Jon and I both would love to do away with scores completely. Let players be the ones to assign a score, and let us just write reviews without a number. But is that feasible? Or should we merely alter the scoring system? Make it a Grade Scale, make it 1-5, or make it an average with a revised set of categories.
That's the question we're really asking. What do you think?
No its not really feasible. Its the best idea, but it doesn't really cater to the widespread with low attention spans, and that makes up quite a bit of our population in the gaming community.
Altering the scoring system in my eyes won't do anything for an MMORPG unless you alter the *amount* of times you score the game and average those. Thats if you're going to average scores at all, because, as was said before, something like sound or graphics can really bring down a game with great gameplay, or games with massive technical problems but a well polished graphics, sound, and crafting etc. would score higher even though it could be considered almost unplayable due to server wide technical issues. All these things would be averaged into the final score which could mislead a player.
Scoring each item individually and then giving a final score that doesn't average would be alright, though you'd have to explicitly post that the score isn't an average, and even then I guarantee we'll see people in the forums complaining that the score isn't and average and MMORPG.com "fails at math".
My other suggestion is on the first page, but when it comes to reviews, you'll always be damned if you do and damned when you don't with scoring. Maybe if you guys change it up frequently enough people will be so totally confused with the rating system they'll stop complaining and just be excited to see what you do next.
Maybe if you guys change it up frequently enough people will be so totally confused with the rating system they'll stop complaining and just be excited to see what you do next.
I like this idea... just make it so damned convoluted that no one cares about the scores anymore.
Try to be excellent to everyone you meet. You never know what someone else has seen or endured.
"Then, there’s the idea that maybe we should go back to our roots and rate a game by 8-10 categories and use an average of each of those to get a score. "
I would like to see a good example of how it worked. But I guess that's the best way of rating a game for what it has. What I find more important is what categories were you using and how did each of them were rated individualy.
It's absolutely important to have categories related to all the features like Combat, Progression, Story, PVE, PVP, Innovation & Originality, Player Interaction (Community), Extended Experience, Graphics and Art Design, System Requirements (how much low requirements can get), and Paying Methods.
Each category should be filled with certain characteristics we should be looking for. Each category have to count the good and the bad things, the innovations and the same-old features and mechanisms, how easy/hard it is to learn how to use those mechanisms, how many people really use them, how much they influence the players gameplay and if it's in a good or in a bad way, if they can be abused by players, if they bring unbalanced gameplay for different players, If the players feel they are in a good community or if they feel they are alone most of the time, if they feel they're forced to do something (what is/are those things?).
SO many things must be considered in order to have a good score rating system for MMORPGs, but the best way is to focus on getting the good and the bad things, separate them in categories in order to have a better thougth about each feature of the game and gettin as many results for each categories as possible. With each category seen for what it is, like for example many MMORPGs don't have PVP or a personal story so it's something to be reconsidered in the genre in order to have the best game ever (Yes, I know games that don't have some features are great, but we are playing a genre that in order to be the best, it needs to have the best of everything the genre can offer), it's very possible to have a general look for what each game can offer.
I also agree that we should have more reviews about MMORPGs. One when it's launched, one 1 month after launch, another one 6 months/1 year later. The first is to have general look at everything we expect to have in the game and if it's worth trying or not. The second is to see if everything they promised is really there, if it works as they said it would work, if we will stay in the game for more time, What are the bad things everyone saw in the game and if it's FUN. The last one is to see how many people are still playing the game and if there are more people trying it, if they solved their issues along the way, if there's something new, etc.
Preview = NDA lifted, playable?, what features in already, what features still being worked on, what's exciting, no rating
Initial Review = 1 week after launch, playable?, what features in already, what features still being worked on, performance issues?, no rating, should reflect around 4 hours play time.
Twenty One Day Review = 21 days in, should reflect at least 10 hours play time spread over three weeks. This one should list pros and cons of major gameplay elements and whether or not the reviewers think it's worth continuing to play or if it needs to cook some more. Ideally, should be done by more than one reviewer.
Annual Status Report - every year if a game is still running would be nice to get an article that summarizes the changes over the year and talks about the health of the game. For example, how many servers are still running, were there any major outages, was there an expansion, is there any exciting dev news, etc.
What might be even more informative is to set up a more robust fan rating system. Have each MMORPG member rate themselves in each of four categories: Raider, Crafter, Soloer, PVPer. Then when they rate a game have the results show that Raiders give this game a score of..., Crafters give it a score of ..., Soloers give it a score of ..., and PVPers give it a score of ... I'm sure it would have to be set up carefully but would provide more meaning than the current fan rating gives. You would have to put in some stuff to stop devs/haters gaming the ratings, such as new members can't rate or something like that, etc. Maybe also require raters to give a short explanation of why they gave the rating they did.
I think there are two major types of info folks are looking for - does a NEW game live up to its hype, and what OLD games are still worth playing while we wait for our dream game to come out. Anything that makes it easier to wade through the info that's out there would be helpful.
I have agree with Jon that a letter grading system is a much simpler, easier-to-understand way of rating a game than a number scale. Too often with a number scale do people immediately write off any game that scores below an 8/10 as a failure that isn't worth their money, which is often not the case. I'm not sure how many reviewers would grade the 'average' games with a C (I think many might gravitate to a C+/B- average out of basic human kindness and willingness to accept fault), but at least most readers will understand that any games in the C+ range and above have some good things going for them and are worth looking into more closely.
As for the review process itself, I think publishing the primary review on or shortly after the launch date is just fine, assuming your reviewer has had enough time in closed/open beta to have formed a knowledgeable opinion on every major aspect of the game. Following that, I think it would be pretty cool to see a concise (maybe 500-words on average) addendum to the initial review published 30-60 days after launch, which details the reviewer's experiences after a little more time with the game, as well as the size and general attitude of the community and his final opinion on how much longevity the game will have.
Also, it might be nice to see the same reviewer (assuming he's still on staff) resubscribe to the game every 6 or 12 months for a week or so and publish another concise addendum on the state of the game at the time. Personally, I'd prefer those long-term second and third looks at a game be added to the same review article and just have the updated article given a bump on the main page rather than have a different "Second Review" posted as a different article. It's fine to have another staff member whose opinions are different than the initial reviewer write up something to explain what he/she thinks, but I'd rather see a short addition added to the review than have two full-size reviews published by two different people. It will help to better show a sense of unity among your staff and give the site a 'collective voice'.
I also like the letter system, but I want to note that personally, I don't judge a game based on a sites final score. At least I dont use a sites review score to decide if I like it enough to purchase.
If I have been paying attention to the game pre release, I have been paying attention to it, so I already know what I want to know.
If I havent been paying attention, I care more about what the review SAYS and less about a score or even a grade. If there is a game that is being reviewed and the score is horrible, the commentary I'm avidly reading will tell me that before I actually see the score/grade.
Maybe if you guys change it up frequently enough people will be so totally confused with the rating system they'll stop complaining and just be excited to see what you do next.
I like this idea... just make it so damned convoluted that no one cares about the scores anymore.
"So what rating did they give our game?"
"Let me see ...er... Plaid. . . . . You know those guys are startin to scare me."
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Why not start a new trend and try and have two opposing reviews? Even if one of them is playing devil's advocate it would at least provide some balance. The recent reviews of DCUO - where you had 5 or 6 reviewers 'pass judgement' - they all loved it. Pretty unbalanced and hardly representative of the gaming public at large it seems. Also the Rift review score seemed very high when the review itself stated it really does very little that's new, is polish really all that matters?
For one, I would like to see real reviews, about 6 months into the game, with people that have played for that long. Anything else should just be labeled "first impression" or "preview."
I think it would be interesting to see it from diffeent angles too. I'd like to see a group oriented pve person, who will get a lot of guild play, a solo/casual pve type, a pvp person and sandbox versus theme park type of people. This way you would see a perspective of the game from different play styles, and people could see, more or less from their play style point of view, whether they may be interested in the game or not. So I guess a series of reviews to get an overall big picture would be kind of cool.
Why not start a new trend and try and have two opposing reviews? Even if one of them is playing devil's advocate it would at least provide some balance. The recent reviews of DCUO - where you had 5 or 6 reviewers 'pass judgement' - they all loved it. Pretty unbalanced and hardly representative of the gaming public at large it seems. Also the Rift review score seemed very high when the review itself stated it really does very little that's new, is polish really all that matters?
just cause a game does nothing new does not mean its a bad game. it can still be an excellent game if it does things very well.
not that i happen to agree with rift's game score however, but polish actually does hold a very great weight.
Maybe if you guys change it up frequently enough people will be so totally confused with the rating system they'll stop complaining and just be excited to see what you do next.
I like this idea... just make it so damned convoluted that no one cares about the scores anymore.
"So what rating did they give our game?"
"Let me see ...er... Plaid. . . . . You know those guys are startin to scare me."
Hey, plaid is the exact same score I give your posts Tardcore. I don't see anything wrong with that.
To be frank, sites like this have to know they have two types of partners in the gaming community.
Big/known companies - Bioware, SOE, Blizzard, Anet etc. These are the companies that every site wants to keep reviewing and get invited to interview and want to do betas for--special betas where they get to play in/or at least witness content the public still hasn't seen. It takes an epicially terrible product to get a bad review. As badly as FFXI was recieved, it scored near a 5.
Small companies - These are the companies that want the sites to review them. The sites are perhaps easier on them realizing that this may not be a $100m product but a $10 or $20m product (or less).
I wouldn't be so bold as to say any sites or reviewers are getting paid, but without willing access to the companies, sites like this are just forums and overgrown twitter feeds. They're too nice to both groups, at our expense.
As they've even admitted or all-but admitted: They don't even use the lower numbers. Everything is 5 or above and that's just not possible. Not every kid is a A, B, or C student. They have to get some terrible submissions sometimes. People have been making terrible things for years (terrible computers, terrible websites, terrible operating systems (ME, Vista lol), terrible applications--and terrible things for centuries before computers). It stands to reason that some people are making terrible games.
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug. 12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
It's really simple. Review the game over a lengthy period of time, giving an in-depth analysis as you go along. So maybe every 3-4 days release a new article about a part you've focused on for that week, then after about a month or 2 you can give the "Final Verdict" article where you give it a rating and what not. It would work out really well.
But when people just vote crap 8-10 and say "I liked it so it gets 8-10!" instead of following through with a balanace, it ruins the whole process of voting, and renders it POINTLESS..
But when people just vote crap 8-10 and say "I liked it so it gets 8-10!" instead of following through with a blanace, it ruins the whole process of voting, and renders it POINTLESS..
Reviews are no different..
^, Katy Perry's a 10 but that ain't saying much if Roseanne Barr is an 8.
irlyrlylikekatyperry(nothermusic)
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug. 12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
Video Reviews would be a great addition, I agree. But I'm not sure we have the manpower for that undertaking. It's something we're toying with though, and is still in its infancy.
That's the question we're really asking. What do you think?
Ok, well throwing out my video review idea, I still think a non-scoring rating system would be best.
If you MUST have one I sitll recommend going with a Buy, Try, or Skip - 3 choice rating system.
Easy to understand and at a glance people would be able to see your opinion on the game which is the whole point of having a rating system in the first place.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
It's really simple. Review the game over a lengthy period of time, giving an in-depth analysis as you go along. So maybe every 3-4 days release a new article about a part you've focused on for that week, then after about a month or 2 you can give the "Final Verdict" article where you give it a rating and what not. It would work out really well.
That's all well and good.. but there NEEDS TO BE standard criteria that are judged and a standard way to judge it. The criteria need to be set by the managing editor of the site. This way everyone gets graded in the same way and on the same scale. So it doesn't matter if Reviewer A doesn't mind incomplete/buggy games but Reviewer B does. Each would have to note that the game was incomplete/buggy and give it an appropriate rating. Consistency...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
2) Another idea in term of the timeline for a review would be to do 3 reviews as an example which could be numerical, but space them out over a time period, then use the average score of the 3 reviews to determine the final word. Review the game on day 1, then on day 30, then on day 60 or 90 since this is usually the time frame where a lot of people may lose interest historically.
I like this idea. MMO's are impossible to fairly review too early into the lives however at the same time we want an early impression so it can help us to decide wether to invest in it. i know you do something similar to this with your thumbs up previews and your random re-reviews but as stated these seem to be random. if there was a set formula for you reviews ie: initial review in the first few week then as paragus states 2 more at later intervals, i think it would gve a much fairer review for an MMO. because of the evolving nature of MMO's, i dont think they can be reviewed the same way as standard games. A classic example of this would be your Aion review. The 1st review was one of the highest scores ive seen given out on this website and i agree that the game, at first, blows you away. but that soon fades which could have been reflected quite fairly in a 2 month review.
If someone is talking in general chat in a language you dont understand, chances are they're not talking to you. So chill out and stop bitching about it!
IMHO a non-scoring system is a cop-out. It's a way of not having to grade bad games and "offend" anyone.
Just define review criteria which are constant for all reviews.. and weigh the criteria according to the values of the site.
I'd have to disagree. Some websites gives bad games a great score exactly because they don't want to offend anyone.
A non-scoring system simply allows players to read the review, learn about the game in larger detail and make a decision based on what they've read. Then again, that's only if the reviewer gives an accurate review and not gloss over bad features, but that's not a scoring system-related issue.
One small correction, if you're using tenths (like when you said, "What's the difference between a 6.6 and a 6.7?") you're not using a 1-10 scale per se, it's more like a 0-100 scale with a dot in the middle. That being said, since the quality of a game is so arbirtary, having a scale that fine doesn't help much. I would suggest usine a 1-5 scale with a +/- on rare occasions where a game is better than what's normal for the whole number rating but not quite good enough for the next one up. But make it rare. Keep the scale simple.
As I'm SURE has already been point out if you use a sliding scale 1-10 the AVERAGE gamer ignores most games below 7. SO why waste a number? That's just silliness. Either the game is crap, it's playable, it's good, or ZOMG YOU HAVE TO PLAY THIS. Honestly.
This review debate is silly. Back in the day it was a 5 pt review system. Then 10pt. Now with the current 10 pt. system you're actually looking at 100 pts for a review (for example, 8.6 is really the 86% when you consider a review typically starts at .1, .2, .3, etc). With all the games coming out, I can't afford to waste money on ANY games that get less than an 8. But thats my personal sticking decision.
You just need to have a seperate scoring for different aspects of said MMO. I've seen a few reviews by other forumers that uses this type of scoring, and IMO it gives a complete picture of the reviewed MMO.
To be honest, the system that would work best in my opinion is a combination of the A to F ratings using multiple categories to obtain the final grade. Whether someone is American or not, the Grade system is pretty well known throughout the world (I live in New Zealand for crying)
That is quite honestly your best bet. Then maybe convert the grade to a number if you desperately have to for Metacritic, but if they can't rock a grade system, oh well. Cest la vie.
MMO's played: Ragnarok Online (For years), WoW (for a few weeks only), Guild Wars, Lineage 2, Eve, Allods, Shattered Galaxy, 9 Dragons, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Star Trek Online (Got someone ELSE to pay for it), Champions Online (Someone else paid), Dofus, Dragonica, LOTRO, DDO and more... A LOT more. I've played good AND bad. The bad didn't last long. :P
Comments
No its not really feasible. Its the best idea, but it doesn't really cater to the widespread with low attention spans, and that makes up quite a bit of our population in the gaming community.
Altering the scoring system in my eyes won't do anything for an MMORPG unless you alter the *amount* of times you score the game and average those. Thats if you're going to average scores at all, because, as was said before, something like sound or graphics can really bring down a game with great gameplay, or games with massive technical problems but a well polished graphics, sound, and crafting etc. would score higher even though it could be considered almost unplayable due to server wide technical issues. All these things would be averaged into the final score which could mislead a player.
Scoring each item individually and then giving a final score that doesn't average would be alright, though you'd have to explicitly post that the score isn't an average, and even then I guarantee we'll see people in the forums complaining that the score isn't and average and MMORPG.com "fails at math".
My other suggestion is on the first page, but when it comes to reviews, you'll always be damned if you do and damned when you don't with scoring. Maybe if you guys change it up frequently enough people will be so totally confused with the rating system they'll stop complaining and just be excited to see what you do next.
I like this idea... just make it so damned convoluted that no one cares about the scores anymore.
Try to be excellent to everyone you meet. You never know what someone else has seen or endured.
My Review Manifesto
Follow me on Twitter if you dare.
Start posting reviews in octal. People will quickly realize that establishing an arbitrary number to something that is entirely preferencial is silly.
"Then, there’s the idea that maybe we should go back to our roots and rate a game by 8-10 categories and use an average of each of those to get a score. "
I would like to see a good example of how it worked. But I guess that's the best way of rating a game for what it has. What I find more important is what categories were you using and how did each of them were rated individualy.
It's absolutely important to have categories related to all the features like Combat, Progression, Story, PVE, PVP, Innovation & Originality, Player Interaction (Community), Extended Experience, Graphics and Art Design, System Requirements (how much low requirements can get), and Paying Methods.
Each category should be filled with certain characteristics we should be looking for. Each category have to count the good and the bad things, the innovations and the same-old features and mechanisms, how easy/hard it is to learn how to use those mechanisms, how many people really use them, how much they influence the players gameplay and if it's in a good or in a bad way, if they can be abused by players, if they bring unbalanced gameplay for different players, If the players feel they are in a good community or if they feel they are alone most of the time, if they feel they're forced to do something (what is/are those things?).
SO many things must be considered in order to have a good score rating system for MMORPGs, but the best way is to focus on getting the good and the bad things, separate them in categories in order to have a better thougth about each feature of the game and gettin as many results for each categories as possible. With each category seen for what it is, like for example many MMORPGs don't have PVP or a personal story so it's something to be reconsidered in the genre in order to have the best game ever (Yes, I know games that don't have some features are great, but we are playing a genre that in order to be the best, it needs to have the best of everything the genre can offer), it's very possible to have a general look for what each game can offer.
I also agree that we should have more reviews about MMORPGs. One when it's launched, one 1 month after launch, another one 6 months/1 year later. The first is to have general look at everything we expect to have in the game and if it's worth trying or not. The second is to see if everything they promised is really there, if it works as they said it would work, if we will stay in the game for more time, What are the bad things everyone saw in the game and if it's FUN. The last one is to see how many people are still playing the game and if there are more people trying it, if they solved their issues along the way, if there's something new, etc.
Preview = NDA lifted, playable?, what features in already, what features still being worked on, what's exciting, no rating
Initial Review = 1 week after launch, playable?, what features in already, what features still being worked on, performance issues?, no rating, should reflect around 4 hours play time.
Twenty One Day Review = 21 days in, should reflect at least 10 hours play time spread over three weeks. This one should list pros and cons of major gameplay elements and whether or not the reviewers think it's worth continuing to play or if it needs to cook some more. Ideally, should be done by more than one reviewer.
Annual Status Report - every year if a game is still running would be nice to get an article that summarizes the changes over the year and talks about the health of the game. For example, how many servers are still running, were there any major outages, was there an expansion, is there any exciting dev news, etc.
What might be even more informative is to set up a more robust fan rating system. Have each MMORPG member rate themselves in each of four categories: Raider, Crafter, Soloer, PVPer. Then when they rate a game have the results show that Raiders give this game a score of..., Crafters give it a score of ..., Soloers give it a score of ..., and PVPers give it a score of ... I'm sure it would have to be set up carefully but would provide more meaning than the current fan rating gives. You would have to put in some stuff to stop devs/haters gaming the ratings, such as new members can't rate or something like that, etc. Maybe also require raters to give a short explanation of why they gave the rating they did.
I think there are two major types of info folks are looking for - does a NEW game live up to its hype, and what OLD games are still worth playing while we wait for our dream game to come out. Anything that makes it easier to wade through the info that's out there would be helpful.
I have agree with Jon that a letter grading system is a much simpler, easier-to-understand way of rating a game than a number scale. Too often with a number scale do people immediately write off any game that scores below an 8/10 as a failure that isn't worth their money, which is often not the case. I'm not sure how many reviewers would grade the 'average' games with a C (I think many might gravitate to a C+/B- average out of basic human kindness and willingness to accept fault), but at least most readers will understand that any games in the C+ range and above have some good things going for them and are worth looking into more closely.
As for the review process itself, I think publishing the primary review on or shortly after the launch date is just fine, assuming your reviewer has had enough time in closed/open beta to have formed a knowledgeable opinion on every major aspect of the game. Following that, I think it would be pretty cool to see a concise (maybe 500-words on average) addendum to the initial review published 30-60 days after launch, which details the reviewer's experiences after a little more time with the game, as well as the size and general attitude of the community and his final opinion on how much longevity the game will have.
Also, it might be nice to see the same reviewer (assuming he's still on staff) resubscribe to the game every 6 or 12 months for a week or so and publish another concise addendum on the state of the game at the time. Personally, I'd prefer those long-term second and third looks at a game be added to the same review article and just have the updated article given a bump on the main page rather than have a different "Second Review" posted as a different article. It's fine to have another staff member whose opinions are different than the initial reviewer write up something to explain what he/she thinks, but I'd rather see a short addition added to the review than have two full-size reviews published by two different people. It will help to better show a sense of unity among your staff and give the site a 'collective voice'.
Good read.
I also like the letter system, but I want to note that personally, I don't judge a game based on a sites final score. At least I dont use a sites review score to decide if I like it enough to purchase.
If I have been paying attention to the game pre release, I have been paying attention to it, so I already know what I want to know.
If I havent been paying attention, I care more about what the review SAYS and less about a score or even a grade. If there is a game that is being reviewed and the score is horrible, the commentary I'm avidly reading will tell me that before I actually see the score/grade.
Just my 2 cents
"So what rating did they give our game?"
"Let me see ...er... Plaid. . . . . You know those guys are startin to scare me."
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Why not start a new trend and try and have two opposing reviews? Even if one of them is playing devil's advocate it would at least provide some balance. The recent reviews of DCUO - where you had 5 or 6 reviewers 'pass judgement' - they all loved it. Pretty unbalanced and hardly representative of the gaming public at large it seems. Also the Rift review score seemed very high when the review itself stated it really does very little that's new, is polish really all that matters?
For one, I would like to see real reviews, about 6 months into the game, with people that have played for that long. Anything else should just be labeled "first impression" or "preview."
I think it would be interesting to see it from diffeent angles too. I'd like to see a group oriented pve person, who will get a lot of guild play, a solo/casual pve type, a pvp person and sandbox versus theme park type of people. This way you would see a perspective of the game from different play styles, and people could see, more or less from their play style point of view, whether they may be interested in the game or not. So I guess a series of reviews to get an overall big picture would be kind of cool.
just cause a game does nothing new does not mean its a bad game. it can still be an excellent game if it does things very well.
not that i happen to agree with rift's game score however, but polish actually does hold a very great weight.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Hey, plaid is the exact same score I give your posts Tardcore. I don't see anything wrong with that.
To be frank, sites like this have to know they have two types of partners in the gaming community.
Big/known companies - Bioware, SOE, Blizzard, Anet etc. These are the companies that every site wants to keep reviewing and get invited to interview and want to do betas for--special betas where they get to play in/or at least witness content the public still hasn't seen. It takes an epicially terrible product to get a bad review. As badly as FFXI was recieved, it scored near a 5.
Small companies - These are the companies that want the sites to review them. The sites are perhaps easier on them realizing that this may not be a $100m product but a $10 or $20m product (or less).
I wouldn't be so bold as to say any sites or reviewers are getting paid, but without willing access to the companies, sites like this are just forums and overgrown twitter feeds. They're too nice to both groups, at our expense.
As they've even admitted or all-but admitted: They don't even use the lower numbers. Everything is 5 or above and that's just not possible. Not every kid is a A, B, or C student. They have to get some terrible submissions sometimes. People have been making terrible things for years (terrible computers, terrible websites, terrible operating systems (ME, Vista lol), terrible applications--and terrible things for centuries before computers). It stands to reason that some people are making terrible games.
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug.
12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
It's really simple. Review the game over a lengthy period of time, giving an in-depth analysis as you go along. So maybe every 3-4 days release a new article about a part you've focused on for that week, then after about a month or 2 you can give the "Final Verdict" article where you give it a rating and what not. It would work out really well.
1-10
1 awful/bad, 5 average, 10 exceedingly great.
But when people just vote crap 8-10 and say "I liked it so it gets 8-10!" instead of following through with a balanace, it ruins the whole process of voting, and renders it POINTLESS..
Reviews are no different..
^, Katy Perry's a 10 but that ain't saying much if Roseanne Barr is an 8.
irlyrlylikekatyperry(nothermusic)
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug.
12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
Ok, well throwing out my video review idea, I still think a non-scoring rating system would be best.
If you MUST have one I sitll recommend going with a Buy, Try, or Skip - 3 choice rating system.
Easy to understand and at a glance people would be able to see your opinion on the game which is the whole point of having a rating system in the first place.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
That's all well and good.. but there NEEDS TO BE standard criteria that are judged and a standard way to judge it. The criteria need to be set by the managing editor of the site. This way everyone gets graded in the same way and on the same scale. So it doesn't matter if Reviewer A doesn't mind incomplete/buggy games but Reviewer B does. Each would have to note that the game was incomplete/buggy and give it an appropriate rating. Consistency...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
IMHO a non-scoring system is a cop-out. It's a way of not having to grade bad games and "offend" anyone.
Just define review criteria which are constant for all reviews.. and weigh the criteria according to the values of the site.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I like this idea. MMO's are impossible to fairly review too early into the lives however at the same time we want an early impression so it can help us to decide wether to invest in it. i know you do something similar to this with your thumbs up previews and your random re-reviews but as stated these seem to be random. if there was a set formula for you reviews ie: initial review in the first few week then as paragus states 2 more at later intervals, i think it would gve a much fairer review for an MMO. because of the evolving nature of MMO's, i dont think they can be reviewed the same way as standard games. A classic example of this would be your Aion review. The 1st review was one of the highest scores ive seen given out on this website and i agree that the game, at first, blows you away. but that soon fades which could have been reflected quite fairly in a 2 month review.
If someone is talking in general chat in a language you dont understand, chances are they're not talking to you. So chill out and stop bitching about it!
I'd have to disagree. Some websites gives bad games a great score exactly because they don't want to offend anyone.
A non-scoring system simply allows players to read the review, learn about the game in larger detail and make a decision based on what they've read. Then again, that's only if the reviewer gives an accurate review and not gloss over bad features, but that's not a scoring system-related issue.
One small correction, if you're using tenths (like when you said, "What's the difference between a 6.6 and a 6.7?") you're not using a 1-10 scale per se, it's more like a 0-100 scale with a dot in the middle. That being said, since the quality of a game is so arbirtary, having a scale that fine doesn't help much. I would suggest usine a 1-5 scale with a +/- on rare occasions where a game is better than what's normal for the whole number rating but not quite good enough for the next one up. But make it rare. Keep the scale simple.
As I'm SURE has already been point out if you use a sliding scale 1-10 the AVERAGE gamer ignores most games below 7. SO why waste a number? That's just silliness. Either the game is crap, it's playable, it's good, or ZOMG YOU HAVE TO PLAY THIS. Honestly.
This review debate is silly. Back in the day it was a 5 pt review system. Then 10pt. Now with the current 10 pt. system you're actually looking at 100 pts for a review (for example, 8.6 is really the 86% when you consider a review typically starts at .1, .2, .3, etc). With all the games coming out, I can't afford to waste money on ANY games that get less than an 8. But thats my personal sticking decision.
You just need to have a seperate scoring for different aspects of said MMO. I've seen a few reviews by other forumers that uses this type of scoring, and IMO it gives a complete picture of the reviewed MMO.
To be honest, the system that would work best in my opinion is a combination of the A to F ratings using multiple categories to obtain the final grade. Whether someone is American or not, the Grade system is pretty well known throughout the world (I live in New Zealand for crying)
That is quite honestly your best bet. Then maybe convert the grade to a number if you desperately have to for Metacritic, but if they can't rock a grade system, oh well. Cest la vie.
MMO's played: Ragnarok Online (For years), WoW (for a few weeks only), Guild Wars, Lineage 2, Eve, Allods, Shattered Galaxy, 9 Dragons, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Star Trek Online (Got someone ELSE to pay for it), Champions Online (Someone else paid), Dofus, Dragonica, LOTRO, DDO and more... A LOT more. I've played good AND bad. The bad didn't last long. :P