Members for rating panel, apply here!

[blueskirt]

To me, any game that runs smoothly and without any bugs features advanced scripting.

Then how would you define games that features special graphical effects, intuitive, uninterupted soundtrack that change as the events change (like the LEC's iMuse), arcade sequence, combat sequence, RPG elements, non-linearity, open ended gameplay and other similar features that aren't in most adventure games?

It looks like the rating system will have to go through various changes as time goes by just like AGS itself. Im sure that the people that rate the games will understand that changes will have to be made to the rules of rating due to things like the advancements made to ags. People should not worry about the ratings I'm sure that the people who are rating will do a good job and who knows if the ratings are rerevised then maybe the game will score higher who knows.
If you feel that your game should have a higher rating try looking thru your game again to see what you can improve.

I too begins to think the system will have to be upgraded every years as our standards will improve. There are plenty of things that can affect the rating but that aren't mainstream yet, like the use of speech pack or special features like I listed above. Maybe while games are rated, some games that present elements that can't be judged correctly yet, could be given a special tag, so the next time we upgrade the rating system to include the elements that became more mainstream, these games could be rated a second, third or fourth time to take into account the new standards. Games that fare too well in certain categories (like scoring 6 cups out of 5 if given the chance for example), could be easily enlisted for a second or third review and be rated again in case we decide to increase the total number of cups as the our standards increase.

Regarding unique GUI, I have no idea how rating the music will be done, but I suggest that it get rated the same way music will be rated. GUI should be rated for their precision, intuitivity, ease to understand, ease to use and good look, but originality should be considered as a bonus. A badly implemented unique GUI shouldn't pass merely because it is an unique GUI, and a well implemented GUI shouldn't sink because it's the same Sierra or LEC GUI we've seen so often.

2 other search categories or tags that could be mentionned next to the cup rating:
The "experimental" tag, so the games that don't fare very well in graphics, music, etc, but present something unique and new that wasn't seen before and that could please to a niche (META and Into The Light come to my mind here, BogEasy3D too even if it fared a bit better) could be labeled as such so their uniqueness would not be penalized by their other aspects.

Another one, similar to the one above, the "underdog" tag. For the games like Larry Vales, which doesn't fare very well graphically, musically, and use the default GUI, but that still deserve to be played.

[Vel]

Then how would you define games that features special graphical effects, intuitive, uninterupted soundtrack that change as the events change (like the LEC's iMuse), arcade sequence, combat sequence, RPG elements, non-linearity, open ended gameplay and other similar features that aren't in most adventure games?

Depends on how well these elements are implemented in the game, really. Either way there are at least a dozen of superb games on the database that feature none of those and yet are splendid titles. Come on, who cares how it is scripted as long as it works?

[Radiant]

who cares how it is scripted as long as it works?

I do.

[Vel]

Okay, who, apart from 1337 programmers, cares how this game is scripted as long as it works?

Anyway, I'd like to propose a 'similar to' part in each game's page if it hasn't already been talked about. The advantages of such a part are obvious - if you like a certain game, you can easily play more like it. The underdogs does that pretty well imo.

[Radiant]

Okay, who, apart from 1337 programmers, cares how this game is scripted as long as it works?

W00t, ph34r my t3h l33tn3ss!!

Seriously though, in my opinion advanced scripting can really enhance playability. For instance, in some AGS games, if you click some unexpected item on some hotspot, nothing happens at all. In somewhat better games, you at least get a textbox like "that didn't work". In yet better games, you get an answer like "I can't use the <item> on the <spot>" with the words filled in. It helps immersion. You'd be surprised at how an otherwise good game can be ruined by poor interface design, or other matters of smoothness/bumpiness of the coding.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I certainly care about scripting when I play games, and it's more than just 'did he do this all in rawdraw' type stuff.  Good scripting also involves avoiding game-stopping errors and using clever workarounds to AGS limitations.  I also like to see some inventiveness and yeah, I think people who show scripting prowess should be rewarded just as much as someone who can draw well or make great music, otherwise you're just saying that the only important aspects of a game are the ones you can see and hear.

[scotch]

Pretty much the only things that matter are those you see and hear! But then the code is driving all that, so it's fundementally important. Sure, you shouldn't be thinking "ooh, crappy looking 3d, this must have been hard to code" and giving it a higher score, but like progz and radiant said, coding is just as much about making things work slickly, making interfaces that don't get in your way, little cosmetic things, like characters turning to look at stuff they're describing, and so on. It has as much of an effect on the style of the game as good animation or writing does.

It's probably because AGS does a lot of the work for us, coding is quite underappreciated, but going beyond that standard can make things feel a lot more fresh.

[Vel]

Seriously though, in my opinion advanced scripting can really enhance playability. For instance, in some AGS games, if you click some unexpected item on some hotspot, nothing happens at all. In somewhat better games, you at least get a textbox like "that didn't work". In yet better games, you get an answer like "I can't use the <item> on the <spot>" with the words filled in. It helps immersion. You'd be surprised at how an otherwise good game can be ruined by poor interface design, or other matters of smoothness/bumpiness of the coding.

This is quite what I meant when I said that each game that didn't have interface problems nor bugs featured advanced scripting to me. Of course, games such as Linus Brockman(sp?) are astounding and even I, who don't usually care for those things, marvelled at the scripting genius. However, the puzzles ruined the impression. Anyway, while 1337 scripting skills should be appreciated, their lack should not deprive otherwise excellent games of a full blue cup score.

[blueskirt]

This is quite what I meant when I said that each game that didn't have interface problems nor bugs featured advanced scripting to me. Of course, games such as Linus Brockman(sp?) are astounding and even I, who don't usually care for those things, marvelled at the scripting genius. However, the puzzles ruined the impression. Anyway, while 1337 scripting skills should be appreciated, their lack should not deprive otherwise excellent games of a full blue cup score.

Yes, but there is also more than just making things slick. It seems to me that we are in front of yet another aspect, with music originality and interface originality, where we'd like to have some elements of this aspect to count a bit more than others, so that slicks games don't fail even if they don't feature complicated arcade sequence, non-linearity or something like LEC's iMuse. I'm also wondering if it's a good idea. It seems to me that if we do this treatment for every games (music ain't original but it fits, interface ain't original but it's easy to use, game doesn't have incredibly complex scripting but it's slick), we'll simply reward mediocre games, or penalize awe-inspiring detailed games, or do both.

It's an interesting discussion. With every new post I seems to discover another little, subtle and insignificant details that can make a game better or worst.

BTW, how are going the discussions inside the panel? If it ain't too much asking and if progress were made, could we get a little update to see the improved outline to the rating document, or are there too many elements that are still being debated and aren't fixed in cement yet?

[Pumaman]

From a rating perspective, I don't think that scripting per-se should be considered. It doesn't matter to the player of a game how clever the scripting is, what matters is whether the game is fun.

coding is just as much about making things work slickly, making interfaces that don't get in your way, little cosmetic things, like characters turning to look at stuff they're describing, and so on. It has as much of an effect on the style of the game as good animation or writing does.

Indeed, scripting is one of those things where if you do it well, nobody will really notice; whereas if you do it badly, there'll be all sorts of complaints about it. So if we're talking about rating the game scripting based on things like being able to play through the game without encountering bugs and the gameplay being fluid, then I'd agree with it.
However, I'd think twice about awarding points to a game just because it has a cleverly scripted scene that's actually no fun to play.

[MillsJROSS]

You could always include a rating for scripting outside of the scope of the average rating. If the scripting is bad it will probably affect the rating anyway, and visa versa, as already mentioned. So perhaps having a stand alone score. Perhaps with this score, there can also be given comments as to how a game fell short of good scripting or succeeded in great scripting. At least, this way, it will help the game creator to get some grasp of what he/she may be doing wrong and needs to work on.

To me, it's apparent when there's good scripting and bad scripting, and it's not just lack of scripting. One little thing that usually get's me a little peeved is when people take the time to have their character walk to a hotspot, but the character blocks the hotspot, and so for every action you need to move the main character over. It is also about lack of scripting, or filling out the game for me. I want a message for every action I do, it doesn't have to be unique, that's expecting  a lot, but I want some form of communication that tells me things are happening. I consider this as leaving out essential, to me, and easy to achieve scripts.

-MillsJROSS

[aussie]

Indeed, scripting is one of those things where if you do it well, nobody will really notice; whereas if you do it badly, there'll be all sorts of complaints about it.

So scripting is basically like refereeing a football match.

[mätzyboy]

Sorry for grave digging but I'm actually quite interested in the outcome of this new rating. Has the panel begun its work? How is it coming?

[Pumaman]

The panel has indeed begun its work. However, the results won't be made public until all the games have been rated, otherwise it could be confusing for new visitors to the site.

[Radiant]

Oh speaking of ratings -- there was an old suggestion to also rate games by difficulty (easy/moderate/hard).

This just crossed my mind and I don't think it made it to this thread. I think it would be useful classification. Maybe the authors can do this themselves, like with long/moderate/short games.

[m0ds]

there was an old suggestion to also rate games by difficulty (easy/moderate/hard).

I agree with you that it would be a very useful classification.

[LimpingFish]

there was an old suggestion to also rate games by difficulty (easy/moderate/hard).

Too subjective, I would think. One man's moderate is another man's easy, and so forth.

[Radiant]

Too subjective, I would think. One man's moderate is another man's easy, and so forth.

That's not true at all. It is well known that Monkey Island 1 and Loom are pretty easy games, and that Spellbreaker is insanely difficult. And so forth. Besides, it'd be easy for the "rate this game" form to have a query on difficulty similar to the one on game length (i.e. "do you think this game is in the right category")

[Snarky]

To prove Mr Fish's point, I wouldn't consider MI1 "easy". It's not mind-bendingly hard, but it has a ton of puzzles, most of which require you to actively engage your mind, and some that are downright sneaky. That immediately makes it far more difficult than many other adventures and AGS games. It's a typical example of a "moderate" game, I would say.

Still, I generally agree that difficulty ratings could be agreed upon, and even if they wouldn't be precise, they could still be useful.

[LimpingFish]

A difficulty rating determined by player feedback would therefore be the answer. A single panel member's opinion of a game's difficulty level would be more or less pointless, as, like it or not, it would be a subjective opinion.

And the point of such a rating anyway? Wouldn't it discourage people from playing games rated as high difficulty, or those rated low, depending on what they were looking for? What if a game has mostly easy puzzles, but a handful of hard ones? Is this why we have hint threads and such?

If such a rating is to be implemented then, as I've said, leave it strictly to player feedback.