

Click to expand...

I like the way you're thinking.

Scores shouldn't be scalars, they should be vectors.

Or even tensors!

Maybe in ten years from now, the score for Witcher IX - The revenge of Yennefer in a mainstream site will read: < 9, 6 ,5, 7, 8 > :lol:

Seriously now, dividing RPGs into subcategories and/or multiplying each category score by a weighting factor might make averages work somewhat better.