-Sound Quality (Clarity, volume levels, 3d effects, etc)
-Acoustic Style - Subjective Score
etc.
Each category should have two scores.
At the end, provide 3 scores: Technical Score, Subjective Score, and the average of the two. The overall technical score should be an average of the tech scores, but the overall subjective should not have to be. Though if the review is written properly, the overall subjective score SHOULD be around the same area as the individual subjective scores.
A review needs an actual opinion in it. Otherwise a box-stacking game might make a perfect 9 on the technical side, but actually be about as fun as well, stacking boxes.
Other than that I would like to see some other subjective scores on the potential of a game. There are many games out there that start off not-so good, but have great potential and should be "watched". There are others who are great, but didn't leave themselves alot of room to "grow" (Champions Online, i'm thinking of you.) Lastly I would like to see some sort of meter for determining how well a game is meeting its potential. Some games squander it, others start to develop it.
Remove the rating system completely. Make the review as informative as possible. Describe the game mechanics without giving any kind of opinion. Make a suggestion what kind of players might enjoy the game and what don't.
The use of stickies to group discussions into one thread and subsequent locking of posts on that topic outside of the thread.
Wouldnt it be just as easy to merge the locked threads into the main thread as a whole, thus not losing potentially valuable insights made in threads outside of those stickies?
Personally i dont like the use the use of the sticky threads for grouping topics like this anyway.
I think reviews should declare up front what the reviewer has received from the company. Beta Key, Beta key plus perk, free game account, free game account + 1 month sub, free game account + 3 month sub, temporary account that is deactivated after the review is written.
It would provide two benefts:
1, it should give the reviewer and the those reading some perspective on value of a game. It's easy to say something is awesome, the most fun ever, especially when you did not have to pay for it. It also provides some perspective, would the reviewer keep paying to continue playing, even if s/he got the original product for free. It also can short circuit skepticism when a reviewer states "I'm still playing the game 1 month later" -- well, gee, is that because you're still using the free time the company gave you?
2, it begins to pull the back the curtain (a bit) on anys concerns of payola (although not entirely, given ad buys. That could be short-circuited by declared number of buys though -- doesn't have to be how much they paid)
Id like to suggest that when you review F2P games, that you scrutinize their cash shop. The cash shop is essential in those games, and I'd like to know how it holds up in comparizon to other games. Are there items for sale making the game P2W? How is the pricing system - is this more expensive compared to other, similar games? How far can you actually play without paying, and how will the game really be if you do? What is the estimated average the gamer should spend to have a fun time in the game without too much grind/hinderances?
Not reviewing how the cash shop actually works is the same as closing your eyes on a very essential part of the game. This is not good. Please fix.
In the article entitled "Five reasons to continue playing swtor", several of us called out the author for being coerced into writing this half hearted attempt at pushing an unpopular game. Those posts have been deleted. with no reason except for "stay on topic"
A forum member created a thread basically saying that League of Legends is popular because mmos suck. Lo and behold, that article gets pinned and becomes an "IN the Spotlight" thread... I posted that something isnt right about this and that I think its just a sleazy way to attempt to shuffle traffic to one of your sister sites rtsguru. Another memebr agrees. No response as to why an LoL fanboy thread gets stickied as a spotlight on an mmo forum.
whats going on with this site? that article for tor felt so forced. the 5 reasons were pathetic. it reeked of paid advertising. and mmo bashing threads promoting rts get spotlighted? seriously, is it time to declare this site officially sold out?
Im having a tough time finding redeeming qualities of both the moderators and writers. get your crap together guys. you're going to turn into a joke before you know it, and you wont get that back no matter how hard you try to turn it around after the fact.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
In the article entitled "Five reasons to continue playing swtor", several of us called out the author for being coerced into writing this half hearted attempt at pushing an unpopular game. Those posts have been deleted. with no reason except for "stay on topic"
A forum member created a thread basically saying that League of Legends is popular because mmos suck. Lo and behold, that article gets pinned and becomes an "IN the Spotlight" thread... I posted that something isnt right about this and that I think its just a sleazy way to attempt to shuffle traffic to one of your sister sites rtsguru. Another memebr agrees. No response as to why an LoL fanboy thread gets stickied as a spotlight on an mmo forum.
whats going on with this site? that article for tor felt so forced. the 5 reasons were pathetic. it reeked of paid advertising. and mmo bashing threads promoting rts get spotlighted? seriously, is it time to declare this site officially sold out?
Im having a tough time finding redeeming qualities of both the moderators and writers. get your crap together guys. you're going to turn into a joke before you know it, and you wont get that back no matter how hard you try to turn it around after the fact.
I agree with this. While I understand it is difficult to balance reviewing and revenue, you have to find something. The TOR article was a good example of something that really did apepar to be "bought". Five reasons to CONTINUE to play a MMO? I didn't see the LoL thread (I'm not that big of a forum lurker) though. I do occassionally read MOBAGu...err RTSGuru when they do articles on something other on MOBAs.
Originally posted by DannyGloverIn the article entitled "Five reasons to continue playing swtor", several of us called out the author for being coerced into writing this half hearted attempt at pushing an unpopular game. Those posts have been deleted. with no reason except for "stay on topic"A forum member created a thread basically saying that League of Legends is popular because mmos suck. Lo and behold, that article gets pinned and becomes an "IN the Spotlight" thread... I posted that something isnt right about this and that I think its just a sleazy way to attempt to shuffle traffic to one of your sister sites rtsguru. Another memebr agrees. No response as to why an LoL fanboy thread gets stickied as a spotlight on an mmo forum.whats going on with this site? that article for tor felt so forced. the 5 reasons were pathetic. it reeked of paid advertising. and mmo bashing threads promoting rts get spotlighted? seriously, is it time to declare this site officially sold out? Im having a tough time finding redeeming qualities of both the moderators and writers. get your crap together guys. you're going to turn into a joke before you know it, and you wont get that back no matter how hard you try to turn it around after the fact.
I agree with this. While I understand it is difficult to balance reviewing and revenue, you have to find something. The TOR article was a good example of something that really did apepar to be "bought". Five reasons to CONTINUE to play a MMO? I didn't see the LoL thread (I'm not that big of a forum lurker) though. I do occassionally read MOBAGu...err RTSGuru when they do articles on something other on MOBAs.
yeah moba articles on this site i can tolerate to a degree. but this was a flame post made by a forum member, not a writer, and it gets spotlighted...
btw, im getting a kick out of my star rating mysteriously going down as I raise these questions.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
SO my previous posts get deleted and a moderator says to post my concerns in this thread. Is this where concerns and complaints go to die around here? Because Im not seeing a single reply to any of these issues in this thread. If you're just going to ignore people's issues with how this site is being ran, why bother even telling us to voice our opinions here?
Your silence is only reaffirming what a lot of us already believe.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
Remove the rating system completely. Make the review as informative as possible. Describe the game mechanics without giving any kind of opinion. Make a suggestion what kind of players might enjoy the game and what don't.
I agree with the idea of getting rid of the review scores altogether. It's been argued before, by people with greater passion and eloquence than me, that reducing creative works to a single numerical score (or series of scores) does not do them justice. In addition, articles such as this piece about EEDAR highlight the correlation between review scores and sales. This in turn raises questions about the relationship between publishers/PR and reviewers, and how pressure may be placed upon the reviewer to award a particular score. This is most clearly evidenced in cases where the final score does not appear to be in step with the tone and text of the review.
I think that way too much weight is placed on review scores and that gamers would be better off without this convenient but distracting shorthand.
Considering that this site is not only a paid advertiser for the games it reviews, but now also directly sells these games and profits by doing it, details of business relationships with publisher/producers and/or a disclaimer of such are badly needed.
In most other industries, when a review site/publication is paid by the company whose products it is reviewing, it is usually heavily disclaimed.
Comments
I would recommend dividing up your scores into two categories. Subjective and Technical. Then have the reviewer write it up along these lines.
Graphics:
-Graphical Quality (frame rate, polygons, lighting, textures, etc.) - Technical score
-Art Style - Subjective score
Sound:
-Sound Quality (Clarity, volume levels, 3d effects, etc)
-Acoustic Style - Subjective Score
etc.
Each category should have two scores.
At the end, provide 3 scores: Technical Score, Subjective Score, and the average of the two. The overall technical score should be an average of the tech scores, but the overall subjective should not have to be. Though if the review is written properly, the overall subjective score SHOULD be around the same area as the individual subjective scores.
A review needs an actual opinion in it. Otherwise a box-stacking game might make a perfect 9 on the technical side, but actually be about as fun as well, stacking boxes.
Other than that I would like to see some other subjective scores on the potential of a game. There are many games out there that start off not-so good, but have great potential and should be "watched". There are others who are great, but didn't leave themselves alot of room to "grow" (Champions Online, i'm thinking of you.) Lastly I would like to see some sort of meter for determining how well a game is meeting its potential. Some games squander it, others start to develop it.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Remove the rating system completely. Make the review as informative as possible. Describe the game mechanics without giving any kind of opinion. Make a suggestion what kind of players might enjoy the game and what don't.
REALITY CHECK
The use of stickies to group discussions into one thread and subsequent locking of posts on that topic outside of the thread.
Wouldnt it be just as easy to merge the locked threads into the main thread as a whole, thus not losing potentially valuable insights made in threads outside of those stickies?
Personally i dont like the use the use of the sticky threads for grouping topics like this anyway.
F2P/P2P excellent thread.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/282517/F2P-An-Engineers-perspective.html
I think reviews should declare up front what the reviewer has received from the company. Beta Key, Beta key plus perk, free game account, free game account + 1 month sub, free game account + 3 month sub, temporary account that is deactivated after the review is written.
It would provide two benefts:
1, it should give the reviewer and the those reading some perspective on value of a game. It's easy to say something is awesome, the most fun ever, especially when you did not have to pay for it. It also provides some perspective, would the reviewer keep paying to continue playing, even if s/he got the original product for free. It also can short circuit skepticism when a reviewer states "I'm still playing the game 1 month later" -- well, gee, is that because you're still using the free time the company gave you?
2, it begins to pull the back the curtain (a bit) on anys concerns of payola (although not entirely, given ad buys. That could be short-circuited by declared number of buys though -- doesn't have to be how much they paid)
On this site there are almost 100 games with a User Rating score of between 7.00 and 7.79.
That's 100 games with a score within 8/10th's of each other.
Which essentially makes those scores useless for determining the quality of a game.
So, with the rating system as it is, the reviews by the staff take on a greater importance and meaning.
I agree with many of the suggestions mentioned so far for improving the mechanics of the reviews.
But for me, the most important attribute of the review should be it's integrity.
Is the reviewer able to give an honest opinion without any outside pressure from advertisers or other monied interest?
littlemonkey
Id like to suggest that when you review F2P games, that you scrutinize their cash shop. The cash shop is essential in those games, and I'd like to know how it holds up in comparizon to other games. Are there items for sale making the game P2W? How is the pricing system - is this more expensive compared to other, similar games? How far can you actually play without paying, and how will the game really be if you do? What is the estimated average the gamer should spend to have a fun time in the game without too much grind/hinderances?
Not reviewing how the cash shop actually works is the same as closing your eyes on a very essential part of the game. This is not good. Please fix.
In the article entitled "Five reasons to continue playing swtor", several of us called out the author for being coerced into writing this half hearted attempt at pushing an unpopular game. Those posts have been deleted. with no reason except for "stay on topic"
A forum member created a thread basically saying that League of Legends is popular because mmos suck. Lo and behold, that article gets pinned and becomes an "IN the Spotlight" thread... I posted that something isnt right about this and that I think its just a sleazy way to attempt to shuffle traffic to one of your sister sites rtsguru. Another memebr agrees. No response as to why an LoL fanboy thread gets stickied as a spotlight on an mmo forum.
whats going on with this site? that article for tor felt so forced. the 5 reasons were pathetic. it reeked of paid advertising. and mmo bashing threads promoting rts get spotlighted? seriously, is it time to declare this site officially sold out?
Im having a tough time finding redeeming qualities of both the moderators and writers. get your crap together guys. you're going to turn into a joke before you know it, and you wont get that back no matter how hard you try to turn it around after the fact.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
I agree with this. While I understand it is difficult to balance reviewing and revenue, you have to find something. The TOR article was a good example of something that really did apepar to be "bought". Five reasons to CONTINUE to play a MMO? I didn't see the LoL thread (I'm not that big of a forum lurker) though. I do occassionally read MOBAGu...err RTSGuru when they do articles on something other on MOBAs.
yeah moba articles on this site i can tolerate to a degree. but this was a flame post made by a forum member, not a writer, and it gets spotlighted...
btw, im getting a kick out of my star rating mysteriously going down as I raise these questions.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
SO my previous posts get deleted and a moderator says to post my concerns in this thread. Is this where concerns and complaints go to die around here? Because Im not seeing a single reply to any of these issues in this thread. If you're just going to ignore people's issues with how this site is being ran, why bother even telling us to voice our opinions here?
Your silence is only reaffirming what a lot of us already believe.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
Still patiently waiting....
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
I agree with the idea of getting rid of the review scores altogether. It's been argued before, by people with greater passion and eloquence than me, that reducing creative works to a single numerical score (or series of scores) does not do them justice. In addition, articles such as this piece about EEDAR highlight the correlation between review scores and sales. This in turn raises questions about the relationship between publishers/PR and reviewers, and how pressure may be placed upon the reviewer to award a particular score. This is most clearly evidenced in cases where the final score does not appear to be in step with the tone and text of the review.
I think that way too much weight is placed on review scores and that gamers would be better off without this convenient but distracting shorthand.
Considering that this site is not only a paid advertiser for the games it reviews, but now also directly sells these games and profits by doing it, details of business relationships with publisher/producers and/or a disclaimer of such are badly needed.
In most other industries, when a review site/publication is paid by the company whose products it is reviewing, it is usually heavily disclaimed.
There is no way to fix the review system. Bigger name titles get bigger scores.
Being paid or not for it is beside the point. Your reviews are biased.
So we'll just keep doing what we're doing. Find user reviews elsewhere, come here for breaking news and forum community. Same as always.
The Deep Web is sca-ry.