I was just reading a thread (http://www.justadventure.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=AdvGameDiscuss;action=display;num=1071096718) at the JA forum where one of the members commented on our games page thusly:
"Thanks Len, for the link and the website in general - it's a treasure trove! Shame they don't have a page of games most downloaded and highest rated. :)"
And I thought, 'well, yeah, a highest rated and/or most downloaded page is one of the things I look for when faced with a large collection of games that I'm completely new to'.
So I was wondering - would it be difficult to implement these things on the Games pages? And does anybody else think it would be a good idea to put them in there?
I have thought that too, but then I thought: it's so obvious someone must have suggested it already and been shot down in flames by CJ's infinite wisdom, or something like that.
I still would argue that our rating system needs to be more specific. It's a topic that's come up more than once, but I don't think we can correctly categorize subjects by highest rating. The ten point scale isn't specific enough, where my judging can be radically different from someone elses, and thus the final score isn't really comprehensive. We need to have a category based scale system (ie. Graphics (1-10), Music(1-10), Gameplay(1-10), Did you finish the game(yes, no)). And then average all that up. (Where if you didn't finish the game your score doesn't count, only because you can't correctly judge a game until you've played it to its entirety). Why would this be a better system? Because some people decide they don't like a game based purely on one subject (usually graphics), and to me that can ruin the rating of a game that deserves better. Where as this rating system would make it so the game isn't as effected by one area, and it would allow those who look for certain things to not play the games that don't get high ratings in those categories.
As far as most downloadable. Just look up Porn Quest in joke games section to see that the most downloaded isn't necessarily accurate.
-MillsJROSS
There was originally a "List games by rating" option but this was removed because it was felt to be unfair - especially as games with only a few votes move around wildly in the ratings, and it takes 10-15 votes for it to settle down.
As for a "Most downloaded" order - well, I'm personally against that. As Mills says, just because a game has been downloaded lots doesn't mean that it's any good.
Bring this up raises a good point though - with it rapidly approaching 300 games, is the games page now becoming a bit unwieldy; and if so, what should we do about it?
QuoteWe need to have a category based scale system (ie. Graphics (1-10), Music(1-10), Gameplay(1-10)
I do like that idea, it'd be more useful than the current system.
I'm also thinking about adding a feature where if you vote 1 for a game, it asks for a reason which is then mailed to the game author. There are a surprising number of "1" votes, it'd be interesting to find out why.
Here's the vote distribution, in case anyone is interested.
(http://www.agsforums.com/images/votedist.gif)
Maybe we can take a hint from the IMDB, who say, at http://uk.imdb.com/top_250_films:
Quote
The formula for calculating the top 250 films gives a true Bayesian estimate:
weighted rank (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) à â€" R + (m ÷ (v+m)) à â€" C
where:
R = average for the movie (mean) = (Rating)
v = number of votes for the movie = (votes)
m = minimum votes required to be listed in the top 250 (currently 1250)
C = the mean vote across the whole report (currently 6.9)
note: for this top 250, only votes from regular voters are considered.
obviously, 1250 is a bit high for min number of votes...
Maybe games could be categorised by further types: detective, egypt, atlantis, futuristic, ron, humourous, interactive-movie, etc. (each game could be in more than one)
Also, a bar graph of votes for each game, like IMDB, might be good.
EDIT:
Also, maybe there should be an indication of the Rogers won by games, to further help n00bs pick the best games, along with a "List by award winners" option
MORE EDIT: and maybe a list of broken website and download links need sto be compiled, the forum members contacted and if they don't fix them by, say, March, then the game moved to a special "broken links" category?
I don't like ratings, for the fact that people like to give extreme scores far more than they do a balanced judgement. There's too many 10s there for people to have been taking this seriously, even allowing for vel's voting on his own game.
Yeah, that amount of tens is ridiculous. I'd guess it's mainly people trying to bump up the average score of the game they're voting for, rather than people who genuinely believe it's worth a ten. Darn cheating varmints.
I'll just put in a quick word in the defence of a 'most downloaded' category. I don't think the point of this category is to give a guide to the best games available - that's what the 'best rated' category is for. It's more of a way to gauge what response the games are getting, for whatever reason. A sort of populist category and downloader demographic survey combined.
QuoteAlso, maybe there should be an indication of the Rogers won by games, to further help n00bs pick the best games, along with a "List by award winners" option
That's a great idea.
Teh current rating system I feel does not do enough justice. If possible, I think that instead of having a flat 1/10 scale (where people basically just rate things 1 or 10) to a more detailed scale, (graphics, humor, gameplay, music). This would help people who value different things find games.
so basically, what Mills said
Well with a 'most downloaded' page or box on the front page, the problem would be that people would click on that, it being the first game they're presented with, or an easy choice when they're not sure.
So that perpetuates that game being the 'most downloaded', and we might get stuck in a situation of one game dominating it for a long time, at least until a big AGS release comes along.
To clarify, I'd be more in favour of it measured over a specified time period. Like 'Most downloaded in the past week', or 2 weeks, or month - rather than a most ever. Whilst that's still liable to get dominated by a game, it is more open to the new releases and avoids the problem of old but still popular games racking up hits into the dizzy hundreds and holding onto the top spot.
You could even expand it to a weekly top 10 chart, to make it a bit more interesting, it'd be like the singles chart, but not lame.
Obviously I have no idea how to code any of this, but I'm just throwing some ideas out.
Maybe the reader's comments could be expanded to look more like Amazon reviews. Each comment has that user's own rating too, plus maybe a list of "if you like this, try...", like
A Adventure 1
User comment: James Kay
I liked the game! It was great fun. Highly recommended.
Game: 8/10
Graphics: 5/10
Music: 7/10
That kind of thing. Then, as well as an avarage score, interested potential users can browse individual scores and make up their own mind more effectively.
Also, a large textlist would be nice, listing just the basics (name, size, category, downloads, rating). A click would then lnik you to a simple page with the extra information, some screenshots, creator's blurb (all to be provided by the game's creators of course), links, user comments, etc.
I have often heard of an interesting game but then was unable to find it without a lot of hassle. A list like this could solve that, especially if you make it list-able in ascending/descending order of genre/name/rating etc.
;D I can see this would be an immense technical challenge, but it'd be so cool if it was like this, so...good luck! ;D
I think CJ asks the right question:
Quote
Bring this up raises a good point though - with it rapidly approaching 300 games, is the games page now becoming a bit unwieldy; and if so, what should we do about it?
One way to do this would be to implement an advanced search feature that would allow searches based on overall rating, downloads, keywords (i.e. some of the new category sugestions) and also the LSV rating. Maybe make the keyword list moderated so that it doesn't become useless and is easy to use.
I would also like to have a keyword or new category for open source games and other resources. Maybe there could be a "Resources" page that is simliar to but seperate from the games page. I know there is a "Resources" page already but it's kind of static and is not an adequate link to the many resources people have made available for would be developers. What I am suggesting would be in addition to the existing resources page or could be made part of the games page. What I am suggesting is a resources page where peole could make their own submissions the same way we do for completed games. Oh well enough of ranting here :)
hehe, I can imagine from experience elsewhere that a few reviews like the following would crop up.
A Adventure 1
User Comment : linkinparkrulz
Link doesn't work! kthxbye
Game 4/10
Graphics 2/10
Music 9/10
Most downloaded:
Utterly useless. At best it reveals the effect of the sales pitch on those who haven't played it yet. In any case, it only counts clicks - attempted downloads - not actual downloads.
Impulse ratings:
I don't use them at all. There are lots of reasons that they fail, not least of which is that they are no way to address my interests in a game. How could they? People squirt numbers based on they don't know what urges, thinking that 'numbers' make it more objective somehow.
Form-based evaluation:
It may be possible to work something out, but I think that it would require very clear thinking about what it's for and what it means. I've yet to see a system that was telling me anything that I could use.
I think that the key is to ensure a broad enough range of ideas for intelligence to be able to find its own answers, rather than attempting some kind of ideal closure which is doomed to the limits of some theory.
Comments:
I do use (and make) comments. The advantage is that one can get an idea of the authors' attitudes as well, which puts the comments into context, making them more meaningful, whether or not you share those attitudes.
Community and Awards:
This seems the best of all options. The games come under the weight of community review, critique, contribution etc. But of course, it's no good expecting visitors to find that stuff.
So there are awards, and various forms of easily understood recognition, and these come from the very people who are in the best position to judge.
Taste and subgenres:
A classification into kinds would be great ... but I wonder if it's possible to find one that's really meaningful to everyone.
Likewise, a way of letting user preferences and opinions contribute to a "if you liked this then you may also like that" system would go some way toward telling us something that would actually help us to decide.
[EDIT]
BUT FIRST
a) Obligatory "Download size" info.
b) AGS version (as in operating system: MSDOS, Linux, or Windows).
Does there exist a precise definition for that categories somewhere?
Not really. It's really up to the author of the game. I believe there are some medium games that are the same size as a few of the full games.
-MillsJROSS
In my opinion some games feels that they are in other category than they're actually are. For an example, Pirate Fry 3 (which disappointed me at the end) was marked as medium but for me it was more like a short game to me. It just feels like that, somehow.
I didn't add RL&BAT top the games page, and always wondered who put it in medium when Rode Kill & Larry Vales (don't get me wrong, great games both) get to be full length games... but I don't really mind. I think everyone who's going to play it has played it by now.
I would've played RL&BAT, except that I have Win2k and no way to run pre-AGSv2.15 DOS games :(
Any chance of a Windows release, CM? :)
Yeah, there's a couple games I would switch around in those catagories...
Flashbax would be a medium game (IMO... It only took me about a half an hour to finish), whereas 5 Days a Stranger would be full (As it took me 2 days to finish)...
But that's just me.
I personally think subdivisions are a rather bad idea. One of the most distinguishing features of AGS games is that they often excel in one particular area without pretending to be great in others. Games shouldn't be published for this, it's just how AGS games are. Some games gain popularity because of great stories or dialogue, some for innovative graphical techniques, some for their puzzles, etc. Some do all of them well, but we shouldn't set that as the standard with AGS.
Quote from: After on Fri 12/12/2003 18:50:07
I would've played RL&BAT, except that I have Win2k and no way to run pre-AGSv2.15 DOS games :(
Any chance of a Windows release, CM? :)
If I recall, CJ did a windows port of it some time ago, but I could be totally wrong. Blasted memory.
BEARD!!!
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Fri 12/12/2003 14:40:24
Not really. It's really up to the author of the game. I believe there are some medium games that are the same size as a few of the full games.
Couldn't it be like with movies where less than 1h30min is a short movie, 1h30min and more is a full movie and 2h and longer is a Tolkien movie? ;)
Applying this to adventure games would not be the actual playing time though but maybe how many rooms and puzzles there are instead. Of course there has to be an agreed standard there, just as with movies.
I just reread James Kay's post, and I think the textlist approach is sound.
Instead of trying to develop a system to find the best, let users browse through various hints by whatever instinct works for them.
The best part of it is that you don't have to come up with a general theory - just publish the linked info.
Quotebut maybe how many rooms and puzzles there are instead.
Heh, CJ should build in a "Use inventory on hotspot"-counter... ;)
Quote from: remixor on Sat 13/12/2003 01:23:17
I personally think subdivisions are a rather bad idea. One of the most distinguishing features of AGS games is that they often excel in one particular area without pretending to be great in others. Games shouldn't be published for this, it's just how AGS games are. Some games gain popularity because of great stories or dialogue, some for innovative graphical techniques, some for their puzzles, etc. Some do all of them well, but we shouldn't set that as the standard with AGS.
exactly, which is why we WANT such a system. This way, when a user is say, looking for a game with a great story, he can find the AGS games that excell in that area .Its allows games to create niches.
Quote from: Da Panda on Sat 13/12/2003 13:45:11
Quote from: remixor on Sat 13/12/2003 01:23:17
I personally think subdivisions are a rather bad idea. One of the most distinguishing features of AGS games is that they often excel in one particular area without pretending to be great in others. Games shouldn't be published for this, it's just how AGS games are. Some games gain popularity because of great stories or dialogue, some for innovative graphical techniques, some for their puzzles, etc. Some do all of them well, but we shouldn't set that as the standard with AGS.
exactly, which is why we WANT such a system. This way, when a user is say, looking for a game with a great story, he can find the AGS games that excell in that area .Its allows games to create niches.
Well, I wouldn't call them "niches" so much as "areas of excellence." "Good story" is hardly a niche. The post I seem to remember reading (but, due to laziness, I have not bothered to quote, so I could be wrong here) said that the categories should be averaged, which is what I was responding to. I can see the advantage of such a system, though, for the reason you describe. So I assume you'd need some kind of filtering options, such as "Sort by graphics score" or "Sort by gameplay score" or whatever.
Quote from: santiago on Sat 13/12/2003 01:46:53
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Fri 12/12/2003 14:40:24
Not really. It's really up to the author of the game. I believe there are some medium games that are the same size as a few of the full games.
Couldn't it be like with movies where less than 1h30min is a short movie, 1h30min and more is a full movie and 2h and longer is a Tolkien movie? ;)
Applying this to adventure games would not be the actual playing time though but maybe how many rooms and puzzles there are instead. Of course there has to be an agreed standard there, just as with movies.
No, there are several problems with that. The biggest problem is that games with exactly the same number of rooms and puzzles can take very different amounts of time to complete, depending on the rooms and the puzzles. A game with 20 rooms and tons of dialogue and a very high difficultly level could be a long game, while a game with 20 rooms and no NPCs and minimal puzzles could be a short one. Also, is there really any good reason to differentiate between (for example) a 20-room game and a 21-room game? Just because that could theoretically be the difference between a short game and a medium-length game (I'm just pulling that number out of my ass, I have no idea if it's anywhere near accurate) doesn't really mean anything. The way we do it now is certainly not ideal, but I think it's better than a cut and dried system.
Here are the categories as "defined" on the games pages.
--------------
Short: Short adventure games, good for a quick play when you've got some spare time.
Medium: Most AGS games fit this category - adventure games, up to an hour's gameplay.
Full: The elite of the amateur adventures :) These games should keep you playing for a while, and are mostly very high quality.
---------------
I think there are a lot of games in the medium category that should (by this definition at least) be in Full.
It's probably a good idea to redefine medium to be 2-3 hours instead though.
Going crazy for a second, perhaps there should be an incoming category, allowing the players to categorizitate via a voting page. Something along the lines of "how long did it take you to finish this game".
Firstly, I've merged the "short/medium/full categories" thread with this thread since they are all related in a review of the games page.
Yes, I'd agree that a re-definition of the categories is needed. The current definitions aren't much good and can be ambiguous.
I don't feel that Number of Rooms is a very good indication of length, as remixor says. The best measure I think is play time - how long it would take the average player to complete the game. Of course, this varies from person to person so it's hard to judge.
Another thing about the ratings - is a 1-10 scale too much? I mean, what's the difference between a 3 and a 4? Or a 7 and an 8? It's all a bit fuzzy. So I propose the following new rating system:
Graphics: x/5
Audio: x/5
Story/dialogue: x/5
Overall enjoyment of the game: x/5
Any opinions?
QuoteIf I recall, CJ did a windows port of it some time ago, but I could be totally wrong. Blasted memory.
You recall correctly - RL&BAT Windows verson (http://www.agsforums.com/rlbat-win.zip)
I absolutely agree with you, CJ.
may I suggest that another catagory be added for puzzles? I did a quick mental review of PDA and LV, and neither had great graphics or sound...and thats half of the review I suppose
or maybe the last catagory, over enjoyment, would make up for it. i dunno
Panda, compare the graphics of Larry Vales to these of P:DA. It is obvious that much more effort has been put to those of Dark Ages.
It's not obvious to me.
(Nor is it in any way relevant :) )
I think this makes ratings unnecessarily (or whatever it's spelled) complicated. The 10 points system should work fine, like in IMDB. The problem with the current system is that we tend to ignore it. Most games have very little votes to their name. A very crude count brings me an average of about one vote per 60-70 downloads. I can see why the "outsiders" wouldn't vote, but I think that at least we, AGS Community Members should vote.
What will that give? For one, it will motivate people to vote. When I see that a game has 5 votes, I think that the rating isn't important. When I see 200 votes, I get another feeling, and I want to be a part of the people who voted. Also, when there are many votes it is harder to unfairly "alter" the average rating of one's game.
So, in other words, I think all that we need to do is take the rating system more seriously and start voting for all the games we play.
Yeah, that's a problem with voting in general. Las makes a good point too, in that I bet there have been some people who've voted for a game without having played it.
QuoteI think this makes ratings unnecessarily (or whatever it's spelled) complicated. The 10 points system should work fine, like in IMDB.
I'm not so sure about that. All movies have had millions of dollars spent on them, so they're easier to compare.
With AGS games, some people will find the graphics important, whereas other people don't mind bad graphics so long as the story and puzzles are good. Having seperate categories also makes people think a bit more before voting, rather than just charging in and voting 10 if they liked it and 1 if they didn't.
Yay! RLBAT, here I come!
A first draft, mainly by way of providing alternative ideas. The ranges do not reflect relative importance, but levels of precision.
Immersion x/5
__Can you settle into the game world? or is it always drawing attention to it's limitations ("I can't do that"), interface (Oops. That wasn't MODE_USE.), or making external references (e.g. to popular culture)?
Are speech, ambient and effect sounds used well.
Visual aesthetic x/5
__Do the graphics work well together to create a satisfying appearance? Are animations smooth? Are there pleasing visual effects or extras?
Pacing x/5
__Is the level of challenge and progress maintained throughout? or is it always oscillating between being totally stuck and going through the motions?
Variety x/5
__How much change do you experience, both in problem solving and feeling? Did you feel as though you were exploring diverse ideas? or just the same thing in a different costume.
Enjoyment x/5
__The visceral side of 'gameplay'.
? Music x/5 (Needs N/A option too)
__I don't know what to say about this. Should we judge it on its own merits, or by its relationship to gameplay? Should it be separate, or incorporated into Enjoyment (where it has a major influence already)?
Maybe 0 should be the default; that may give a better distribution than having people think about whether to score up or down from the middle.
[EDIT: responding to the posts that slipped in while I was typing this]
Another point in favour of multiple categories is that people (or at least I) take a greater interest in giving an opinion when I can give it some detail. Pure "volume" doesn't do it for me.
[EDIT2: oh yeah ... Opinions. I forgot]
Some problems I have with the typical categories.
"Graphics" tends to be read as 'hi-res realism' a lot, when that's not really what it's about.
"Audio" works as a sensory subdivision, but it seems too multifunctional and interdependent to separate like this.
"Story" is a valid area for discussion and critique, but it's not clear that a number can say anything useful about it.
Having a coherent and engaging experience with a sense of purpose seems like the main idea here, and a story is not the only way to acheive it. This is why I've tried to pick up different elements of experience instead.
"Gameplay" Yes. It's rather vague, but at least everyone can agree on it's importance.
I'm inclined to aim for something even simpler like "Enjoyment/satisfaction", and try to let the more technical aspects of gameplay come through in the other categories (mainly pacing and variety).
Of course, I create the new problem of whether anyone can be bothered understanding the question.
[EDIT3]
I originally had different precisions on the categories, but just realised how confusing that could be. Now, I must definitely stop changing this and go play RLBAT :D
Quote
A game with 20 rooms and tons of dialogue and a very high difficultly level could be a long game, while a game with 20 rooms and no NPCs and minimal puzzles could be a short one. Also, is there really any good reason to differentiate between (for example) a 20-room game and a 21-room game?
I can see a very clear problem there too. I don't think I was too serious with my suggestion though. I just think it would be weird to say a game is medium or full based on how many hours you sat and played it. Some people are better than other at solving games too, who gets to decide?
Quote
(I'm just pulling that number out of my ass, I have no idea if it's anywhere near accurate)
Yeah, you do find strange numbers in your ass sometimes. ;D
Quote from: Pumaman on Sun 14/12/2003 21:42:30
Yeah, that's a problem with voting in general. Las makes a good point too, in that I bet there have been some people who've voted for a game without having played it.
QuoteI think this makes ratings unnecessarily (or whatever it's spelled) complicated. The 10 points system should work fine, like in IMDB.
I'm not so sure about that. All movies have had millions of dollars spent on them, so they're easier to compare.
With AGS games, some people will find the graphics important, whereas other people don't mind bad graphics so long as the story and puzzles are good. Having seperate categories also makes people think a bit more before voting, rather than just charging in and voting 10 if they liked it and 1 if they didn't.
There are various movies as well - some of them had a huge budget and eye-popping visual effects. Other had a low budget and a strong story. That's where the IMDB top 250 list succeeded so well - it managed to create a top movies list which provided a good summary of the highest-quality movies, of all shapes and colours.
Also, breaking down the score that way fails to show how good the game is as a whole. It's hard to understand just how good a game is by seeing a bunch of numbers regarding to each of the game's aspects. One big rating for the game makes the whole thing less complicated, and, at least too me, tells more about the game as a single piece of work than a rating broken down to parts.
oooh... is "After" heading full tilt into dissapointment town?!?!? I guess we'll know soon enough!
Maybe whoever put RL&BAT on the games page should change the link so that it points at the windows version instead of whever it's pointing at the moment? Does anyone remember who it was?
Just curious...if the rating system changes, what happens to all those old games that have accumulated ratings throughout the years? Do they start at zero again?
Quote from: Captain Mostly on Mon 15/12/2003 16:43:36
Maybe whoever put RL&BAT on the games page should change the link so that it points at the windows version instead of whever it's pointing at the moment?
Either you're silly, or someone changed it just now, 'cause when I went to edit the link (I moderate the games page) it was already set to the windows version...
Quote from: After on Sun 14/12/2003 22:57:23
Immersion x/5
__Can you settle into the game world? or is it always drawing attention to it's limitations ("I can't do that"), interface (Oops. That wasn't MODE_USE.), or making external references (e.g. to popular culture)?
I'm not sure about that - some games, particularly humorous ones, don't really want to immerse you in the game world, but rather to give you laughs. They'd be penalised for no real reason.
Quote
Pacing x/5
__Is the level of challenge and progress maintained throughout? or is it always oscillating between being totally stuck and going through the motions?
That's an interesting alternative to just a "puzzles" rating, and it might make it easier for people to express their vote this way.
Quote
Variety x/5
__How much change do you experience, both in problem solving and feeling? Did you feel as though you were exploring diverse ideas? or just the same thing in a different costume.
Interesting idea, though I'm not sure if it merits its own category - I would think this could come under the overall 'enjoyment' of the game, since if you have to repeatedly solve similar puzzles you won't enjoy the game much.
Quote
? Music x/5 (Needs N/A option too)
__I don't know what to say about this. Should we judge it on its own merits, or by its relationship to gameplay? Should it be separate, or incorporated into Enjoyment (where it has a major influence already)?
I'm not sure about this one. Perhaps it could be part of some sort of 'atmosphere' rating, or perhaps as you say it comes under 'enjoyment'. Any other opinions anyone?
QuoteI can see a very clear problem there too. I don't think I was too serious with my suggestion though. I just think it would be weird to say a game is medium or full based on how many hours you sat and played it. Some people are better than other at solving games too, who gets to decide?
Perhaps it could be a measure of how long the game takes to play from start to finish if you know the solutions to all the puzzles? That should then fairly reflect the relative amount of time it will take new players to solve the game, not allowing for puzzle difficulty obviously.
QuoteAlso, breaking down the score that way fails to show how good the game is as a whole. It's hard to understand just how good a game is by seeing a bunch of numbers regarding to each of the game's aspects. One big rating for the game makes the whole thing less complicated, and, at least too me, tells more about the game as a single piece of work than a rating broken down to parts.
Well, I was thinking that the main game list view would still display a single overall rating, made up by perhaps averaging the sub-ratings for the game. If you opened up the game detail page, you'd see the individual ratings.
QuoteMaybe whoever put RL&BAT on the games page should change the link so that it points at the windows version instead of whever it's pointing at the moment? Does anyone remember who it was?
I have no idea who it was. I've updated it now, but Captain feel free to PM me to get a password for the RLBAT entry.
QuoteJust curious...if the rating system changes, what happens to all those old games that have accumulated ratings throughout the years? Do they start at zero again?
Well, assuming that there was still an overall "x/10" rating displayed on the main game view, the old votes could be absorbed into that.
Quote from: AGA on Mon 15/12/2003 17:13:35
Either you're silly, or someone changed it just now, 'cause when I went to edit the link (I moderate the games page) it was already set to the windows version...
Bwahahahaha, you were pipped to the post on that one! :P
Quote from: Captain Mostly on Mon 15/12/2003 16:43:36
oooh... is "After" heading full tilt into dissapointment town?!?!?
No way!
Ok, the interface was frustrating -- (The door, Richard. Go -through -the -door. No, not your clothes - get out of the way! ::) ) -- but it was a fun
adventure.
Meanwhile, back on topic...
Yes, I realised humourous games weren't well represented.
There are some cases in which I'd rather see a bipolar scale, rather than one that enforces an idea about what is good. No, we don't always
want immersion, but it is a big deal when it applies. How about -
Light - Deep (Avoiding derogatory terms)
This doesn't distinguish dramatic genres, which should be obvious from the game's blurb. Both ends of this scale are 'good' in their way.
(But this omits the 'atmospheric realisation' part, which I'll have to find a new home for.)
I see
Variety in much the same way. The appeal of many games is that you get to excersize what you are good at frequently, whereas others require a more mobile appreciation. I still think there's something worthwhile in a category like this, but I'll have to rethink it.
I only put in Music as an acknowledgement that it is often the work of a different artist. But really, I should've seen immediately that the
game rating is not the place for doing that.
Ok, I've tried to reduce it to four categories to adequately cover everything - let me know your opinions people if there's anything you think should change.
Visual
How well did the backgrounds and sprites suit the game? Did it go that extra mile by providing unexpected animations?
Immersion
Was the level of immersion right for the game? If the game was serious, did you feel like you were in the game world, or were there annoying reminders that you were not?
If the game was more light hearted, did that come across nicely?
Were ambient sounds and music used effectively?
Puzzles & Pacing
Was the game too easy, too hard, or about right? Did puzzles just involve pixel hunting and randomly combining items; or did they make more sense?
Enjoyment
Everything else aside, how much did you enjoy playing the game? Couldn't wait to come back for more; or did you find it dull and boring? Did the game leave you feeling satisfied?
Also, as suggested I think I'm going to add a special icon to games which won an AGS Award.
Here are my proposals to re-define the game length categories:
Short games
If you know what you're doing, you can complete the game within 15 minutes
Medium-length
If you know what you're doing, you can complete the game within an hour
Full games
Over an hour to finish, even if you know all the solutions.
Any opinions?
No "Sound" category?
I think that it is vital for the game. Of course, it may fit immersion, but it is not exactly the same.
Perhaps sound should be a rating, but it shouldn't be averaged in. Because who refuses to play a game if the sound rating is low? Who decides to play a game because the rating is high? Sound is important to the atmopshere, but it usually does not make or break a game. I think the best thing to do would be just to comment on what you think of the sound/music, and explain if it helped create the atmosphere or damaged the atmosphere.
Perhaps when an author puts his game onto the game page he should put what the games focus is, and people could rate it accordingly. So if his focus is to make a comedic game, then the reviewers will review the game based on that. If he was going for drama, same thing. This allows for a more accurate review of the games set goal, and whether the author did a good or bad job of it.
I think I agree with those four categories to rate a game. Only I think that whenever a person reviews a game he should explain why he/she thinks that this game deserves that rating in each category. If this take up too much space, you could make it so that the reviewer will make a short comment and put it onto the games page, and then send an explanation to the author via e-mail.
I think we have to start from scratch for the review of the games, because how can we convert this old scale into the new one? With the knowledge that the old scale doesn't do an accurte job of showing people how good or bad the game was, it should be scrapped. Or, as an alternative, you should show the old score , but not use it to average in the new scale. However, do keep the responses that people have written.
I think the scale for judging a game's length is mostly accurate. But I only wonder, does the gameplay include cut-scenes and dialog. Because some games I could beat very qiuckly if I skipped dialog and just went straight to puzzling.
And last. I think it should be made clear to any person who votes for a game that they must complete it before voting. I've thought of two ways in which to make sure the reviewer has done this. One they take a five question little quiz that asks them relevant information dealing with the game, that anyone who finished should know (but don't make it trivia, like "what color was the toothbrush?"). And the other idea, which I think is the best, is perhaps that there should be a set password to vote for each game, and the password is only given upon the completion of the game. The author can make the code, and have the engine, upon completing the game, make a text file with the code on it. This idea, of course, requires the most work. Because, CJ, you have to either add it into AGS, or have all the authors do it manually, and then we have the question about older games.
-MillsJROSS
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Wed 17/12/2003 17:52:50
Perhaps sound should be a rating, but it shouldn't be averaged in. Because who refuses to play a game if the sound rating is low? Who decides to play a game because the rating is high? Sound is important to the atmopshere, but it usually does not make or break a game. I think the best thing to do would be just to comment on what you think of the sound/music, and explain if it helped create the atmosphere or damaged the atmosphere.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. If the sound is *really* inappropriate then it will affect your enjoyment of the game, and thus the rating will be affected - otherwise, just a text comment seems fine for this one.
QuoteI think I agree with those four categories to rate a game. Only I think that whenever a person reviews a game he should explain why he/she thinks that this game deserves that rating in each category.
Whilst I'd like to see that too, I think that if we make the rating process that time consuming, very few people will actually bother to do it - and therefore we'll end up with no votes for anything. It could recommend that the person voting should also add a user comment explaining their opinion.
Quote
I think we have to start from scratch for the review of the games, because how can we convert this old scale into the new one? With the knowledge that the old scale doesn't do an accurte job of showing people how good or bad the game was, it should be scrapped. Or, as an alternative, you should show the old score , but not use it to average in the new scale.
Yeah, you're probably right there - it just seems a shame to abandon all the votes people have already given. But yeah, leaving the old rating there as a read-only thing is probably the best solution.
Quote
I think the scale for judging a game's length is mostly accurate. But I only wonder, does the gameplay include cut-scenes and dialog. Because some games I could beat very qiuckly if I skipped dialog and just went straight to puzzling.
Well the definitions aren't supposed to be absolute - most of us know whether a game was short, medium or long. But the it's the creator of the game who's probably least likely to get it right, since they've been working on the game so long they'll probably have lost perspective on it - therefore, some guidelines should be provided.
QuoteAnd last. I think it should be made clear to any person who votes for a game that they must complete it before voting. I've thought of two ways in which to make sure the reviewer has done this. One they take a five question little quiz that asks them relevant information dealing with the game, that anyone who finished should know (but don't make it trivia, like "what color was the toothbrush?"). And the other idea, which I think is the best, is perhaps that there should be a set password to vote for each game, and the password is only given upon the completion of the game.
While I like the idea in principle, we have to accept that very few people are going to be willing to go through all that effort, just to cast their votes for a game. So we need to keep it as accessible as possible - if nobody votes, the ratings are useless anyway.
In other news, I've now added the AGS Awards info to the Games page. Let me know if I've made any mistakes transferring the info from the AGS Awards website into the game entries.
Also, I'd appreciate it if someone could draw a small new logo (about 15x16 pixels) to replace the one I'm using at the moment to represent AGS Awards, which looks a mess because it's been radically scaled down.
http://www.agsforums.com/games.php?category=102
This post is mainly an argument against combining factors into a single rating (by any formula).
(Sorry, if this sounds terse and dogmatic. I'm a bit rushed right now.)
Enjoyment corresponds to a subjective (or subconscious) overall assessment. How it relates to other factors depends on the individual. It is, already, a kind of 'weighted average' by an unseen rule.
(We can expect that this correlates quite well with a generic single valued rating system, as is currently used, and can therefore absorb it without much error.)
The average Enjoyment rating is therefore already an implicit weighted average, with weightings adapted to the community rather than prescribed in advance.
The other factors are also treated independently, with an average for each one.
We can now, if desired, discover the average weightings that people are actually using in their assessment. It's not needed by the system, but we can, for example, use the data to design games for 'the market'.
We can also see how well the other factors reflect the general impression, and whether there is something else going on that isn't represented.
More importantly, we can get a clear idea of a game by having the independent factors available to us. And we will soon pick up certain patterns on our own, and learn to read more into them based on experience.
Any attempt to combine these values effectively overrides the judgement both of those who rate and those who search.
Ok, well let me make it clear that you will definately be able to see the individual ratings when you open up the game detail page (ie. it will give an average Visual rating, average Immersion rating, etc).
However, for the main game list pages, it would look a bit messy to have lots of ratings on there, so for that particular place it would create an overall rating.
Is your main point though that this overall rating should just be an average of the "Enjoyment" ratings rather than combining them all? That sounds fair enough to me, actually - might be the best way to reflect it.
Now, another thing somebody mentioned was to have some sort of "If you liked this game, then try these" bit on the game detail page. How would you like to see that work though - should the games page moderators decide how to link games together in this manner, or should everyone be able to vote for which games are 'similar' (but that could get very complicated).
Places like Amazon don't have this problem because they just work off what other books people bought as well as this one - but we don't have those kind of stats.
Finally, I've added a right sidebar thingy to aid navigation, because finding your way back to the main page was becoming a bit of a pain.
Quote from: Pumaman on Thu 18/12/2003 14:42:01
Is your main point though that this overall rating should just be an average of the "Enjoyment" ratings rather than combining them all? That sounds fair enough to me, actually - might be the best way to reflect it.
That's it exactly.
I think the moderators should choose which game is similar to another one. If anyone else feels that something is wrong, or finds a game they feel is similar and isn't listed, they can PM a moderator with the reasons why the feel this is so.
About finishing the game thing. I think the least we should do, is tell people who vote, that if you haven't finished the game, please don't vote.
Yeah, and that average Enjoyment thing makes sense. It only stands to reason that that would be the only reason to play a game, and that it is a mixture of all factors from the game anyway.
Now, I'm wondering, should we have some sort of bug report? So people, when playing the game, can report a bug, and the author can find the bug and hopefull fix it. Or, if the author is finished with the game, and doesn't care to fix the bugs, than at least the person playing the game can see what bugs have already been reported.
-MillsJROSS
I love the idea of "games like these" Moderators ought to be able to deside, or the game's author.
Quote from: Pumaman on Thu 18/12/2003 14:42:01Now, another thing somebody mentioned was to have some sort of "If you liked this game, then try these" bit on the game detail page.
Also my doing (although implied by others, too).
I was mainly thinking to inspire different approaches here - I don't see a practical implementation off-hand.
In my experience, a good range of factors is enough to identify areas of taste. So I'm not actually pushing for this feature.
It could be nice, but I don't even use Google's relevancy system, so it's pretty unlikely that I'd be among those who'd find it indispensable.
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Thu 18/12/2003 20:04:04
I think the moderators should choose which game is similar to another one. If anyone else feels that something is wrong, or finds a game they feel is similar and isn't listed, they can PM a moderator with the reasons why the feel this is so.
I think that this is expecting too much from the moderators.
Quote
About finishing the game thing. I think the least we should do, is tell people who vote, that if you haven't finished the game, please don't vote.
You don't need to have finished a game to have something to say about it.
I think that a Finished/Abandoned checkbox would provide immensely useful information.
Abandoned replies could then do a poll indicating why they didn't finish instead of the ratings.
*Oh yes! I'm
very pleased with this idea.*
QuoteNow, I'm wondering, should we have some sort of bug report? So people, when playing the game, can report a bug, and the author can find the bug and hopefull fix it. Or, if the author is finished with the game, and doesn't care to fix the bugs, than at least the person playing the game can see what bugs have already been reported.
Good thinking.
The moderators will have to ensure that known bugs are listed, but if people are aware at the outset, a lot of disappointment and board-noise could be avoided.
(I think that script-automated bug recording would actually be
more trouble than manual editing in this case).
um, wouldn't you say it's up to the person who made the game to keep track of their own bug reports not make a database for them? and a finished/abandoned message could easily be added to the description of a game by the author instead of having to have a little checkbox set aside for it.
*
Hey this is a demo of my game! Enjoy it and email me here for bug reports: email@bugreports.org
update: Sorry this game isn't going to be finished.
*
eric
Yeah, upon thinking about moderators picking, it would imply they've played all games, which we know isn't the case. So perhaps user voting would be best.
I think it would be nice if a person is playing a game, if there were a list of bugs from the game, that were hopefullin avoidable, and how to avoid them. Because not everyone gets the luxery of playing these games while the thread is out in the open, instead of buried somewhere. Whether this is done manually or not, there should be some way to report a bug from the games page, and allow people to see the found bugs.
-MillsJROSS
Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 19/12/2003 00:29:52
um, wouldn't you say it's up to the person who made the game to keep track of their own bug reports not make a database for them? and a finished/abandoned message could easily be added to the description of a game by the author instead of having to have a little checkbox set aside for it.
Sorry, I may have been ambiguous there. I meant that
a player's rating could begin with the notifier Finished or Abandoned (as in gave up, was sickened to death by it etc.), and then progress onto the appropriate detail evaluation. So Finished does the rating, Abandoned does the why-I-quit poll.
[EDIT]Although, I
do agree that some developers could be more courteous about providing valid information. At least one game on the games page has no screenshot
and no game related content in it's blurb. >:(
That reminds me, I wanted to edit somethings about my game a year ago, but I couldn't log on. I think this was after we had a few bad crashes and the games page had to be rebuilt. I don't beleive I forgot my password. So....help me...please?
I think an abandoned check of thing would work well.
So...uh...when are we going to see results CJ. wink wink...nudge nudge.
-MillsJROSS
Right, here's a preview of how the voting page could look:
http://www.agsforums.com/games.php?action=newvote
I've tried to quantify the ratings, so rather than a "1-5" scale there are actually descriptions for each number, to hopefully get more consistent ratings. The descriptions were just off the top of my head, so please do recommend any changes you'd make to them.
Any other comments on the page overall are welcome.
Mills: PM myself or AGA to get your password reset.
QuoteSo...uh...when are we going to see results CJ. wink wink...nudge nudge.
Hehe well once we've all agreed on the way it'll work, I'll get started on it properly. :P
Works for me. (Sorry for the one sentence post, but I think it says everything I need to).
-MillsJROSS
Some ideas toward giving the rating descriptions clearer distinctions.
I've included the current text (grey) with suggested replacements in black.
First of all, please indicate how far you have got with the game. If you're still playing, we'd really rather that you finished it before voting.
I've completed it
I'm still playing it
I gave up on it
Visual
How well did the backgrounds and sprites suit the game? Did it go that extra mile by providing unexpected animations?
5) Superb - outstandingly well done backgrounds, sprites and animations
4) Good - there's obviously been a lot of effort put into them
3) Average - the graphics are ok, but nothing to write home about
3) Functional but uninteresting. Nothing to attract attention, good or bad.
2) A bit on the poor side, should have spent more time on them
1) Abysmal - no effort at all has gone into them
Immersion
Was the level of immersion right for the game?
Did the game lead your awareness to enhance its mood?
If the game was serious, did you feel like you were in the game world, or were there annoying reminders that you were not?
If the game was more light hearted, did that come across nicely?
Were ambient sounds and music used effectively?
5) I really felt like I was there - superb stuff
5) Thoroughly realised, engaging imagination beyond actual play.
4) It worked quite well at pulling me into the game world
4) Strong internal sense, rewarding free exploration.
3) I was as immersed in it as I'd expect
3) The mood is well maintained throughout.
2) Had its moments, but overall not much cop
2) Uneven, with occasional highs.
1) Not good at all, I just couldn't get into it
1) Erratic, with no particular mood.
Puzzles & Pacing
Was the game too easy, too hard, or about right? Did puzzles just involve pixel hunting and randomly combining items; or did they make more sense?
5) It was just right - the puzzles made sense and weren't too hard or easy
5) Inspiring and instructive. Encourages imaginative effort.
4) The puzzles were about right, I could proceed without too much trouble
4) Logical and well organized.
3) N/A (rolling demos / non-adventures / no puzzles)
2) I could cope with the pace of it, but it was a bit annoying
2) Some good ideas, but arbitrary and unbalanced.
1) Far too easy, or the puzzles made no sense at all
1) An excercize in manual labour. Frustrates thought.
Enjoyment
Everything else aside, how much did you enjoy playing the game? Couldn't wait to come back for more; or did you find it dull and boring? Did the game leave you feeling satisfied?
5) Amazing! You have GOT to play this game RIGHT NOW!
4) Recommended, definitely put it on your to-play list
3) It was ok, play it if you've got some spare time
2) Play it if you're bored, but not much fun to be had here
1) A bad game, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone
I think we should encourage people who aren't PhDs to answer those questions, After. Don't mar their innocent minds with "engaging imagination beyond actual play", or they will grow up strange and mentally handicapped.
In fact, I would even go as far as to exchanging:
Puma: 5) I really felt like I was there - superb stuff
After: 5) Thoroughly realised, engaging imagination beyond actual play.
to: 5) Supa-f**ka-momba-blasta!
After: thanks for your suggestions - I'll definitely incorporate some of them.
However, at the risk of being accused of dumbing-down, Goldmund makes a good point. It's obvious that you have a very good grasp of the English language; however, there are many people, particularly non-native speakers, who would find some of your wording difficult to understand.
I'll make some adjustments to the page and upload a new version in the new year.
I agree.
It's inconvenient that there aren't common expressions for some meanings, so something has to give.
(Of course, as soon as expressions become common, they start to be misused anyway, so there's no escaping it.)
Ok, a bit later than promised, but the new games page is up!
http://www.agsforums.com/games.php
The difference is in the voting, as discussed in this thread. All votes for all games have been reset (although the old total is still available for viewing in the game detail page).
So, any comments on implementation are welcome. Please go back and vote again for any games you've completed, so that we can try and get some useful ratings out of this - cheers :)
Nice job, CJ, it's a huge improvement. :)
It may be interesting to have release dates for the games. A lot of people ask me what the first AGS game was, when it was made etc...
Also, it'd be pretty cool to see the progression of quality over the years, if you could sort games by date. Of course, this would all depend on getting those older dates, but hey, don't kill the messenger.
Quote from: rodekill on Mon 01/03/2004 15:01:40
but hey, don't kill the messenger.
You're already dead, silly.
As for the voting stuff - really nice, except it will take ages before all games acquire enough votes to give a fair picture. The downside with using percent is that - for instance - 66% versus 33% can be the result of just three people's voting, which is pretty misguiding.
QuoteIt may be interesting to have release dates for the games
Yeah, that would be handy. The games page does know (and so could display) the date on which the games were added to the database, but obviously this is not the same as the date the games were released (particularly for older games which were released before the database existed).
Perhaps there could be a new field for the user to enter the game's release date - but then, I'd wager a lot of people probably can't remember when their game was released. Hmm.
QuoteAs for the voting stuff - really nice, except it will take ages before all games acquire enough votes to give a fair picture. The downside with using percent is that - for instance - 66% versus 33% can be the result of just three people's voting, which is pretty misguiding.
Yeah - currently it needs 3 votes before it will display a percentage, but that should probably be increased to more like 5 or 6, preferably 10, so that you get a proper picture of it.
It will take a while, sure, but if in the end the ratings that come out are more useful to potential players, then it's probably worthwhile.
Quote from: rodekill on Mon 01/03/2004 15:01:40
It may be interesting to have release dates for the games. A lot of people ask me what the first AGS game was, when it was made etc...
Also, it'd be pretty cool to see the progression of quality over the years, if you could sort games by date. Of course, this would all depend on getting those older dates, but hey, don't kill the messenger.
It also would have helped when I was entering dozens of AGS games into the Adventure Gamers Underground database. For some reason, at the time, I could have sworn there were release dates. It would definitely be a cool addition.
Yes, it's hard work trawling the internet trying to find out when a game was released. Half the entries in the AGU database (that I entered, at least) don't have them noted because I just couldn't find it out. People could at least put an update on their website when they do release a new game :P
Well, it's worth noting that the Completed Game Announcements forum does not expire old threads, so you should be able to just find the game's release thread and look at the date of the first post.
The same applies to the old Announcmenets forum on ezboard, which goes back to March 2001.
It seems like a good system, but yes, it will take a bit of time for the results to make any sort of sense.
but on the other hand, I can still see it being some what similar to the old system, where if someone doesn't like a game (or person) the results will be a bit off (which in turn might influence other peoples decisions on their submissions.
Just an example of what I mean, If you notice not many games have got enough votes yet, But Flasbax & Who wants to live forever, already have percentages (and fairly low ones) I guess people are already being spiteful, even though both games probably are better than the marks they've got so far. (obviously this is just my opinion)
(on the other hand, a lot of the classics have got really high marks, even though when it comes to reality, it is other biases pushing them up, as compared to some more recent games, they are pretty ordinary.)
I supose only time will tell, but as the stats showed before that there were a lot of "1" & "10" votes, I think people will still try to adjust the percentages (not by giving the votes they think it deserves, but if it is higher than they think it should be they will be harsh, and vice versa)
It would probably help a lot if it were people outside this community voting, but I guess a lot of the percentage of people playing them are from within, and the others probably don't even know where they got the game anyway.
Anyway, it's just opinions, At least the system is now more complex, so people might think a little bit more, we can only hope.
Yeah, you could well be right there, only time will tell. I hope people do use it properly, it's a shame if people just try to distort the averages.
In other news, I've added a "Most popular last week" thing to the bottom of the main page:
http://www.agsforums.com/games.php
This was suggested by someone earlier in this thread, and I thought it was a good idea. It should give an interesting view of how things change from week to week, and how many extra downloads being Pick of the Month gets you ;)
The "last week" chart updates every Saturday with totals from the previous 7 days. And please don't let's have people abusing it and clicking their download link hundreds of times, or I'll just remove it.
I was redricted here for the discussion of "list games by rating".
What's the point of rating if one can not search for games with high rating? The game creator might find an interest in looking up his game to check the rating, but does it have any functionality for anyone else? It gives a hint about game quality when searching in any group of games, but isn't game rating something that would be intersting to sort by? I think so, especially after the implementation of "not enough votes" which seems to work fine. I say more options is better! Make list by raitng (and maybe list unrated) possible!
Anyone else up for it?
I think this is the right place to post my opinion about ratings, if not please forgive me.
---
1.1 There's no perfect rating system, but anything is better than alphabetical order for an almost 900 games database.
1.2 If you do have ratings it makes sense to use them (filter / sort / search... something)
---
2.1 If you don't like sorting you might like a "Users that liked this game also liked..." system.
2.2 If the server load is affordable you can even complicate it further and make personal recommendations based on the users own ratings. This should help to improve the ratings (There seems to be a problem now). Something like: You liked Emily Enough and Trilby's Notes but disliked 5 days a stranger, so you nearest 5 users are this, that and the other, and they liked these games you haven't rated yet: Reactor 09, blah, blah, and PacMan.
---
3.1 Another simple method to improve the ratings quality is to make comments mandatory. (But expect less votes).
3.2 If you want to complicate it, allow moderators to delete comments and their corresponding votes when the comment doesn't satisfy a minimum quality.
3.3 Or complicate it even more and allow users themselves to ignore the comments (and votes) they don't find useful.
---
Whatever, but please make something, wandering through 900 alphabetically ordered games is not the best way to find good adventures. I download the games half-randomly now and that is affecting my enjoyment and your server bill.
Tartalo
Excuse me for digging this up, since it has been started sometime in 2003-but I considered that, if including a "Music"-category into the rating system has been discussed even then, it could be time to politely ask why this hasn't been done. Other than that I think the rating system is quite alright, altough I sometimes don't know which answer to choose because neither of them really fits my appraisement...
But I think that all the musicians working on adventure games would like an evaluation, too, not only if the music and sound were disturbingly bad or outstandingly good.
Ah 2003. SARS, presidents in flightsuits and lesbo music from russia...