By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Website Topics - Feature Request: Game ratings

 

What you like this feature?

Sounds pretty awesome! 4 44.44%
 
Nah, only need sales. 3 33.33%
 
Pretty indifferent. 2 22.22%
 
Total:9
COKTOE on 28 June 2017
BraLoD said:
It would just bring more warz to the forums.

 

Captain_Yuri said:
Wouldn't that turn out to basically be like:

Nintendo fans: Downvote Sony games
Sony fans: Downvote Nintendo games
Xbox fans: Upvote Xbox games
PC fans: Downvote anything that isn't 60fps

It would be a mess. Just like the user reviews at Metacritic.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

Around the Network
Chazore on 28 June 2017
Hiku said:
You know how the downvote system works on article comments here? That's how this would turn out.

Imagine gold membership extending to double down/upvotes for the game rating system here, it would be silly af.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

d21lewis on 28 June 2017

We actually had that before. For a long time, Bee Movie was the highest rated Xbox 360 game. People are funny.



Teeqoz on 28 June 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
Would be a nice feature actually.

Can't see it happening though... for obvious reasons

You didn't want the site to change ownership for fear of the possibility that it could get worse though...



Teeqoz on 28 June 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
Teeqoz said:

You didn't want the site to change ownership for fear of the possibility that it could get worse though...

Well this wouldn't be a ui change that I think is ugly. It would be something I think would make the site better. Completely different!

And as long as we have ioi nothing will change at all. Do you think that is better than the opportunity to fix stuff?



Around the Network
Dulfite on 28 June 2017

I don't get the people not wanting this for fear that people will troll. So? This website is for entertainment. If people want realistic numbers, they will submit those. If they want to have a laugh, they will upvote Duke Nukem Forever to the top. Either way it doesn't negatively impact anyone and it will generate more discussions. This website lives on people coming here and finding threads they are interested in posting on. The more appealing you make the website to get traffic, the more money the website makes and the better it can be improved and the longer it will last.



VGPolyglot on 28 June 2017
Teeqoz said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Would be a nice feature actually.

Can't see it happening though... for obvious reasons

You didn't want the site to change ownership for fear of the possibility that it could get worse though...

Well, fear of the unknown is very common. I myself don't see much good coming out of your proposal, because we're not a unified community with the same ideals.



Teeqoz on 28 June 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Teeqoz said:

You didn't want the site to change ownership for fear of the possibility that it could get worse though...

Well, fear of the unknown is very common. I myself don't see much good coming out of your proposal, because we're not a unified community with the same ideals.

Even if we have a single person in charge that pushes for his own ideas, that would still be better than an owner that actively does his best to not improve anything (ioi).

The "community thing" was because I couldn't see people donating just to allow a single person to buy and control the site, even though that would likely be much more effective leadership.



VGPolyglot on 28 June 2017
Teeqoz said:
VGPolyglot said:

Well, fear of the unknown is very common. I myself don't see much good coming out of your proposal, because we're not a unified community with the same ideals.

Even if we have a single person in charge that pushes for his own ideas, that would still be better than an owner that actively does his best to not improve anything (ioi).

The "community thing" was because I couldn't see people donating just to allow a single person to buy and control the site, even though that would likely be much more effective leadership.

But you can't buy something that's not for sale in the first place. Ioi makes enough money on here to convince him to keep from pulling the plug on it.



Teeqoz on 28 June 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Teeqoz said:

Even if we have a single person in charge that pushes for his own ideas, that would still be better than an owner that actively does his best to not improve anything (ioi).

The "community thing" was because I couldn't see people donating just to allow a single person to buy and control the site, even though that would likely be much more effective leadership.

But you can't buy something that's not for sale in the first place. Ioi makes enough money on here to convince him to keep from pulling the plug on it.

You can buy anything if you are willing to pay the price, unless the owner is tied to it in an idealistic/emotional way, which I think it's safe to assume ioi isn't...