Do you want user Game ratings?

Here is another question about a potential feature: user game ratings.
What I propose to do is to allow registered users with a post count above a minimum to assign a rating to a game. This is only valid with a minimum amount of text explaining the rating. Whenever there are more than x votes an average is calculated and displayed for a game in the games section of our database and on an overall games rating page.
To encourage discussion I am thinking about integrating the explanations on our forums, but not sure if that will make it in.

The Top RPG list is what drew me to the RPGDot from either No Mutants Allowed or the other one, Wasteland something. They posted they were going to game it because it wasn't registered and overnight it became the top game.

Not sure about this. The site has great reviews already.
Perhaps user "vote" only for games in database that weren't reviewed?

Maybe, If there was some way to verify that the person rating the game has played it for a decent amount of time to form an educated opinion. I guess, even then I wouldn't trust them though.

We already have too many people popping in to threads of games they've never played to say how terrible they are because they don't like the dev, publisher, it has season pass, it has people that aren't straight, It's trying to be profitable, It's not the remake they wanted of a series they're passionate about, etc.

Sorry, but IMO lowering the score of a game that has season pass or anything already noted as annoyance by cracked.com and whatculture* is a valid point.
Not liking dev/publisher is not a reason to hate a game though.

-----------------------------------------
* - Cracked's 12 videogame annoyances that need to die:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/12-video-game-annoyances-that-need-to-die-part-1/
http://www.cracked.com/blog/12-video-game-annoyances-that-need-to-die-part-2/

- WCG's 10 Annoying Things That Are Ruining Modern Video Games (video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0cs5H58ZqM

Any game with a bear will get a low score from me

I voted 'No way', because I prefer the reviewer scoring a game.

And before someone asks me: even voting No, I wouldn't refrain from scoring a game I've played, should this feature be implemented (assuming my post count is above the minimum). But I'd really prefer the reviewer doing that alone.

I wouldn't mind it. It could be interesting to see the Watch's general impression on RPGs we've played. Yes some people will give high or low scores to games for ridiculous reasons, but that's unavoidable. At least a min. post count / text explanation would prevents trolls (or developers) from drastically interfering with the avg. score. It seems like it would be a feature that is easy enough to filter out / ignore if it's not something that interests you. Might even be a handy way to decide which game in your wishlist / backlog to go for next.

I like the idea. The minimum post count should be pretty high though, at least 100 or maybe 200-300. I'm very interested in the average score from the Watchers, not so much from developers or trolls.

To be obliged to write some impressions with the score also makes it better. (And to be honest "SJW" or "UGOIGO" are not really good reasons for scoring low. Bears? Maybe.)

I can probably tell without seeing

But it sounds like another neat feature that won't do any harm.

The scoring at RPGWatch reviews isn't a numerical rating, so it isn't really comparable to user ratings. At RPGWatch we just have 5 possible categories a game can be in, with the highest category stating that this game is about as good as it gets in the current market even with its flaws (so it is not necessarily a flawless game) and the lowest one being that the game sucks, but there still might be fans that would like to play it. We use stars for this and don't do half stars. There are just the five categories.
So our 5 stars does not equal a 10, even though I realize that mentally a lot of people do this.

The user ratings would be numerical from 1 to 10. I'm not in favor of making things fine grained, so my suggestion would be to just have these 10 options for the rating.

As to the minimum number of votes, there are people with 1 post that can provide a balanced thoughtful review and score and there are people with 1000+ posts who can't even do that.
My view on including the minimum number of posts is to make sure that we have found out who the spammers are and have removed them from the forums in that time. So, I personally think that 100 is too high and 10 is probably to low.

In addition to that a score needs to be accompanied by an explanation of a minimum length (not sure yet what that length needs to be). In principle people can also dump an entire review in there if they like.

The suggestion to add the number of hours played is a good one.

It will be possible to update the rating and explanation later on. Perhaps this should be time restricted though.

The system will be moderated and abuse of it will lead to a warning and removal of that score and review, or eventually even a ban and removal of all your scores and reviews. This will also ban you from the rest of RPGWatch.
Note that banning someone because they misbehaved severely on our forums does not automatically lead to removal of their ratings and explanations.

I wouldn't advocate it. I think one of the problems stems from the small size of the community, combined with the fact that the name does have some amount of cachet. It makes it relatively easy and tempting to game the scores. I would avoid it, and rely on the tradition of proper reviews from credible people.

For those nay sayers, again I repeat we did it before and it was pretty good, except for those idiots who think Gothic is somehow better than Ultima ]I[

There were problems of course, but the minimum post count should resolve that. There shouldn't be a big surprise.

However, number of votes I think should count for something. The newest stuff will always get more votes, and not coincidentally, attract more higher votes.

But I think a 1-10 score might be too low. The more votes the finer grain that out of 10 will become.

Regardless, it won't tell us a whole lot we don't already know, except for the occasional game an individual hadn't heard of or a sleeper hit not getting enough attention. (Or in the case of Dungeon Lords, to serve as a warning.)

That alone would make it useful.

But again, to reiterate a point, I bought Final Fantasy 7 based on the reviews, and possibly the score, on RPGDot. Boy, was I ever disappointed.

About time!

I voted "I don't care." In principle I find it a good idea, but I am afraid some users will give any AAA game a "1" out of principle, or any game with homosexual relationships, real time/with pause combat, dlcs, any game from InExile, or any other pet peeve I forgot. On the other hand you have this problem with Steam reviews as well. Here I always look at the text and see if I feel like I can trust the review. For example "frustrating because of hard combat" I usually ignore "but unplayable with mouse and keyboard" I find a legitimate complaint, but others might disagree. So I think forcing reviewers to write a minimum amount of text is a good idea.

If a game doesn't have homosexual peeves, then it can't be good, right

I'm cool with it. Make the post count at least 6300 though

I feel like the RPGDot version attracted undesirables (e.g. Lucky Day -- kidding! ), so my vote, worthless as it may be, is a no.

I'm an enthusiastic "yes". I'm actually surprised to see any no votes… wtf?

*Going on a short rant*

The objections are very silly. Yes, people will review games according to their own tastes and criteria. *Gasp* And some of those tastes and criteria will be things you may not agree with. *Shocker* -- *More Gasps* Come on, seriously. Yes, this is how many people review games. You aren't able to control that, boo hoo. They might even view games that you love as crap, or vice versa… Gosh, how will we ever survive, in this world? *sarcasm*

*Rant over*

My suggestion is to base it on both post count, say 1000 minimum, and also length of time joined as a RPG Watch forum member. Say, maybe a minimum of having been here for 2-3 years, for an example.

P.S. And I realize I would be disqualified from posting review scores based on 1000 minimum post count, but it would give me incentive to post more often. I like this way of looking at it.

It's hardly surprising. There are people against everything they don't personally enjoy just on principle.

NewDArt said:

It's hardly surprising. There are people against everything they don't personally enjoy just on principle.

Click to expand...

I hear ya. It just ticks me off, that kind of mindset. It basically runs smack into my nature, like a cat being rubbed the wrong way… it reminds me of game forums, and some of the arguments I'd see in them. For example, one or more, and in this case, many, people would request a feature in a game, and then other people would say they are against it -- for no good reason whatsoever. Let me give an example, one I have seen often, and that irritated me:

Person A -- Please, developers, can we have walking put in the game? It just feels weird to be running all the time, like a hyper maniac on speed.

Many others chime in, and agree, and say they would like this also.

Person B says the following (and a few others might join, but they are always a tiny but loud minority) -- Why would you want to walk, that is silly, you want to move slower in the game? What's wrong with you? I would never want that! Stop wasting the developers time with this silly request!

Person A responds -- Yes, I get that. I just like a slower pace for atmospheric reasons, but of course, it would be optional. If you don't like it, Person B, you could just always leave running on, and never use it.

Now, if Person B was reasonable, and intelligent and respected other people's freedoms and personal tastes, the argument would stop there. But, invariably, Person B is not, and keeps digging in, and arguing, and basically all because they want to control what the other peoples experience is in the game. And, by God, it better line up exactly with their preferences, and how they want it to be!

I just have a very negative reaction to this mindset, (basically, authoritarianism, and trying to enforce sheep-like behavior on everyone) and it makes me get the claws out, lol.