• Log In | Sign Up

  • News
  • Reviews
  • Games Database
  • Game Discovery
  • Search
  • New Releases
  • Forums

Adventure Gamers - Forums

Welcome to Adventure Gamers. Please Sign In or Join Now to post.

You are here: HomeForum Home → Other → Site & Forum Feedback → Thread


   

AG’s Reviews Rating (DEBATE!)

Avatar

Total Posts: 3933

Joined 2011-03-14

PM

Jackal - 10 July 2012 09:01 PM

Put the word “objective” completely out of your mind.  When it comes to reviews, it is an absolute myth.  Almost everything is subjective.

I think this is were we really disagree.
Even though it is true from a philosophical view that everything is subjective, and there is no objective truth, then it doesn’t mean that you cant strive towards some objectivity. Just saying that almost everything is subjective, is simply too easy.

I chose Yeasterday very carefully as an example, because i generally agreed with the review, like the reviewer i liked the game. But when i thought about it afterwards, i had to realize the there also were many flaws with the game, and it is these flaws that i don’t think were reflected adequately in the rating.

Jackal - 10 July 2012 09:01 PM
Iznogood - 10 July 2012 05:10 PM

I think that much of this could be solved, simply if you all agreed on a standard, of how much of the score should reflect the reviewers personal like or dislike of the game, and how much it should reflect the objective cons/pros of the game.

The problem with that idea is that there’s simply no way to quantify personal slant.  If you tried, that would be the most subjective number of all.  You want to turn scoring into a science, and it’s not, it’s an art (so to speak).

Annacat - 11 July 2012 08:21 AM

Translating words and opinions into numbers is never going to be an exact science. When we recognize (as we must) that different aspects of the game have different importance, exactly how important each thing is will obviously vary from reviewer to reviewer.

Im not suggesting it should be turned into a science with a fixed formular, nor am i suggesting that you should publish an individual score on different aspects, but like Advie also suggested making such a list for the reviewers own use, migth be a good idea. (Perhaps some reviewers are already doing this?)
And you could even agree on a standard for how much the “objetive” criteria should weight in the final score compared to the overall experince of the game. but this is just a suggestion.

Jackal - 10 July 2012 09:01 PM
Iznogood - 10 July 2012 05:10 PM

Also i still think that there are games, that have gotten a higher rating then the reviews can justify, especially if you look at this over time, and compare some older reviews with never ones, then there is an overall tendency towards some inflation in the rating system.

If you were comparing old and new reviews of the same game, that might mean something.  Otherwise, this is a non-starter.  Maybe there are more good games now than there have been in years past.  Maybe you’re just ignoring all the games that got low scores because it doesn’t fit the theory.  Sweeping generalizations like this are rarely based on fact.  (Where’s Lucien to crunch numbers when you need him? Tongue)  I’m not accusing you of deliberately skewing the truth, just saying that perception is sometimes quite different than reality.

Its true that this is my perception of it, but i am not ignoring games that got a low score, and my point is also not that the average scores have increased over time, that can vary depending on simply how many good or poor games are released any give year. My point that i fell that the reviews in general have become less strict and more forgiven, then they were 10 or 20 years ago.
And i know: this is my subjective perception, unfortunely there is no way to prove this.

Anyway i still think the AG staff is doing a good job, and my critic should be seen as an attempt to suggest small improvements.

 

     

You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ

Avatar

Total Posts: 3933

Joined 2011-03-14

PM

Regarding the rating system, then i think it is just fine as it is.
There is no point in haveing a rating system, where you can’t explain the different scores without using words like: better than 5 but not as good as 7.

     

You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ

Avatar

Total Posts: 7756

Joined 2012-01-02

PM

Jackal - 12 July 2012 11:33 AM

All things being equal, with lots of time and personnel to deal with, I can see value in doing that.  But stretched as close to breaking as we (always) are, I just think it’s more trouble than it’s worth.

i have to say thanks for considering my suggesting and God Bless You Jack.

i need to add that there no Trouble in breaking the review into small categories, putting in mind that this Bullet List will eventually will contain facts  and hardly can be effected by the reviewer taste or judgment, and at least would not create any sort of hassle (imo)

 

 

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 4011

Joined 2011-04-01

PM

Trumgottist - 12 July 2012 10:04 AM
Oscar - 12 July 2012 09:16 AM

Reading the review for Rhem 1, I can’t understand why it only got 2/5 if you take away the “I don’t enjoy hard puzzles in a minimal environment” viewpoint of the reviewer. He even says “It is obvious that Mr. Mueller’s talent and focus lie in puzzle theory and composition” like that’s a bad thing. The Rhem 2 review is slightly better, focusing on some negative technical aspects.

I haven’t played Rhem (nor am I interested in doing so) so I’m not going to argue specifics on that review, but what you write seem to me to show the problem with ratings in general rather than any problem with this site. The text makes it clear that it’s your kind of game even though the reviewer doesn’t like it much. Isn’t that pretty much just what a good review should be like?

I agree. Scores create the need to write argumentatively, to justify what number you’ve given it out of five. A review that doesn’t give reasons for its conclusion is a bad review. I think what this is advie is saying about getting the reviewer out of the picture. 

1-star review: “Mueller’s environments are empty and void of content, leaving only a dry world of nightmarishly difficult and obtuse puzzles with no incentive to solve them. An adventure game is about sinking your teeth into a wonderful and emotional story, and I got none of that here, only a barren and uninvolving matrix of puzzles.”

A 5-star review: “Being inside Rhem is like being in a modern painting. The world itself is the game, and there is no greater thrill than the challenge of piecing it together bit by bit. There are no boring dialogues or endless texts to read, leaving just the soft, creamy puzzles which are the true essence and flavor of a good adventure.

Couldn’t both of these be written analytically, WITHOUT the need to put “some people will like X, while others will enjoy Y”? Would that make them boring without the reviewer’s opinion to inject some creative life into the writing? I don’t know.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 1178

Joined 2012-02-17

PM

Iznogood - 12 July 2012 05:05 PM

Even though it is true from a philosophical view that everything is subjective, and there is no objective truth, then it doesn’t mean that you cant strive towards some objectivity. Just saying that almost everything is subjective, is simply too easy.

Of course we strive to be objective.  That’s obvious by our emphasis on both the positives and negatives.  But that doesn’t make it any less impossible to actually achieve.  Everything is subject to our own slant, particularly something as personal as art and entertainment.  Even deciding what qualifies as a positive or negative is open to debate.  To be truly objective would mean to remove one’s own opinion entirely.  And clearly that would defeat the very purpose of a review.

I chose Yeasterday very carefully as an example, because i generally agreed with the review, like the reviewer i liked the game. But when i thought about it afterwards, i had to realize the there also were many flaws with the game, and it is these flaws that i don’t think were reflected adequately in the rating.

So you agreed with the objective criticism (good and bad), just not the weighting of them.  The purely subjective part, then.  Wink

Advie - 12 July 2012 05:23 PM

i need to add that there no Trouble in breaking the review into small categories, putting in mind that this Bullet List will eventually will contain facts  and hardly can be effected by the reviewer taste or judgment, and at least would not create any sort of hassle (imo)

There may be no trouble in doing it at your leisure just for fun, but there is after you’ve just finished slogging through a 2000 word review, knowing that the list will be picked over and scrutinized.  Believe me, when I finish writing a review, I detest even the thought of having to do pros, cons, and a bottom line!  Doing even more just the for the sake of people who don’t want to read just doesn’t sound like a fair exchange for a reviewer’s time. 

Quick lists can also be a dangerous thing, because you’re introducing a new level of priorities (what gets mentioned and what doesn’t?), and you’re now highlighting points with no support or qualifications at all.  I don’t recall the game, but I recall you questioning a “con” listing because you were taking it out of context and misunderstanding its point.  I’m not blaming you for that; I’m saying that’s a very real risk as soon as you start simplifying things into bite-sized points. 

     

Editor-in-Chief, some obscure little site called Adventure Gamers

Avatar

Total Posts: 7756

Joined 2012-01-02

PM

Jack .. i feel like i am starting to make the Big hassle when my intention was to contain them.


-maybe there is a misunderstanding ,that suggestion was only meant to be an extra/optional, a Summary .

at last i am sorry if i was being Pushy.

Sealed Lips

     

Total Posts: 185

Joined 2005-01-25

PM

Iznogood - 12 July 2012 05:05 PM

Its true that this is my perception of it, but i am not ignoring games that got a low score, and my point is also not that the average scores have increased over time, that can vary depending on simply how many good or poor games are released any give year. My point that i fell that the reviews in general have become less strict and more forgiven, then they were 10 or 20 years ago.
And i know: this is my subjective perception, unfortunely there is no way to prove this.

Anyway i still think the AG staff is doing a good job, and my critic should be seen as an attempt to suggest small improvements.

I have to agree with this part: the site isn’t what it was twenty years ago!

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 7756

Joined 2012-01-02

PM

After a brisk nap - 13 July 2012 03:19 AM
Iznogood - 12 July 2012 05:05 PM

My point that i fell that the reviews in general have become less strict and more forgiven, then they were 10 or 20 years ago.

I have to agree with this part: the site isn’t what it was twenty years ago!

Excuse me , just to correct a time Issue here, AG Site didn’t exist 20 years ago,  internet itself was not even commercialized before ‘95 !

     

Total Posts: 185

Joined 2005-01-25

PM

You don’t say?

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 1178

Joined 2012-02-17

PM

Advie - 13 July 2012 12:24 AM

-maybe there is a misunderstanding ,that suggestion was only meant to be an extra/optional, a Summary .

I know what you’re suggesting.  And if we didn’t already do pros/cons/bottom line (oh wait, they’re called good, bad, and verdict in the new site—I need to keep up with the terminology Tongue) with a score, there would be definitely be more value in that.  But really this idea would just be a more itemized breakdown of specific elements that serves essentially the same purpose.

     

Editor-in-Chief, some obscure little site called Adventure Gamers

Avatar

Total Posts: 7756

Joined 2012-01-02

PM

After a brisk nap - 13 July 2012 07:23 AM

You don’t say?

i say ,yes , i remember you were saying this site isnt what it you used to be 20 years ago.

there is no need to start debating about things that are not true because the Topic called just DEBATE.

Jackal - 13 July 2012 11:17 AM

(oh wait, they’re called good, bad, and verdict in the new site—I need to keep up with the terminology Tongue)

you made these terms , so you the 1st to keep them up Tongue

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 643

Joined 2006-09-24

PM

After a brisk nap - 13 July 2012 07:23 AM

You don’t say?

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 7756

Joined 2012-01-02

PM

Avatar

Total Posts: 3933

Joined 2011-03-14

PM

Advie - 13 July 2012 03:45 AM
After a brisk nap - 13 July 2012 03:19 AM
Iznogood - 12 July 2012 05:05 PM

My point that i fell that the reviews in general have become less strict and more forgiven, then they were 10 or 20 years ago.

I have to agree with this part: the site isn’t what it was twenty years ago!

Excuse me , just to correct a time Issue here, AG Site didn’t exist 20 years ago,  internet itself was not even commercialized before ‘95 !

My mistake - i just wrote 10 to 20 on autopilot Embarassed
I meant 5 to 14 years ago.

     

You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ

Avatar

Total Posts: 3933

Joined 2011-03-14

PM

Jackal - 12 July 2012 11:11 PM

So you agreed with the objective criticism (good and bad), just not the weighting of them.  The purely subjective part, then.  Wink

Actually as i see it: I agreed with (most) of the subjective part, but not the objective part Smile

     

You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ

You are here: HomeForum Home → Other → Site & Forum Feedback → Thread

Welcome to the Adventure Gamers forums!