Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
recent scores and reviews
Since then, I’ve tried to find ways to get the perspective of others with community reviews/ratings, but even there, there’s often hardly any beyond a star rating… If you go to any game page, you’ll see we give pretty much as prominent coverage of how the community rates it versus how Adventure Gamers rate it.
The idea of community reviews is good, but they are are generally of low quality compared to the AG reviews. Most are less than three paragraphs, essentially boiling down to “This game suXX/roXX” with a highly subjective rating. A corresponding AG review is high quality, but naturally makes many assertions such as “unobtrusive background music” which members of the community might have a valid opinion on.
I can see how the comment feature may have low usage. The previously mentioned “Dexter Stardust” is a game that doesn’t interest me in any way, and if I don’t play it I can’t really comment on the review either. But I’m pretty sure games such as the upcoming Return to Monkey Island would gather a different response. And if I buy a game, download and play it I’d be more inclined to comment on the original review than to write up a new review myself.
I agree with rtooney, if the only reason to remove the feature was low usage you might as well leave it there. And I honestly feel that the comment section has the potential to provide balance to reviews as well as provide an outlet for the community to air their opinions.
Message #43
I could easily be wrong but my understanding is that they removed comments from reviews because they felt it was being abused. It is one thing to respectfully disagree with a review and another to trash the reviewer, which they felt was becoming more frequent.
I could easily be wrong but my understanding is that they removed comments from reviews because they felt it was being abused. It is one thing to respectfully disagree with a review and another to trash the reviewer, which they felt was becoming more frequent.
exactly!, it was also open for general users, not only members, and Jack (if i can guess) had enough of editing or ‘pollinating’ them
I wondered the same OP, so i recently started norco. And so far it is extremely good and unusual. Some people might call it “amateurish” because it lacks voice acting, but that shouldnt be the end-all in how we measure games. So far, i can completely understand this game having a very high score. But this should also be a reminder that we place way way too much importance on the score instead of the content of reviews. People will always debate scores, this isnt the first time people have questioned AGS giving out high scores too easily. So use as it a tool for learning about new games… Not some kind of scripture or law-binding decree. Its great were getting a bunch of reviews for games that deserve attention.
When I entered a few ratings, I also looked up how others (staff & readers) rated these games. When I saw a 3★ (by Evan Dickens) for The DIG, I knew I was in for something special. It felt like someone watching Jaws and saying ‘Ahh. I guess, it’s okay.’ and at the same time giving away Sharknado flicks 4.5★ ratings. I learned that the readers rating often comes closer to my feelings about games.
Primary reviews are about visibility for games, you don’t know about yet. A problem which can occur though, is, when ratings are too arbitrary, so that they fool people into games or make them stay away from (when readers aren’t familiar with how to deal with ratings from specific sources yet). Minute of Islands for instance has a 5★ rating (by Will Aickman), which, I think, is ambitious if you know the game (graphics ↑, the rest ↓). You might end up being disappointed if you don’t share his outré point of view.
Anyway. Each to their own. Whatever you get out of something. Meanwhile I value zany opinions.
I appreciate the many reviews that we get here.
For the most part I will buy a game if I like the look & description of it & I’ve got to enjoy some interesting games that would possibly only have got diddly-squat stars from a professional reviewer.
If I’m not sure about whether I’d like a game or not then I’ll skip to the pros & cons of a review & only if I’m still not sure will read the body of it as a last resort!
Otherwise, over-enthusiastic reviews about games that turn out not to be your thing can be a huge disappointment & vice-versa more interesting games (that don’t quite fulfil the criteria) can fall under the radar, not sell & hurt the developer(s).
A bad review based on a reviewers system not coping (when yours does) should not be a factor (& should be researched) + a plot element not understood were the only 2 misdemeanours I’ve come across within the many informative reviews that AG have presented.
I thought the user reviews were useful on perhaps giving a different angle?
I could easily be wrong but my understanding is that they removed comments from reviews because they felt it was being abused. It is one thing to respectfully disagree with a review and another to trash the reviewer, which they felt was becoming more frequent.
Not that I would want to burden the mods with more work than they are already doing, but isn’t thata job for the administrators? I.e., to delete and/or reprimand posters of inappropriate material.
exactly!, it was also open for general users, not only members, and Jack (if i can guess) had enough of editing or ‘pollinating’ them
I’m not sure what you mean by “general users.” If you mean non-members, it shouldn’t be a problem since they aren’t allowed to post. If you mean members who don’t post regularly, then see my answer to furgotten. Just because a few people post inappropriate comments doesn’t mean that the rest of the members should be deprived of the opportunity to post.
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
I appreciate the many reviews that we get here.
For the most part I will buy a game if I like the look & description of it & I’ve got to enjoy some interesting games that would possibly only have got diddly-squat stars from a professional reviewer.
If I’m not sure about whether I’d like a game or not then I’ll skip to the pros & cons of a review & only if I’m still not sure will read the body of it as a last resort!
Otherwise, over-enthusiastic reviews about games that turn out not to be your thing can be a huge disappointment.
I’m not sure it is possible here, but one thing that should be attempted is to learn the tastes of the reviewers. I question the possibility because the reviewer roster seems to have suffered from large-scale turnover in the recent months.
There were some reviewers who’s opinions I respected. And others, who, let’s say, had a different opinion than mine as to what constituted a good game. With the former, if he she liked a game, I was fairly certain that I would as well. With the latter, if he/she liked a game I would steer clear of it until I heard additional comments.
The same can be said for people who review movies, music, books etc.. If I know their tastes, I can make a purchase decision based on whether their opinion agrees with or differs from my own.
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
i mean non-members who register to leave a comment, and i know this from their joining date and the comment’s date which both are apparent
What really surprised me though, is Crowalt: Traces of the Lost Colony got 4 stars.
Yeah this is an interesting case. “The music isnt annoying” is one of strangest pro’s iv ever seen. But it does reenforce for me that we put way way too much importance on the score. The reviewer tells us everything we need to know. This is the last paragraph:
“The minigames slowed things way down and required too much dexterity for me to enjoy them, though they could appeal to other players. The ending felt disappointingly abrupt. Overall I enjoyed the story, graphics, music, and puzzles that weren’t minigames during my eight hours spent playing Crowalt: Traces of the Lost Colony.”
That tells you what to expect here.
I’d ask another question then. Does the final score of the review, those stars, represent AG’s point of view as a site that is well-known and valued in adventure community? Or are those purely personal stars of a particular reviewer?
If it does - then there simply have to be some guidelines for reviewing a game on this site. Mainly - being critical of all its aspects on a more general, less personally biased curve. “I kinda liked it overall, so here’s 4 stars” won’t be a good fit. Like it was mentioned earlier in his thread, some developers use it in advertising their game on platforms like Steam (a 4 or 4.5 star from AG carries its weight to a potential consumer). Also, people who aren’t all that involved in search for good adventures simply delegate this search to sites like AG to do it for them and buy something with high marks, expecting really good stuff purely on the site’s reputation.
If it doesn’t - then what is the point of having the feature? Zane, you said that the last paragraph tells me what to expect from Crowalt, or that reviewer tells me anything I need to know. But it doesn’t - I’ve played the prologue, and I didn’t like the game, including elements the reviewer enjoyed. I don’t know anything about the reviewers here as far as their background related to gaming industry, knowledge about adventures in particular, previous writing experience, credits or even the games that they consider favorite.
The only way I can gauge whether reviewer’s game preferences are similar to mine is to keep reading - at some point, after many games, I’ll be able to more or less establish it. But if you noticed - quite a few of recent reviews came from people who are, essentially, new, so their words about any game don’t meany very much to me yet, whether negative or positive, and if the final score is also strictly personal and doesn’t represent AG - then there’s not much real value left in it.
What’s the point of having a site feature if it’s an opinion of someone I know nothing of, that is representative of purely personal position on the game, and not the AG web-site as an institution (for a lack of a better word)?
In this case - it’d be better to have something like “this reviewer’s personal scale” with, say, 10 points next to review, and only put “a classic” (5-star equivalent) or mark it as “recommended by AG” on a game that ended up so highly-regraded that several people were able to play it and had a similar opinion, so it’s backed by the site as a whole.
This way I’d only be following the scores of reviewers I consistently agree/disagree with, dismiss other scores entirely and know for sure that anything marked by AG is DEFINITELY worth checking out, since it doesn’t come by often. As it stands - I treat every high mark here as marks “from AG”, which means that when I see 4 or 4.5 stars, I take it as - “AG is telling me that these games are very good or excellent”, and I should look into them (and for some people this can directly translate into a purchase). Which has led to a lot of misses lately. And maybe that’s on me, but that’s why I’m asking.
I was thinking about this. And once I sifted through the reviews which I agreed with and disagreed with, I ended up with the conclusion that the score given to a game will probably always be subject to disagreement. Even if AdventureGamers instituted a kind of senior board or senate consisting of 3-5 reviewers who each had the power to veto a review score, there are going to be some players who play a game and who just don’t agree. There’s no escaping the fact that a review of a a piece of art or entertainment like a game is a point of view, an opinion.
It’s not ideal, but I don’t think it’s a huge deal. With Steam offering 2 hour trials of a game and allowing refunds within that time limit, meaning you get to basically “try before you buy”. Games are no longer the “$69.99 and too bad if you don’t like it” we used to have.
AKA Charo
I’d ask another question then. Does the final score of the review, those stars, represent AG’s point of view as a site that is well-known and valued in adventure community? Or are those purely personal stars of a particular reviewer?
If you scroll down to the bottom of the page on the main site you will see the answer to your questions.
Under Site Policies, they say: “The editor works with reviewers to ensure the score is in line with the tone and contents of the review itself, but will never override the reviewer’s final scoring decision.”
And under Scoring System they break down what each score value is supposed to mean.
According to this if a reviewer gives a 5/5 it is supposed to mean that the game “An instant, hall of fame classic”.
My interpretation of this is that if AG was to write another top 100 adventure games of all-time then these are the games that should be viable candidates for the top spots or should at least be in the running to make the list. Maybe they would only make that reviewer’s personal list, but they should at least have some staying power in the sense that people will want to talk about them and revisit them in the future.
Looking at Top list of Best Adventure Games on PC (2022) under the games tab at the top of the site we see the following 5 star games:
Syberia: The World Before (2022)
Chicory: A Colorful Tale (2021)
The Forgotten City (2021)
Minute of Islands (2021)
Overboard! (2021)
There Is No Game: Wrong Dimension (2020)
Of these There Is No Game: Wrong Dimension and The Forgotten City were chosen as AGOTY by the AG Staff for 2020 and 2021 respectively while the other three 2021 games all won at least one Aggie in a category. So in this sense the site is at least staying consistent with itself, but we will see how many of these make a “top 100 adventure games of all-time” list in the future.
And on the topic of user reviews, I really don’t think it’s necessary. User reviews are easy enough to find on the game store pages so I don’t know what extra value having them here would be. It’s the well written reviews of people with a broad perspective of the adventure game genre that I come here for and trust.
I’d ask another question then. Does the final score of the review, those stars, represent AG’s point of view as a site that is well-known and valued in adventure community? Or are those purely personal stars of a particular reviewer?
If you scroll down to the bottom of the page on the main site you will see the answer to your questions.
Under Site Policies, they say: “The editor works with reviewers to ensure the score is in line with the tone and contents of the review itself, but will never override the reviewer’s final scoring decision.”And under Scoring System they break down what each score value is supposed to mean.
I’ve looked over both before I posted but, maybe, I wasn’t expressing myself really well. That phrase about the editors working with reviewers told me that “they check if the score matches what is written but will give a final say to the reviewer of this particular piece”. As far as the second part of that statement - it just seems logical, I don’t think editors play everything they edit, so they simply might not have any opinion.
What I was asking is - whether AG is just a collective of individuals writing reviews (and there’s no way to know whether the reviewer played only for past 2 years or have 15+ years put into adventure gaming, and, therefore, whether they have this broad perspective or not, especially the new ones) or are the reviewers represent AG “as a whole” to at least some extent. If it’s simply collective of individuals writing, then any high marks or words on Steam saying “Recommended by AG - 4.5 stars!” carry little meaning. For all that I know this recommendation could be given by a person with limited to recent games experience in adventures, and who’s only on his 2nd review here.
If they do represent AG ( a well-known, respected site in this genre), then all those marks have more value.
If I write as Dcast on Steam or my personal blog - I’m just me, doesn’t matter how many stars I give to anything, really, or how much knowledge I have - no one would know, even if I can write well. If I write as Dcast for, say, IGN - I will be representing IGN to a certain capacity. They would give me a platform to reach many viewers, and in return - it will no longer be “Dcast’s review” somewhere on the web, it will be “Dcast from IGN review” which says that I write for what is considered authoritative source and that means more than just a random (however well-written) review to people who read them. It’d still be my opinion, but I would have to keep scoring system and general approach of IGN in mind. The same score from just a regular reviewer and the score of IGN reviewer would have a ton of difference in influencing purchases and the like (IGN was used arbitrarily here, use anything you like).
I’m not sure if I made it even slightly less confusing. Probably not. But to me - that phrase about editors working with reviewers didn’t answer that question. Maybe just me, though.
At this point I think that I’ll just disregard any score other than 5 and simply read reviews. Personally, I feel like the grades were way more generous as of late, and reviews - less critical (critical - in the best sense of this word), it’s probably better ignore all the scoring and call it a day.
I’d ask another question then. Does the final score of the review, those stars, represent AG’s point of view as a site that is well-known and valued in adventure community? Or are those purely personal stars of a particular reviewer?
If you scroll down to the bottom of the page on the main site you will see the answer to your questions.
Under Site Policies, they say: “The editor works with reviewers to ensure the score is in line with the tone and contents of the review itself, but will never override the reviewer’s final scoring decision.”And under Scoring System they break down what each score value is supposed to mean.
I’ve looked over both before I posted but, maybe, I wasn’t expressing myself really well. That phrase about the editors working with reviewers told me that “they check if the score matches what is written but will give a final say to the reviewer of this particular piece”. As far as the second part of that statement - it just seems logical, I don’t think editors play everything they edit, so they simply might not have any opinion.
What I was asking is - whether AG is just a collective of individuals writing reviews (and there’s no way to know whether the reviewer played only for past 2 years or have 15+ years put into adventure gaming, and, therefore, whether they have this broad perspective or not, especially the new ones) or are the reviewers represent AG “as a whole” to at least some extent. If it’s simply collective of individuals writing, then any high marks or words on Steam saying “Recommended by AG - 4.5 stars!” carry little meaning. For all that I know this recommendation could be given by a person with limited to recent games experience in adventures, and who’s only on his 2nd review here.
If they do represent AG ( a well-known, respected site in this genre), then all those marks have more value.If I write as Dcast on Steam or my personal blog - I’m just me, doesn’t matter how many stars I give to anything, really, or how much knowledge I have - no one would know, even if I can write well. If I write as Dcast for, say, IGN - I will be representing IGN to a certain capacity. They would give me a platform to reach many viewers, and in return - it will no longer be “Dcast’s review” somewhere on the web, it will be “Dcast from IGN review” which says that I write for what is considered authoritative source and that means more than just a random (however well-written) review to people who read them. It’d still be my opinion, but I would have to keep scoring system and general approach of IGN in mind. The same score from just a regular reviewer and the score of IGN reviewer would have a ton of difference in influencing purchases and the like (IGN was used arbitrarily here, use anything you like).
I’m not sure if I made it even slightly less confusing. Probably not. But to me - that phrase about editors working with reviewers didn’t answer that question. Maybe just me, though.
At this point I think that I’ll just disregard any score other than 5 and simply read reviews. Personally, I feel like the grades were way more generous as of late, and reviews - less critical (critical - in the best sense of this word), it’s probably better ignore all the scoring and call it a day.
Right, I was taking your post in the more literal sense, but you’re right in that it remains somewhat ambiguous.
I think your advice is good. I’ll continue to read the reviews, and prioritize games with demos or games that I know for sure I want to play. For the games that receive a lot of praise and high scores that I’m not sure about, I’ll wait until the Aggies come around to see if they’re still being discussed before checking out the ones I missed.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
