It's time for a new game rating system on MMORPG.com

nate1980

I think the genre has matured to the point where people can be a lot more descriptive in what they like and don't like in a MMORPG and that people should be able to look at a rating and tell if the game is for them or not. Here's a rating system I would suggest using.

PvE

PvP

Crafting

Roleplay

Quality

Performance/Lag

Graphics

Sound

Customer Service

Value

Community

 

Above are 11 categories with a maximum score of 110. Players could look at these ratings individually and see if the game is for them. The current rating system asks for a rating on Fun, for example, which is highly subjective. As we've seen over the years, a divide has taken place on what players find fun. While many people like to mix some PvE with PvP, and crafting, many also prefer PvE over PvP or visa versa or even may prefer a game with an in depth crafting system.

If you agree that the current rating system is outdated, reply here. Let me know if you like my rating system or prefer your own.

AngelCutums

I love your idea, just a few comments.

1.What do you mean by quality? Quality seems as broad of a topic as fun. Instead, there should just be those ten ratings (excluding quality), with a top score of 100.

2. This is sort of off topic, but in the short run this would be hard to implement because you would have to get re-ratings.

3. My own suggestion for revamping the system: put a date on when the game was rated. For example, Ultima Online is much different than it was years ago. People may rate Darkfall low now, but maybe (I said maybe) two years from now, it will be a brilliant game.

 

nate1980

Originally posted by AngelCutums


I love your idea, just a few comments.
1.What do you mean by quality? Quality seems as broad of a topic as fun. Instead, there should just be those ten ratings (excluding quality), with a top score of 100.
2. This is sort of off topic, but in the short run this would be hard to implement because you would have to get re-ratings.
3. My own suggestion for revamping the system: put a date on when the game was rated. For example, Ultima Online is much different than it was years ago. People may rate Darkfall low now, but maybe (I said maybe) two years from now, it will be a brilliant game.
 

 

1. Quality, as in the quality of the game from a software point of view. Industry standard says software (games, OS, applications etc.) should not release with bugs that may interfere with the operation of the product. This doesn't mean there aren't bugs, it just means the obvious ones and the game breaking ones were taken care of or are taken care of. So a game that releases crappy will probably receive a low quality raiting, but reviewers who rate it after a year has passed may rate quality higher after the patches have gone through. You could replace quality with polish, but quality is a more professional term.

2. Well, I wouldn't expect a whole rerating of MMORPG.COM Reviews of games. It'd keep the old scores for the reviews the staff made and the player reviews would start over at 0. A fresh start wouldn't hurt anything, in fact, a fresh start would help.

3. Ratings evolve. I rerate a game every time I play it. This doesn't mean everyone does, but it also means that if I do it, it's probably that others do it too. People usually try a game out more than once before totally giving up on it. Usually the last time they try the game is after it's been out long enough to get a better impression of the game. If the game still ranks low after a year, there's really no reason to expect it to rank higher later.

BTW, how did you come across this thread? It was created a little bit ago and totally ignored and barried. Thanks for the bump. Hopefully the staff will read it and respond.

AngelCutums

Originally posted by nate1980

 
1. Quality, as in the quality of the game from a software point of view. Industry standard says software (games, OS, applications etc.) should not release with bugs that may interfere with the operation of the product. This doesn't mean there aren't bugs, it just means the obvious ones and the game breaking ones were taken care of or are taken care of. So a game that releases crappy will probably receive a low quality raiting, but reviewers who rate it after a year has passed may rate quality higher after the patches have gone through. You could replace quality with polish, but quality is a more professional term.
2. Well, I wouldn't expect a whole rerating of MMORPG.COM Reviews of games. It'd keep the old scores for the reviews the staff made and the player reviews would start over at 0. A fresh start wouldn't hurt anything, in fact, a fresh start would help.
3. Ratings evolve. I rerate a game every time I play it. This doesn't mean everyone does, but it also means that if I do it, it's probably that others do it too. People usually try a game out more than once before totally giving up on it. Usually the last time they try the game is after it's been out long enough to get a better impression of the game. If the game still ranks low after a year, there's really no reason to expect it to rank higher later.
4. BTW, how did you come across this thread? It was created a little bit ago and totally ignored and barried. Thanks for the bump. Hopefully the staff will read it and respond.

 

1. Still, quality describes the game overall. For example, you said quality could represent two different things, how bugs and bad performance are taken care of and how well the release was. Those are based on the quality of the developer, or in other words, the service. For all we know, when a person is rating a game on the quality, they could be talking about whether the gameplay is rubbish or has a nice variety and challenge.

2. The second point is not something I'm willing to debate on...for one, it doesn't have too much too do with the the topic, and two, in the long term resetting the player reviews would be a logical idea.

3. Sorry, I'm fairly new to the game, and was not aware that you could rerate. One year is not a reasonable time to say though that a game will not improve, especially in the gameplay category.

4. Actually, it was on the first page of the site suggestions forums. I don't consider that too long ago.  Anyways, these are the threads that I feel don't get the attention they need, rather than the unneeded "this site is horrible" or the "that color is ugly at that place" threads.

 

nate1980

Originally posted by AngelCutums

Originally posted by nate1980

 
1. Quality, as in the quality of the game from a software point of view. Industry standard says software (games, OS, applications etc.) should not release with bugs that may interfere with the operation of the product. This doesn't mean there aren't bugs, it just means the obvious ones and the game breaking ones were taken care of or are taken care of. So a game that releases crappy will probably receive a low quality raiting, but reviewers who rate it after a year has passed may rate quality higher after the patches have gone through. You could replace quality with polish, but quality is a more professional term.
2. Well, I wouldn't expect a whole rerating of MMORPG.COM Reviews of games. It'd keep the old scores for the reviews the staff made and the player reviews would start over at 0. A fresh start wouldn't hurt anything, in fact, a fresh start would help.
3. Ratings evolve. I rerate a game every time I play it. This doesn't mean everyone does, but it also means that if I do it, it's probably that others do it too. People usually try a game out more than once before totally giving up on it. Usually the last time they try the game is after it's been out long enough to get a better impression of the game. If the game still ranks low after a year, there's really no reason to expect it to rank higher later.
4. BTW, how did you come across this thread? It was created a little bit ago and totally ignored and barried. Thanks for the bump. Hopefully the staff will read it and respond.

 

1. Still, quality describes the game overall. For example, you said quality could represent two different things, how bugs and bad performance are taken care of and how well the release was. Those are based on the quality of the developer, or in other words, the service. For all we know, when a person is rating a game on the quality, they could be talking about whether the gameplay is rubbish or has a nice variety and challenge.

2. The second point is not something I'm willing to debate on...for one, it doesn't have too much too do with the the topic, and two, in the long term resetting the player reviews would be a logical idea.

3. Sorry, I'm fairly new to the game, and was not aware that you could rerate. One year is not a reasonable time to say though that a game will not improve, especially in the gameplay category.

4. Actually, it was on the first page of the site suggestions forums. I don't consider that too long ago.  Anyways, these are the threads that I feel don't get the attention they need, rather than the unneeded "this site is horrible" or the "that color is ugly at that place" threads.

 

 

1. You're right, it can be subjective. But I feel there must be some sort of category that allows a person to differentiate the quality of one game from another. Assuming no one heard of WoW and was deciding between WoW and Vanguard. If quality was a priority for them, they'd find out that WoW is of higher quality than Vanguard. However, without it, they'll have to read the PvE, PvP, and etc ratings to get an idea of the game, but they'll never know how the quality is. Do you know of a better word? Maybe stability? But stability only refers to server issues, not bugs and broken game mechanics. Then again, some people might not need a Quality category to write down that the game is of low quality in their review, so maybe the written portion would make up for the lack of a category.

3. Welcome to the website. I've been active here since early 2005. It's good for getting MMO information, but the community isn't so good.  My take on how long to give a game is based off my experience. Experience may vary, which will change how long a person is willing to give a game. Population is important to most people, and games with rough starts never recover. The gameplay might get better, but the population is usually too small for any serious development of the game or to not feel alone in the world.

4. I didn't realize they moved my thread to that forum. I originally posted this on the General Forums.