Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

although i love mmoprg.com, This sites game ratings are way off, we NEED a ratings reset to clear ou

2

Comments

  • paulscottpaulscott Member Posts: 5,613
    one can assume every user looks at the free games list.  however it only has 256k hits so we can be reasonably sure that half the accounts are bots and people that registered and never looked back.

    I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.

  • OutlandersOutlanders Member Posts: 9
    Originally posted by Kalmenicus

    [Mod Edit]

    Dude ... straight up your lame. THE OP doesnt have a preference to which game should be number one ... just not LAME and DEAD games like asherons call and everquest and the others. far as im concerned anyone still playing everquest is a complete lamer AFRAID of getting out there and trying anything new no way you can compare ANY of those older games to the new ones, and be serious about it. the fact is that if MMORPG.com wants to ACCURATELY represent the MMO market it has to seriously do something about these lame duck games still stuck in the top ten and top 20 on that list, because no one in there right mind should start p[laying these games this day and age.
  • Zaxx99Zaxx99 Member Posts: 1,761


    Originally posted by Outlanders
    Dude ... straight up your lame. THE OP doesnt have a preference to which game should be number one ...
    just not LAME and DEAD games like asherons call and everquest and the others.far as im concerned anyone still playing everquest is a complete lamer AFRAID of getting out there and trying anything new
    no way you can compare ANY of those older games to the new ones, and be serious about it.the fact is that if MMORPG.com wants to ACCURATELY represent the MMO market it has to seriously do something about these lame duck games still stuck in the top ten and top 20 on that list, because no one in there right mind should start p[laying these games this day and age.

    Dude... straight up YOUR lame. Calling classic mmos like Asherons Call and Everquest "lame" is only showing your ignorance. 90% of the new mmos offered today cannot even compete with these old timers, especially in the depth and the gameplay departments. Graphics is about the only thing most of the newer mmos have on the great classics.

    I know it truly frightens some of you that "your" eye candy game such as WoW has an 8 year old game like Asherons Call right there even with your games rating. You think to yourself something along the lines of "OMG, my WOW has 8.5 million players and the graphics in WoW are so much better then Asherons Call, how can it be competing in the rating dept?" Well, I have news for you. It beats the hell out of these newer games in the areas that count. Things like fun, gameplay, and community.

    Hearing so many of you want to just wipe out 6 or 7 years worth of valid reviews on great classic games so that your 1.0 reviews will actually make an impact on them is utter insanity. There is no way in hell that mmorpg.com is about to just purge all the reviews so that WOW will get a 9.2 rating, Vanguard will get an 8.5, and Asherons Call will get a 2.3 rating. You guys are just being ridiculous.


    - Zaxx

    image

  • RabidaskalRabidaskal Member Posts: 238
    Why dont you just keep the current rating and put the year the game was released next to it.



    Diablo 1 is still one of the top-rated games of all time on Gamespot, and right beside it is the year it was released, 1996.



    Conclusion: it was a great game . . . for its time.

    I don''t really know when Humankind will die out but i''m guessing about 6 years before WOW.
    -BarCrow

  • shilakshilak Member Posts: 78

    All those ratings are pretty much meaningless anyway. Everyone is different, we all have different tastes, if we werent all different then the world (virtual or otherwise) would be a very dull place.

    Fact of the matter is there will never be an MMO that will meet everyones needs completely, so why the need for these rating systems in the first place? Especially the ones as superficial as those used in journalistic reviews. Just find an MMO that meets your needs the best and play that, it shouldn't matter if it is given a 1 or a 10 on some website.

  • NetspookNetspook Member UncommonPosts: 1,583

    OP: Your suggestions makes perfect sense to me, and I agree on almost everything you said.

    This site really never stops surprising me! There are loads of ppl on this site complaining how bad WoW: TBC is because of the outdated graphics, and on the other end, you find ppl armed to their teeth defending a shitty game like Ultima Online...

    How long exactly will you fanatics see these scores without a reset? 1 year? 5? 50?? The reason you are arguing so hard, is exactly because you are fanatics. You KNOW that today's majority will NEVER give games like Everquest and Ultima Online high reviews! That's why you fight it, and that's damn egoistic if you ask me.

    The OP is right, this system is designed to fool newbies who are checking this site, which of course isn't good for the MMO communities at all.

  • EggFteggEggFtegg Member Posts: 1,141
    Originally posted by Rabidaskal

    Why dont you just keep the current rating and put the year the game was released next to it.



    Diablo 1 is still one of the top-rated games of all time on Gamespot, and right beside it is the year it was released, 1996.



    Conclusion: it was a great game . . . for its time.

    Hehe. There ya go...easy solution. It even credits those trying games with a bit of intelligence.

    There's no perfect scoring system. I'd agree that modern games will often only win on graphics. The best online game I ever played (by far) didn't even have graphics so would have scored 0 on that, which suggests that maybe the graphics portion of the rating is overrated anyway.

  • severiusseverius Member UncommonPosts: 1,515
    If people now dislike games that they once had rated highly they can go back and modify their review.  I know I did so a few times over the life of games like SWG.  Just because a game is older doesnt mean that it doesnt warrant the player review score that it has.  What I am curious about is what "new" game that the OP likes is being judged unfairly because the older games are scoring higher than it?   And along those lines, if there is a new game that is being being "unfairly judged" because older games are scoring higher then shouldn't that new game be able to stand on it's own?
  • MiNaAuMiNaAu Member Posts: 382
    Although I agree on what you say about resetting the ratings, I don't agree with some of your views:

    Note: This is not a flame





    games like everquest ( which bascially just sucks now ... i mean its ancient and has nothing over newer mmorpg's .. )

    Correction....YOU think everquest sucks and many other people do but not everyone



    planetside? come on .

    Agreed



    and ultima online? geeze come on ... super mario world has better graphics people ...

    Not everyone are graphic whores, people rated this game high because it was good not because of graphics



    and why isnt diablo on this site anyway?

    This is MMORPG.COM, Diablo isn't an MMORPG



    anarchy online? again ancient ... i can't see how this game is still in the top 20... must be flocks of nostalgic gamers who dont even play anymore .. scoring it high for old time's sake ..

    People are still waiting for Anarchy Online II 6 years after launch, many still play



    i mean come on .. reset the ratings .... we cant base UO or everquest rating averages against new games like vanguard or WOW .. or D&D .. or whatever ...  those game ratings were given to those games back in 2001 when this site opened ....


    WoW and D&D isn't new, neither are they highly rated and terribly popular
  • KurushKurush Member Posts: 1,303
    I agree.  In theory, the old ratings provide valuable data that shouldn't be discarded.  The ideal solution would be to make the ratings display more sophisticated, showing how the game was rated at different points of time.  Practically speaking, though, I doubt they timestamped the individual scores, so I don't think that's possible.
  • SimmageSimmage Member Posts: 93
    I also agree, some people can ruin a rating, not that I have an example, just a little experaince.
  • RedwoodSapRedwoodSap Member Posts: 1,235
    It's clear that those who want ancient ratings to prevent a realignment of current value are afraid that their pet games will drop their score significantly. Insecurity breeds fear and irrational thought.

    image

  • Pipboy2000Pipboy2000 Member Posts: 44
    I think a archived like "Classics" rating and then a more current rating in comparison to the newer games and whats in them would be a good idea.  Anyways if people are really serious about a game they'll actually look into it.
  • Bama1267Bama1267 Member UncommonPosts: 1,820

     Too bad there istn a way for ratings to deminish over time. If a rating was put in 2 years ago today...it goes away. SAme things for tommorrow...if a rating was put in 2 years ago from yesterday...its deleted and recalculated. This would seem to keep ratings more current and also prevent drastic changes.

     Categorizing MMORPGS by a certain period would be a decent idea if not already mentioned. I mean this is a HQ's for information on MMORPGS...I know these guys can come up with a solution for a btter rating system that most people would agree upon.

     If the aove ideas sound retarded...its cause I just got out of work and its 2am....time to go to sleep  .

  • EggFteggEggFtegg Member Posts: 1,141
    Originally posted by RedwoodSap

    It's clear that those who want ancient ratings to prevent a realignment of current value are afraid that their pet games will drop their score significantly. Insecurity breeds fear and irrational thought.



    I think you're making an assumption here behind the reasoning of those arguing to keep the old reviews and ratings. I've not actually played many of the older games discussed in this thread so I don't have any particular attachment to them, but having thought over both sides to the argument, if I was running the site, I would not remove the old ratings.

    There's an enormous amount of data collected over several years. The more data you have, the more realistic your final ratings are going to be. Restarting the ratings would mean that it would be quite a long time before they started giving a reasonable representation of the many diverse views that people have. If we think of when Vanguard came out, it jumped pretty much to the top of the table, and gradually slipped over the next few weeks as more people entered their ratings.

    Many users may well have already reassessed their rankings in relation to newer games, (so it's not even like an old game that still has its 92% pc magazine ranking on the box from when it was released 7 years ago). It's possible they increased the fun rating and value in comparison to new games, and took the graphics down a few pegs...leaving it with a pretty similar overall score. 6.8 may still be a little high for UO, but it's clearly gone down over the years and will continue to do so and if someone places a lot of importance in graphics, it doesn't take much to see Vanguard's 9.2 graphics as being more what they might be looking for.

    It's really only graphics that have improved significantly with the newer games. It only takes a look at a couple of screenshots or play for 2 minutes for someone to make a judgement on the graphics for themselves. Fun and community are the ratings that are hard to judge when you first look at a game and they are probably still decent representations.

    I think it would be interesting to see what a brand new list would look like....I suspect there would be a few surprises, but to do that would be to lose probably  thousands of ratings that members have put in over time. As mentioned before, the best idea I have heard would be to put the release date next to the game on the list, so people can make that judgement themselves. This isn't so much a competition of what's the best game (everyone has their own favourites), it's a list designed to help people make a choice.

  • NeuroXlNeuroXl Member Posts: 291
    Originally posted by Kalmenicus

    [Mod Edit]



    First off, i wasnt complaining or crying ...

    what i am trying to do is be realistic ... and offer some suggestions or advice that i think would bring more MERIT, and validity to this site's ranking system ...

    if you think im trying to bolster the value of games i like .. you are 100% WRONG ... because the simple truth of the matter is .. i currently DO NOT LIKE ANY MMORPG OUT ...

    i havent played an MMORPG in a while .. last one i tried was two months ago .. by the name of dungeon runners ...

    ive played and seen games like SWG, UO, city of villains, matrix online all go downhill to the outhouse ...

    so listen bro, before you go off saying stuff .. get my view straight ..

  • RecantRecant Member UncommonPosts: 1,586
    I don't consider the MMORPG.com ratings to be even slightly indicative of the quality of a game.  The very fact that World of Warcraft, which has universal acclaim from all profressional game review publications and sites, and has become a part of pop culture, and is played by people from all walks of life, and has practically blown the MMORPG genre into the spotlight, is not rated in the top 10, defies belief.



    Well, not really.  When you see that the vast majority of opinions on this site are very jaded and bitter.  You can't read a thread on this site these days without someone making a bash about another game, especially WoW.   It's cool to hate the popular kid isn't it, and label him a jock, or stupid, or something - but you of course, are more mature, more high brow - superior to the peasant masses, right?



    In short, MMORPG Ratings = Meaniningless.

    Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...

  • EggFteggEggFtegg Member Posts: 1,141
    Originally posted by Recant

    I don't consider the MMORPG.com ratings to be even slightly indicative of the quality of a game.  The very fact that World of Warcraft, which has universal acclaim from all profressional game review publications and sites, and has become a part of pop culture, and is played by people from all walks of life, and has practically blown the MMORPG genre into the spotlight, is not rated in the top 10, defies belief.



    Well, not really.  When you see that the vast majority of opinions on this site are very jaded and bitter.  You can't read a thread on this site these days without someone making a bash about another game, especially WoW.   It's cool to hate the popular kid isn't it, and label him a jock, or stupid, or something - but you of course, are more mature, more high brow - superior to the peasant masses, right?



    In short, MMORPG Ratings = Meaniningless.



    The impression I get is that WoW is a great game if you're new to the genre and has, as such, attracted many subscribers and magazine reviews. The ratings on this site reflect the attitude of people who have been playing MMORPGs for some time, many coming from Role-Playing games backgrounds. Many of those people have already seen most of what WoW has to offer before, (even if WoW presents those things in a smooth and well worked package) and as you say are jaded and would prefer something a little more groundbreaking or even just something with the depth of some of the games that came before it. For others, WoW is the right game for them. The reason why some people on this site attack the game with such venom isn't just because it is popular, but because its popularity appears to be making other companies develop games following that model instead of perhaps something more innovative.

    So the ratings are not entirely meaningless. They just reflect the attitudes of people who were already into the genre, as you might expect from a site dedicated to MMORPGs. Most of the current WoW players probably aren't even aware of this site and the MMORPGs that predate WoW, and even if they voted, wouldn't have anything to compare WoW with.

  • UmbroodUmbrood Member UncommonPosts: 1,809

    This is just crazy talk, the ratings should stay, they may want to make it more apparent the age of different games but this do not change the fact that they are rated the way they are for a reason.

    This site did not go live until 2002, there are few if any members from that time besides admin.

    2003 was a slow year as well, I do not remeber how many members there were when I joined but a fraction of what there is now for sure.

    Point is almost all those ratings are done 2004 and onwards, that is 3 years old tops in most cases.

    Someones opinion is outdated after a mere 3 years?

    How about music, art, movies, tv, sports?

    I would still rate AO and AC highest of all games, and I have.

    Just because a better games comes along does not mean the old ones gets worse, it just means that there is now a better game.

    Else you would have to redo the entire ratings system a couple of times each year.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by Jerek_

    I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • FahrenheitTHFahrenheitTH Member Posts: 130

    I am currently happy with the current ratings for games. Most games have an appropriate rating for them but however, there are games that thier rating has been blow sky-high by immature gamers. Like Scions of Fate with a 7.5 rating. 7.5? What the...?! Now before anyone says "Wtf sof is a great game stfu!" THINK

    SoF offers >NOTHING MORE<, notice how I am emphazisng my point: NOTHING MORE than grind little "cute" animals forever! The game has absolutely no comtent but a few 3 villages and some grind spots, some armour and weapons and a BAD PvP system and very limited music.

    But anyway the point is that although there are classic MMORPGs with high ratings, that doesn't mean they should be wiped along. Like many have said, they are not dead, they are still popular games and enjoyed by many. I do not see the need for a rating wipe at all.

    image

  • Gam3d4rKGam3d4rK Member Posts: 146
    Im cool with the ratings, but it wont be a bad idea neither

    image

  • ConsequenceConsequence Member UncommonPosts: 358

    So your opinion of what games are "good" is based on how new  a game is and how good the graphics are? Because thats your basis for your entire arguement. Those are 2 small factors.

    How bout this, The reason those games are rated so high is BECAUSE they are so old. They have a long standing community, in many cases who stand by the game and enjoy it to this day......because the devs have continued to add content, because they are working so hard to make thier product appealing. THAT is why they are rated so high. These titles continue to make money despite the fact that they dont have ANY shelf appeal, unlike the flavor of the month new releases.

     UO has a thriving community, even after 10 years and you think it should be rated lower? Lets see if some of these newer titles last as long as UO or AQ. As proof . look at UO who has plans for thier biggest exantion ever in a few months. Virtually evey game you play is a copycat of the games you mention. EQ was the 1st real 1st person mmorpg. UO was the 1st in several catagories including PvP crafting and housing. AQ was the 1st mmorpg to implement instances.  So lets lower thier ratings for being "old" despite the fact that some of these games still have active communities and storylines and a very active dev teams.  Lets find another way to punish innovation in a market thats already stale and devoid of any real innovation for some time.

    I much prefer the rating system EXACTLY the way it is now. Reward inovation, reward gaming that continue to invest in the games comminuty rather than the ones that came recently and have a lot of sparkle but no real finish or content. 

    Obviously many of the newer games are going to have better graphics and maybe even better interface. But that hardly makes them a better game.

    If we had it your way the rating system on this site would be nothing more than a flavor of the month ratings, Something I would not want to see.

    Just as an example:

    I would play AQ or UO way before I would ever let that VSOH cd near my computer again.

    I like the ratings perfectly fine thx.

  • Bama1267Bama1267 Member UncommonPosts: 1,820
    Originally posted by Consequence


    So your opinion of what games are "good" is based on how new  a game is and how good the graphics are? Because thats your basis for your entire arguement. Those are 2 small factors.
    How bout this, The reason those games are rated so high is BECAUSE they are so old. They have a long standing community, in many cases who stand by the game and enjoy it to this day......because the devs have continued to add content, because they are working so hard to make thier product appealing. THAT is why they are rated so high. These titles continue to make money despite the fact that they dont have ANY shelf appeal, unlike the flavor of the month new releases.
     UO has a thriving community, even after 10 years and you think it should be rated lower? Lets see if some of these newer titles last as long as UO or AQ. As proof . look at UO who has plans for thier biggest exantion ever in a few months. Virtually evey game you play is a copycat of the games you mention. EQ was the 1st real 1st person mmorpg. UO was the 1st in several catagories including PvP crafting and housing. AQ was the 1st mmorpg to implement instances.  So lets lower thier ratings for being "old" despite the fact that some of these games still have active communities and storylines and a very active dev teams.  Lets find another way to punish innovation in a market thats already stale and devoid of any real innovation for some time.
    I much prefer the rating system EXACTLY the way it is now. Reward inovation, reward gaming that continue to invest in the games comminuty rather than the ones that came recently and have a lot of sparkle but no real finish or content. 
    Obviously many of the newer games are going to have better graphics and maybe even better interface. But that hardly makes them a better game.
    If we had it your way the rating system on this site would be nothing more than a flavor of the month ratings, Something I would not want to see.
    Just as an example:
    I would play AQ or UO way before I would ever let that VSOH cd near my computer again.
    I like the ratings perfectly fine thx.



     I think you fail to see and others as well what the problem is. It isnt that every new game is a better game than older classics. The problem is the ratings of games several years ago. While I would have rated UO an 8 back in the day...the same would not hold true now. Many of those ratings for older games would go down. How about SWG? Fairly high rated back in the day, Im pretty sure the ranking would go down even further if you take out some old ratings that people never changed. Things change with time, especially opinions....but not alot of people ever change there scores.

     Seperate categories for games of a certain age or diminishing scores over time would help restore more accurate ratings while avoiding any drastic changes.

  • NeuroXlNeuroXl Member Posts: 291
    Originally posted by Consequence


    So your opinion of what games are "good" is based on how new  a game is and how good the graphics are? Because thats your basis for your entire arguement. Those are 2 small factors.
    How bout this, The reason those games are rated so high is BECAUSE they are so old. They have a long standing community, in many cases who stand by the game and enjoy it to this day......because the devs have continued to add content, because they are working so hard to make thier product appealing. THAT is why they are rated so high. These titles continue to make money despite the fact that they dont have ANY shelf appeal, unlike the flavor of the month new releases.
     UO has a thriving community, even after 10 years and you think it should be rated lower? Lets see if some of these newer titles last as long as UO or AQ. As proof . look at UO who has plans for thier biggest exantion ever in a few months. Virtually evey game you play is a copycat of the games you mention. EQ was the 1st real 1st person mmorpg. UO was the 1st in several catagories including PvP crafting and housing. AQ was the 1st mmorpg to implement instances.  So lets lower thier ratings for being "old" despite the fact that some of these games still have active communities and storylines and a very active dev teams.  Lets find another way to punish innovation in a market thats already stale and devoid of any real innovation for some time.
    I much prefer the rating system EXACTLY the way it is now. Reward inovation, reward gaming that continue to invest in the games comminuty rather than the ones that came recently and have a lot of sparkle but no real finish or content. 
    Obviously many of the newer games are going to have better graphics and maybe even better interface. But that hardly makes them a better game.
    If we had it your way the rating system on this site would be nothing more than a flavor of the month ratings, Something I would not want to see.
    Just as an example:
    I would play AQ or UO way before I would ever let that VSOH cd near my computer again.
    I like the ratings perfectly fine thx.

     

    if the games deserve those ratings they will attain the same ones after the reset no?

    i can see fanbois sabotaging NEWER game ratings, in hopes of diminishing positive outlooks for games they feel are competition to their own .... VANGUARD vs WOW ... WAR vs AOC

    but  i DO NOT SEE people spending time trying to sabotage an 8 year old game's ratings ...they could care less ....

    the question is .. do we reward this grandfather MMO innovation with misleading scores? heck ill go as far as to say .. LYING scores? 

    (and yes id say lying, because they are lying to a newly registered user of MMORPG.com .. enticing, and inviting that person to play a game scored as high or higher than WOW .. or vanguard .. or city of villains, or D&D, or any of the newer, flashier, higher quality engine games.)

    and i say higher quality engine because yes, they are built on better engines ... depth? fun? no ill agree with all the people who have previously stated .. depth and fun and " worthyness" are all subjective ... thats all up to personal opinion ...

    but again ... if " fun" and " depth" and " innovation" equated high ratings ... people wouldnt have a problem with the reset

  • ConsequenceConsequence Member UncommonPosts: 358

    If the ratings arent dynamic then reseting them wouldnt matter because in another year they would be outdated again. It would not address what your saying the problem is at all.

    It is not a perfect system but the original posters idea is suported by the worst examples imaginable, thats the point I was making. He uses a games  age as the primary criteria for its worth. In fact  he uses it as 1 of 2 criteria, age and graphics. Both of which have so  little to do with  the actual quality of a game.  In fact, i would argue age has nothing to do with the games quality.  However, graphics are 1 of several variables.

    A reset is a terrible idea. A new system thats dynamic would be ok with me. Games come out with  patches, expantions, new graphics, new content.....etc. How would a reset address the ever changing world? It wouldnt. If the site was reset tomorrow it wouldnt reflect any of the changes made to a game next month and beyond.

    Again, a reset would ignore imagination and innovation. Even if it happened 10 years ago, it was still innovation and deserves reward. Its my point that we should go out of our way to reward ANY form of innovation in the MMORPG arena because the arena is currently SO VOID of it.  The current system does this, even if the innovation was 10 years ago. A reset would not.

    Id rather have a static rating that reflects greatness, even if it was 10 years ago than a static system that doesnt reflect greatness. A reset would be the later, the current system the former. If we arent changing to a dynamic system, leave it be.

Sign In or Register to comment.