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?

HappySqurriel on 23 October 2007

I'm not sure if ioi has the storage or processing power requirements to make this work (it shouldn't be too much as long as the userbase doesn't become too large, and if the data is always being processed on another thread ) ...

Everyone is biased and it is best to consider their game score in relation to their voting history as it relates both to genre and platform so when someone adds a review score they have to be grouped together as a genre-platform review set ... This review set should then have certain statistics calculated (mean, standard deviation) and the review score for every game should then be changed to how many standard deviations from the mean is this game for this person.

Every so often (whenever the thread that processes the game database gets around to it) you update the game's review score by averaging out the number of standard-deviations from the mean and converting this data to a standard voting scale ... An example voting scale is below

 10: +4 SD
9.5: +3 SD
9.0: +2 SD
8.5: +1 SD
7.5: Mean
6.5: - 1 SD
5.0: - 2 SD
3.0: - 3 SD
0.0: - 4 SD

As you can see, the review scale is heavily tilted but that is because I'm making the assumption that everyone is rational and is far more likely to be playing games that are high quality than games that are lower quality



Around the Network
goldenpp72 on 23 October 2007

just have someone manually update the scores like people do with the boxarts..



Note: Some games in my collection are no longer owned, but have owned.

kn on 23 October 2007
Kasz216 said:
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.


 Color me informed.  That's basically what I'm talking about but I've not seen that on Gamerankings before.  I definitely don't like how far you have to dig and it doesn't seem obvious at a glance.  I guess my version would provide that data without having to drill so deep and basically show it all on one summary page for the game...  Thanks for posting the link, though.  Neat stuff.



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 24 October 2007
sinha said:
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.

 Can you tell me why it should end up like that? People don't vote on a single review, they vote on the reviewer (1up, IGN, Gametrailers...). So why should it end up like the current system?



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!