List of Kickstarter RPGs Top 30 Ranked

I mean I've never seen anyone else try to claim that metascores are useless because IGN had a review scandle a decade ago.

Probably because most people realize that would be total bunk.

I can't help what you choose to read.

Most relevant links relate to 2011 to 2014:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=metacr…30CE775BF65233

Originally Posted by JDR13
On top of that, *anyone* can leave a user-review on that site. There's no way of knowing if they've even actually played the game. At least on Steam you're restricted to reviewing games that are actually in your library, and Steam shows the amount of time you played the game alongside your review.

True, but Steam reviews can and sometimes are trolled - a degenerate buys a game, spits on it then refunds it. The review stays.

IMO there should be three total scores from users:
- from all those who never reached the game finale
- from those who finished the game (achievement)
- from those who almost completed the game (did 90+% of sidequests)

The first category is the most important upon the release as it'd cover bugs and pisspoor controls. And it wouldn't mix into the other two as those other two would appear when a game's gamebreakers get patched.

I'm talking about user scores of course. Professional scores are not iteresting to me, a reviewer who's doing it for $ usually doesn't like the genre at all but "has to pay bills". Sometimes however the "pro" does notice and write about stuff everyone should hate (example: microtransactions).

Sorry 'bout offtopic.

The Torment game is absolutely fantastic. I didn't quite appreciate it as much as I should have with my initial play-through, but when I replayed it some time later, it struck me just how great a game this really is.

Originally Posted by joxer
True, but Steam reviews can and sometimes are trolled - a degenerate buys a game, spits on it then refunds it. The review stays.

Oh I've seen my fair share of trolls on Steam. I think Steam's review system makes them a little easier to identify though. Not all the time of course.

Originally Posted by joxer
I'm talking about user scores of course. Professional scores are not iterested to me, a reviewer who's doing it for $ usually doesn't like the genre at all, but sometimes does notice and write about stuff everyone should hate (example: microtransactions).

I'm pretty confident that most reviewers are doing reviews in the genre that they're into.

More for @JDR13 to recap on:

Top 10 gaming scandals, no.8, Jeff Gertsmann sacking and review score fixing 2012:

https://www.cheatcc.com/extra/top10scandals.html

Metacritic Catches Games Reviewers Taking Bribes - News - 2011:

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/8717…taking-bribes/

Metacritic refuses to change fake review score - 2012:

https://angryjoeshow.com/2012/11/metascore/

BioWare Employee Busted in Dragon Age 2 Review Scandal 2011:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news…candal-UPDATED

Obsidian missed Fallout: New Vegas Metacritic bonus by one point (conspiracy only, no legal proof):

https://www.engadget.com/2012/03/15/…Hx5Mh9XcHUHCUO

Publisher Admits Game Review Scores Are Heavily Influenced By Trips, Parties, Swag - 2012:

https://www.cinemablend.com/games/Pu…wag-48395.html

Are game reviewers actually bribed? - 2012:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comme…tually_bribed/

And you will find opinion pieces, forum threads, conspiracy theories and damage control articles throughout that period, on a basically weekly basis…since this was the topic 'everyone' was talking about:

https://www.gamespot.com/forums/game…dent-29289118/

It's like you saying "I don't remember gamergate" or similar type comment…

But nice attempt at a sabotage though, wouldn't expect anything less

At least that gave you something to do this morning.

Fortunately, most people aren't dumb enough to believe that critic scores should be thrown out the window because of a few bad examples.

uuuuuh-huh.

Yeah, I doubt anyone expected much more than that.

uuuuuh-huh.

Originally Posted by joxer
True, but Steam reviews can and sometimes are trolled - a degenerate buys a game, spits on it then refunds it. The review stays.

IMO there should be three total scores from users:
- from all those who never reached the game finale
- from those who finished the game (achievement)
- from those who almost completed the game (did 90+% of sidequests)

The first category is the most important upon the release as it'd cover bugs and pisspoor controls. And it wouldn't mix into the other two as those other two would appear when a game's gamebreakers get patched.

I'm talking about user scores of course. Professional scores are not iteresting to me, a reviewer who's doing it for $ usually doesn't like the genre at all but "has to pay bills". Sometimes however the "pro" does notice and write about stuff everyone should hate (example: microtransactions).

Sorry 'bout offtopic.

That's not off-topic at all really as I've said I'd quite like to devise a way to use Steam to perform a more… accurate?… impression of player feedback. And, like you, it's quite difficult knowing how to approach Steam's available data.

A point I noticed about your method, or idealised method, is that it doesn't account for people quitting a game early because it was genuinely a shit game in their opinion and that was their genuine experience, which would include genuine issues like false advertising, game breaking bugs, overly repetitive and tedious gameplay etc.

All ideas are welcome on how I should convert Steam data into comparison data.

Thanks for the list, and in contrast to JDR, I think the user score is a valid way to sort things, because it reflects how well games are recieved in many cases. Games that consistently have a "overwhelmingly positive" or a "mixed" review on Steam tend to sell well or not so well. Personal taste of couse in another matter. I personally think Wasteland 2 would be in the top 10 in my list, and quite possibly Dead State as well, whereas The Banner Saga would be near the bottom of my personal list, but I still have to recognize that many people have different opinions than I do, and if you are going to rank things you need some criteria to do so, and this seems a better way to do it than "I like. . ."

Originally Posted by forgottenlor
Thanks for the list, and in contrast to JDR, I think the user score is a valid way to sort things, because it reflects how well games are recieved in many cases. Games that consistently have a "overwhelmingly positive" or a "mixed" review on Steam tend to sell well or not so well. Personal taste of couse in another matter. I personally think Wasteland 2 would be in the top 10 in my list, and quite possibly Dead State as well, whereas The Banner Saga would be near the bottom of my personal list, but I still have to recognize that many people have different opinions than I do, and if you are going to rank things you need some criteria to do so, and this seems a better way to do it than "I like. . ."

I specifically mentioned that Steam has a better system in place for their user-reviews and explained why. When I said that user-reviews aren't very useful for a ranking, I was talking about Metacritic, since anyone can post a review there without having even played the game in question. Also, if someone wants to boost or bomb a score on Metacritic, there's nothing to prevent them from rating the same game multiple times by registering different usernames.

Originally Posted by forgottenlor
Thanks for the list, and in contrast to JDR, I think the user score is a valid way to sort things, because it reflects how well games are recieved in many cases. Games that consistently have a "overwhelmingly positive" or a "mixed" review on Steam tend to sell well or not so well.

The problem with that method is that it doesn't differentiate between games which have the same general conclusion. So it's not a ranking but a selection of groupings. This has some value though, even if not conclusive to specifics. So here goes:

Overwhelmingly Positive

FTL Faster Than Light
Undertale

Very Positive

The Banner Saga
Darkest Dungeon
Divinity Original Sin
Grim Dawn
Hyper Light Drifter
Lords of Xulima
Pillars of Eternity
Pillars of Eternity: Deadfire
Shadowrun Returns
Sunless Sea
Sunless Skies

Mostly Positive

The Banner Saga 3
Battle Tech
Expeditions Conquistador
Hard West
Kingdom Come Deliverance
Legends of Eisenwald
Torment Tides of Numenera

Mixed

Serpent in the Staglands
Shroud of the Avatar Forsaken Virtues
Underworld Ascendent

Mostly Negative

Jagged Alliance Flashback

And then the other problem with this system is that it's a sales platform, not a consumer aggregation site, so if a developer is too embarrassed about a game or feels a game is made redundant by a newer edition, then the original simply gets removed from the store and it's stats erased.

In this case, of the 30 games from the OP list, a whopping 6 games are not available on steam, a whole 20% of them, each one having been replaced by an updated version of the game. So to include them with the other games would be unfair to games which didn't require or expend on a non-kickstarter 'better version down the road'.

Those games are:

Overwhelmingly Positive

Divinity Original Sin 2 Enhanced Edition

Very Positive

Shadowrun Hong Kong Extended Edition
Wasteland 2 Director's Cut

Mostly Positive

Dead State Resuurection
Pathfinder Kingmaker Enhanced Edition

Mixed

Bard's Tale IV Director's Cut

The most striking 'mover' from the Metacritic list would be the favourable reception of the Sunless series on Steam while it languishes in more derision on Metacritic while Serpent in the Staglands and Expeditions are more derided on Steam but doing ok on Metacritic.

In the remake category, Fargo's games are again very prevailent and don't necessarily perform well even after the big remake while Divinity's remake was just a matter of making the first version technically redundant.

The slight improvement of Dead State comes from the remake, is that the one you remember fondly or was it the original kickstarter release?

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Dragon Age 2 'Metascore' - 8.2
User Score - 4.5

That's a very good example of why user scores are so bad. It became cool to hate Dragon Age 2 well before it showed up. When you expect to hate a game, you'll probably hate it. When you know you'll get laughed at if you like a game others hate, you're even more likely to find reasons to hate it.

Critics' scores have problems, too. Not the "they are corrupt" BS we keep hearing, though. I'm sure those happen but I'm also sure they are fairly rare and probably a matter of shaving off or adding 1 or 2 points on a 10 point scale. What's far worse about critics' scores is that they reflect the game when the game showed up or soon after. Patches count for nothing unless a paid DLC shows up later and somebody decides to review it.

No Man's Sky is a good poster child for this. The initial reviews for that game are worthless now. User reviews, at least when taken over the past 30 days or so, account for that.

It really doesn't matter all that much, though. We all care about our games too much to just buy RPG X over RPG Y because X got a score of 8.3 and Y just got a 7.1 or even a 6.1.

Originally Posted by Zloth
That's a very good example of why user scores are so bad. It became cool to hate Dragon Age 2 well before it showed up. When you expect to hate a game, you'll probably hate it. When you know you'll get laughed at if you like a game others hate, you're even more likely to find reasons to hate it.

Critics' scores have problems, too. Not the "they are corrupt" BS we keep hearing, though. I'm sure those happen but I'm also sure they are fairly rare and probably a matter of shaving off or adding 1 or 2 points on a 10 point scale. What's far worse about critics' scores is that they reflect the game when the game showed up or soon after. Patches count for nothing unless a paid DLC shows up later and somebody decides to review it.

No Man's Sky is a good poster child for this. The initial reviews for that game are worthless now. User reviews, at least when taken over the past 30 days or so, account for that.

It really doesn't matter all that much, though. We all care about our games too much to just buy RPG X over RPG Y because X got a score of 8.3 and Y just got a 7.1 or even a 6.1.

Everything about your post is factually wrong, and worse, deeply ironic.

1. It did not 'become cool' to hate Dragon Age 2 before it showed up. It was a wreck of a game made more objectionable by the false praise given to it. The only "before" was the ludicrously high 'review' scores. DA:O and Bioware in general was the 'cool' game to play at the time. Your 'invention' of history is really quite disgusting.

2. I think you'll find people are perfectly capable of standing up for games they like against all odds - you know, like you're doing in your post.

3. Yes, the only problem with review scores is the "they are corrupt" aspect.

4. No, they are not rare.

5. Reviewers have the same biases as anyone else as well.

6. No it's not just a matter of a point or two shaved off here and there. Utterly disgusting 'assumption'.

7. They reflect the release date condition of a game because the game's primary selling period is at the point of release. This was made worse by the very game you're talking bollocks about, Dragon Age 2, where the marketing was specifically designed to maximise day one purchases and then forget about the game, just as EA have copy-pasted with each successive 'bioware' release. Stats are available on this and I have posted them in the past.

8. In a world of live services, yes, review scores are a completely stupid concept, the same game is a new game literally every month. That's why people don't talk about the ratings of MMOs much.

9. Yes, No Man's Sky is a poster child for the fact that games aren't complete games any more, but instead are forever evolving entities that hook players with perpetual promises of "It'll get better one day, just you wait".

I'm delighted you have whatever standards you have, I'm sure they work for you, but I think the juries out on whether that's how life's gonna be for everyone What the jury isn't out on is whether someone is talking complete shit just to justify why the game they like isn't popular.

Sorry for the bluntness and crudeness, I guess you really 'trigger' people when you pile quite so much dung on top of dung

Lackblogger, could I just suggest that you bring it down? Most of the people around here are intelligent, reasonable folks, even if you happen to disagree with them. If you strike that tone all the time, it becomes exhausting, and I think it really drives people away from wanting to participate in conversation with you.

I realise I go on the warpath on occasion, and have done recently, but I take a very different approach with most people, most of the time. I think you're overdoing it.

Wow, it's almost like you were sitting there waiting for me to say one single swear word…

I realise I go on the warpath at on occasion, and have done recently

Well I'm glad you're at least partially self aware…

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Everything about your post is factually wrong, and worse, deeply ironic.

1. It did not 'become cool' to hate Dragon Age 2 before it showed up. It was a wreck of a game made more objectionable by the false praise given to it. The only "before" was the ludicrously high 'review' scores. DA:O and Bioware in general was the 'cool' game to play at the time. Your 'invention' of history is really quite disgusting.

Yes, it did. First, it's EA. Second, there was news that the combat was more action-based. When the demo came out, the haters came out in force.

2. I think you'll find people are perfectly capable of standing up for games they like against all odds - you know, like you're doing in your post.

Excuse me? Did human nature change in the past decade? Somebody needs to tell all those marketing folks out there trying to use the old "see, the pretty people like our product, don't you like it?" line in their advertisements.

3. Yes, the only problem with review scores is the "they are corrupt" aspect.

Errr, no it isn't? You say so below? Huh? Wha??

4. No, they are not rare.

Yes, they are.

5. Reviewers have the same biases as anyone else as well.

They are subjected to them (especially when the hate starts before release) but they do try to counter-act them and seem to be fairly successful. They certainly leave casual user reviewers in the dust.

6. No it's not just a matter of a point or two shaved off here and there. Utterly disgusting 'assumption'.

Utterly disgusting because… why?

Also, definitely not an assumption. What? Do you think I sleep all da… {looks at his own avatar} AHEM! Moving right along…

I read a lot of reviews, you know. A LOT. Critics' reviews, user reviews, probably even your reviews on this forum. I play quite a few games, too. The reviews from critics seem sensible to me. I may not agree with the score but I can usually tell why easily enough. For instance, if a review is trashing a game for micromanagement or because the animations are too slow, it means I'll probably like the game more than the reviewer. If corrupt reviews are rampant and pushing the scores way up or down, that really shouldn't be happening.

7. They reflect the release date condition of a game because the game's primary selling period is at the point of release. This was made worse by the very game you're talking bollocks about, Dragon Age 2, where the marketing was specifically designed to maximise day one purchases and then forget about the game, just as EA have copy-pasted with each successive 'bioware' release. Stats are available on this and I have posted them in the past.

Yes, the critics are making their reviews ASAP because that's when the readers want to know. It would be nice if they would re-review after major patches and maybe even major mods but there already aren't enough reviewers to keep up with first releases - having their critics re-review just wouldn't be profitable.

Most every game tries to maximize early sales. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything?

8. In a world of live services, yes, review scores are a completely stupid concept, the same game is a new game literally every month. That's why people don't talk about the ratings of MMOs much.

Hehehe, that's for sure.

9. Yes, No Man's Sky is a poster child for the fact that games aren't complete games any more, but instead are forever evolving entities that hook players with perpetual promises of "It'll get better one day, just you wait".

And then many do. Some don't get better enough and some get even worse, but quite a few really get better.

I'm delighted you have whatever standards you have, I'm sure they work for you, but I think the juries out on whether that's how life's gonna be for everyone What the jury isn't out on is whether someone is talking complete shit just to justify why the game they like isn't popular.

Sorry for the bluntness and crudeness, I guess you really 'trigger' people when you pile quite so much dung on top of dung

Not to worry, every time you get blunt and crude, people will tend to believe me more than you.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Wow, it's almost like you were sitting there waiting for me to say one single swear word…

Well I'm glad you're at least partially self aware…

OK. All I'm trying to say is that I sometimes risk alienating people, if I think it's worth it or I'm particularly annoyed about something. If you stay in that gear all the time, I think it's very much to diminishing returns, and you'll alienate almost everyone, unnecessarily.