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

Forums - Website Topics - Game database reviews - how should we do it?

areseris on 23 October 2007
Alexie Di Onie said:
Is there any chance that games that obviously deserve high scores can't get a rating below 5?

It is INCREDIBLY annoying seeing games like Halo 3, Metroid Prime 3, and Final Fantasy VII getting scores of 1 just because they want to lower the overall score.

I completely agree. 

It happens everywhere on the internet and no one has seemed to figure out a way to weed out the haters.  It's one thing to not like, say for example, the Godfather... but even someone who doesn't like the actual movie should be able to appreceiate the acting, production values, directing, etc and NOT give it a 1 out of 10 on imdb just because they're a hater and want to see the overall score come down so their favorite movie goes up.  I think Casablanca is great, and think Citizen Kane is ok... but I would never give CB a 10 and CK a 1 just to squew the rankings and have my favorite win.

In the case of videogames, maybe any game that is ranked above an 85% at gamerankings should have a minimum cap of 5 in the voting. 

 



Around the Network
kn on 23 October 2007
Kasz216 said:
kn said:
Here's an idea that I guarantee no-one else is doing and would draw traffic here in a heartbeat... copyrightable even...

Grab the individual reviews from the top 10 or 15 magazines from around the globe... average them up to a 10 or 100 or whatever number you want. Provide each review in a list as an individual contributor to the total composite you are coming up with in the total. So, say for example you use 10 magazines for Halo 3 and you get a spread of 8.9 to 10. with an average of 9.3.... That's standard fare... but THEN....

Compare each magazine to the composite -- under/over percentage. I.e. IGN +10% over composite. Play Magazine -12% under composite. But wait, there's more...

Also add console specifics... This is a 360 game... Keep a running log of the over/under per game and per platform and keep a running average that also appears with the review.... It would look something like this:

Halo 3 (360)composite score from 10 sources (this could be less if all mags don't cover)
Composite score: 93
O/U Consoles
Magazine Score O/U Composite 360 PS3 Wii
Mag 1 97 +5% +9% -11% -17%
Mag 2 93 - -1% +7% -11%

How cool would that be?

This would be called, in my honor, of course, the KNRanking System, lol. Or, you could just steal the idea and I'll let you slide.

Isn't that basically what Gamerankings does with their "Lots-of-Statistics" Site Stats?

 Maybe that's a feature I can't find on the website, but I'm not seeing a deviation from the average nor am I seeing a "bias tendency" or whatever you would like to call it....



I hate trolls.

Systems I currently own:  360, PS3, Wii, DS Lite (2)
Systems I've owned: PS2, PS1, Dreamcast, Saturn, 3DO, Genesis, Gamecube, N64, SNES, NES, GBA, GB, C64, Amiga, Atari 2600 and 5200, Sega Game Gear, Vectrex, Intellivision, Pong.  Yes, Pong.

Just_Ben on 23 October 2007

I think you shouldn't do only a defined amount of review sites. But let user decide how each reviewer is valued.

Each user can give each reviewer (not review-> IGN 1UP etc) a score between 0 and 9. You can avarage that score and use it as multiplier for that source.

Something like that:

Lets say we have a Game G, and 5 Reviews to it:

R1: 9.0 (5.0)
R2: 9.2 (8.0)
R3: 9.5 (7.6)
R4: 7.0 (1.1)
R5: 8.5 (3.5)

The overall score is calculated like that:
(9.0*5+9.2*8.0+9.5*7.6+7.0*1.1+8.5*3.5)/(5+8+7.6+1.1+3.5) = 228.25/25,2 = 9,13.

That way you balance out bad reviewers. As for the submissions and verification. Well I say submissions can come from anyone, but verification needs to be done by trusted users. E.G. high post count/mods or chosen to do that without being a mod.



Join up to the VGC Mario Kart Wii GP European League!

Or the VGC Mario Kart Wii GP Australian League!

Or the VGC Mario Kart Wii GP American League!

Or the VGC Halo 3 American League!

Or the  VGC Call Of Duty PS3 League!

TWRoO on 23 October 2007

That is incredibly complicated Just_Ben



benoit on 23 October 2007

i like just_ben's idea



Around the Network
Just_Ben on 23 October 2007
TWRoO said:
That is incredibly complicated Just_Ben

 Yes, but shouldn't be hard to implement though. Computer can calculate fast just fine.



Join up to the VGC Mario Kart Wii GP European League!

Or the VGC Mario Kart Wii GP Australian League!

Or the VGC Mario Kart Wii GP American League!

Or the VGC Halo 3 American League!

Or the  VGC Call Of Duty PS3 League!

Just_Ben on 23 October 2007

The user (avaraged). Everybody here can give a reviewer a score. That shouldn't be as muched fanboy voted as on games.



Join up to the VGC Mario Kart Wii GP European League!

Or the VGC Mario Kart Wii GP Australian League!

Or the VGC Mario Kart Wii GP American League!

Or the VGC Halo 3 American League!

Or the  VGC Call Of Duty PS3 League!

sinha on 23 October 2007

Too complicated and too open to abuse (it will end up just like the current system), which is exactly why there should be a fixed group of acceptable review sites.



We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that they [developers] want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so the question is what do you do for the rest of the nine and half years? It's a learning process. - SCEI president Kaz Hirai

It's a virus where you buy it and you play it with your friends and they're like, "Oh my God that's so cool, I'm gonna go buy it." So you stop playing it after two months, but they buy it and they stop playing it after two months but they've showed it to someone else who then go out and buy it and so on. Everyone I know bought one and nobody turns it on. - Epic Games president Mike Capps

We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games. - Activision CEO Bobby Kotick

 

Rath on 23 October 2007

I think getting members to write reviews is the best way.
Pick out 5 or so members per console (PSP, DS, Wii, PS3, X360) and get them to review the games. Make a single mod the mod in charge of reviews, he would review the reviews, make sure there are no major spelling errors and try to sort out any biased reviewers.
If your going to do that however you will need to make reviews more prominent on the site otherwise it would be a whole lot of effort going to not much use in my opinion.



Kasz216 on 23 October 2007
kn said:
Kasz216 said:
kn said:
Here's an idea that I guarantee no-one else is doing and would draw traffic here in a heartbeat... copyrightable even...

Grab the individual reviews from the top 10 or 15 magazines from around the globe... average them up to a 10 or 100 or whatever number you want. Provide each review in a list as an individual contributor to the total composite you are coming up with in the total. So, say for example you use 10 magazines for Halo 3 and you get a spread of 8.9 to 10. with an average of 9.3.... That's standard fare... but THEN....

Compare each magazine to the composite -- under/over percentage. I.e. IGN +10% over composite. Play Magazine -12% under composite. But wait, there's more...

Also add console specifics... This is a 360 game... Keep a running log of the over/under per game and per platform and keep a running average that also appears with the review.... It would look something like this:

Halo 3 (360)composite score from 10 sources (this could be less if all mags don't cover)
Composite score: 93
O/U Consoles
Magazine Score O/U Composite 360 PS3 Wii
Mag 1 97 +5% +9% -11% -17%
Mag 2 93 - -1% +7% -11%

How cool would that be?

This would be called, in my honor, of course, the KNRanking System, lol. Or, you could just steal the idea and I'll let you slide.

Isn't that basically what Gamerankings does with their "Lots-of-Statistics" Site Stats?

 Maybe that's a feature I can't find on the website, but I'm not seeing a deviation from the average nor am I seeing a "bias tendency" or whatever you would like to call it....


Maybe i'm not understanding what you mean right.  Here go to "Gamerankings.com"

Then click, on the left side in the blue menu under "Statistics" "Lots-A-Stats"

Then go to "Site Stats"

Then click on say.  Play Magazine.  (Or rather i'll just post a link to that, though that's how you get there.)

 http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/sitedetails.asp?siteid=736

Here you see Play Magazine tends to average all games 4.9% higher then the combined review averages on Gamerankings.

Now if you Click PS3

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/SiteDetails.asp?platformid=1028

You can see the average PS3 game is ranked 6.4% higher in Play Magazine then the other sites used in gamerankings.