Here's something that has been troubling me lately:
The game/notgame Life (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/games.php?action=detail&id=1270) did get a panel review, but without any rating due to it not being a game. I think that was actually a good idea.
Later on, 2 titles I enjoyed as short storytelling experiences with interesting presentation Diquiet (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/games.php?action=detail&id=1333) and Huong Jiao Ping (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/games.php?action=detail&id=1236) got 1 cup each for not having any gameplay.
I think panel should establish some uniform policy for titles without gameplay, because such discrepancies in evaluating different titles shouldn't happen.
Anyone agrees/disagrees?
I agree. I'm shouting from a long time that panel rating judging is not logical.
LOL.
The panel will rate on the basis of experience. If they enjoyed it then it gets 6 million cups and a full tea-set. If they were bored by it then it gets half a cup.. with no saucer.
Let's stay focused on that specific issue. This is not meant to be another Cosmos Quest thread about condemning the Rating Panel, because flawed as it might be it is very much needed and questioning this fact leads us nowhere.
Quote from: Ascovel on Sun 07/11/2010 18:29:40
I think panel should establish some uniform policy for titles without gameplay, because such discrepancies in evaluating different titles shouldn't happen.
It's a simple matter of establishing a clear policy in an area where there isn't one at the moment (or alternatively leaving everything as it is).
Harg, please. Nobody cares.
On topic:
I'm with Calin here, and I also think the panel rating was accurate in both accounts. Huong Jiao Ping is a work of art, no game. It wasn't intended to be one. It doesn't even have its own thread.
My own game got two cups. I wouldn't dream of bitching about that.
Having only five different ratings for the huge variety of games out there is difficult enough, and the second to lowest rating says "A reasonable game, worth a try".
So please, why don't we finally move on?
Quote from: Khris on Sun 07/11/2010 20:15:10
On topic:
I'm with Calin here, and I also think the panel rating was accurate in both accounts. Huong Jiao Ping is a work of art, no game. It wasn't intended to be one. It doesn't even have its own thread.
My own game got two cups. I wouldn't dream of bitching about that.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand how is your response on topic (or Calin's for that matter).
The topic is "Is it ok that some games get no rating at all and the explanation given is 'this is not a game', and some other games get 1 cup also with the same explanation 'this is not a game'?"
You could even change the 1 cup ratings for 5 cup and it would still be double standards of rating.
But the 1 cup rating as a potential penalty for not being a game makes the situation more serious.
Please check the links I've given in the original post.
I think that makes sense, Ascovel. I haven't played the two games, but if they have little or none gameplay they shouldn't be rated (just like Life ) - or they should only be rated for the graphic/storytelling part and that should be mentioned in the review.
I see what you mean. On one hand the author may have intended it to be a game, and if they get no rating on the assumption that they didn't intend it to be a game, it might be quite disheartening.
So therefore it should be taken into account which category it was submitted to. If there was an "Experimental" section, then all submissions could be judged accordingly, taken into account they are not meant to have gameplay.
Sure, there is already a "Non-adventure game" category, but as it says in the title, those games are meant to be games.
I also think what Calin is trying to get at is that the panel will rate how good their experience was, of whatever is placed before them; regardless of whether it can be played or not. But from your examples, it is clear those games were enjoyed but given one cup, only because they weren't meant to be games.
Bottom line, the absence of policy stems from there being no "Other" category.
I don't wish to sound harsh, but you don't have to add your project to the database - especially if it's not actually a game. Since the panel rates according to an established criteria (as highlighted by Andail in a past thread), everything that's added to the database is exposed to that criteria.
I'm responsible for the entry on "Life", and my experience is pretty much summed up in my comment. Personally, I'm not against flagging these projects as being non-interactive and rating exempt, but then I'm also not against rating these projects based on how well they are executed or how much I enjoy them.
I don't think an "Experimental" section is the answer, because it's so open to abuse. I rate a one cup game, the author cries "Experimental!", and we're right back were we started.
We could enforce a "No Non-Game" rule, and be done with it. A little tough, I suppose, but it would save us some work.
Quote from: Ascovel on Sun 07/11/2010 20:27:23
The topic is "Is it ok that some games get no rating at all and the explanation given is 'this is not a game', and some other games get 1 cup also with the same explanation 'this is not a game'?"
Sorry, I missed the individual reviews on the games's pages. However.
The reviews and ratings are given by individuals, and different people might have different opinions about how much interactivity is needed to classify something as a game or whether this needs to be taken into account when rating the work or if it's even sensible to provide a rating.
LimpingFish said it all; basically you put the result of your work in a "Games database" on the homepage of the engine you've used. This is voluntarily, in fact it's an additional bonus offered by the creator of the free engine you've used.
Nobody forces you to publish your game here instead of on your private homepage or on another forum or in a newspaper. If you choose to do so though, your work becomes subject to the rating of a panel consisting of individuals. Live with it.
I for one base my decision of whether a newly published game is worth playing almost solely on the screenshots in the thread. If a game looks interesting to me, a one cup rating won't keep me from trying it.
Quote from: Khris on Sun 07/11/2010 22:05:05
If a game looks interesting to me, a one cup rating won't keep me from trying it.
Then what is the point of the cups?
Quote from: Harg on Sun 07/11/2010 22:18:25
Quote from: Khris on Sun 07/11/2010 22:05:05
If a game looks interesting to me, a one cup rating won't keep me from trying it.
Then what is the point of the cups?
Narf?
(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=narf)
I vote for a database reset. Everyone re-upload your games now!!!
Quote from: Khris on Sun 07/11/2010 22:05:05
basically you put the result of your work in a "Games database" on the homepage of the engine you've used. This is voluntarily, in fact it's an additional bonus offered by the creator of the free engine you've used.
Nobody forces you to publish your game here instead of on your private homepage or on another forum or in a newspaper. If you choose to do so though, your work becomes subject to the rating of a panel consisting of individuals. Live with it.
That's definitely the
best answer given out of all of these 'rating' rants.
Quote from: Khris on Sun 07/11/2010 22:05:05
Nobody forces you to publish your game here instead of on your private homepage or on another forum or in a newspaper. If you choose to do so though, your work becomes subject to the rating of a panel consisting of individuals. Live with it.
I agree with you, but that's not really directly related to the issue at hand here.
Nevertheless, if the majority says they don't need a consistent policy for titles without gameplay, then there is definitely no point arguing over it. Personally, I'd much prefer it was decided one way or the other for good, and not left to be decided separately for each individual review - to me it makes the ratings much less reliable.
And I do admit, I find the two mentioned 1-cup games rated harshly - in a way that condemns them to a very limited number of downloads. I'm not a strong proponent of interactive movies, but these 2 are really worth experiencing.
Aye, making motion pictures with AGS is fine but when you submit it to the database it's rated by the panel on its function as a game. I'm not entirely sure how the titles you mentioned play out, but the rule set used to rate a game won't necessarily comply with what sounds like "rolling demos". Non-interactive projects perhaps need their own guidelines for the ratings.
Quote from: Ascovel on Sun 07/11/2010 23:57:02
Personally, I'd much prefer it was decided one way or the other for good, and not left to be decided separately for each individual review - to me it makes the ratings much less reliable.
Like I said, I'm not against it one way or another. I dispute the question of reliability, though. Even removing the "punishment" of rating down for lack of gameplay, the quality of the experience is still highly subjective. The reviewer may like one effort more than another, so some sort or rating, even if it's not to everybody's satisfaction, is still valid.
But I see your point.
In the past I have put a couple of non game projects in the database so that people could find and make use of them. AGS is quite versatile and can be use for many purposes other than games. So why not have a couple of other non-game categories in the database that are not rated by the panel? It would make life easier for the panel and would avoid situations as described in the initial post.
- Experimental (whatever)
- Entertainment (IF, movie, comic strip, etc)
- Applications (SSH walk cycle generator, RickJ Event Timer)
- Open Source (code,resource packs,examples, etc)
If one wanted the game rating panel to rate one's work then it would be submitted to one the current categories. If it was submitted to one of the above categories then panel wouldn't have to bother with it.
Just my 21 cents ...
I would actually be for an "Application" category at least, seeing as there are a couple of them in the DB. Are there enough to warrant a new category? There are 82 "Non-adventure games" in the DB, and out of them, there are 11 "non-games" (including a surprising number of magic eightball/Ouiji/fortune teller/tarot simulators).
To compare, there are only 7 "Fantasy Horror" games in the DB, or 7 "Investigative Historical" games, or 5 "Remakes of Drama" games.
I've requested a more robust category system on a few occasions now, and as is the case with AGS, CJ just seems to busy to get around to it at this time. I don't think experimental would be a good classification at all because it's too broad, for one thing. If we are going to talk adding real categories as an option (and I think it's a good idea) then let us at least come up with solid, specific and narrow ones so people can best describe their submission to their audience. For non-interactive (beyond repeatedly pressing a key to parse text) submission I'd recommend just calling it a movie or something along those lines. Applications is definitely a good category to add because there are a growing number of those. Board/traditional games as well, like AGS Darts and so on would benefit from a unique category. I'd also like to see you be able to string genres together, like shift+left click horror+comedy (provided we got more of these categories) to make games easier to spot by specific gameplay types. Again, this falls back (unfortunately) on CJ's shoulders and what little time he has to examine these ideas and decide whether or not to implement them.
So, to sum up, an additional drop-down could be added that features options like:
Roleplaying
Movie
Application
Action
*Adventure (default?)
Puzzle/Boardgame
Text-Based
Sports
Of course there could be more, but the category identifier would allow people to go directly to the type of content they're looking for, be it an rpg or an application, and then from there decide on the story and genre they are interested in if applicable. I definitely think story and genre could use N/A options for stuff like applications as well.
As for evaluating rolling demos/submissions with no real gameplay, I don't really see a problem here. I'd rather see all entries where it's possible to see all the content (this excludes demos) get a rating based on the panel criteria, but at the same time un-interactive media lack the most important parts of that criteria: the game and the gameplay. While it can still be rated on the basis of story, graphics, and sound, I hardly hold it against LimpingFish for not finding enough to actually 'rate'. At the same time, the reviewers for the other two submissions mentioned clearly came away with opinions about what they saw and heard. You're welcome to disagree with the ratings as we've never suggested they were anything other than subjective opinions based on a set of guidelines.
At the end of the day, we all take away something different from a game we've played or a movie we've seen, whether it's a memorable quote or a catchy tune or some horrible gameplay mechanic or awful voice actor. We're all critics and that's okay as long as you don't take stuff like the ratings too seriously.
I'd also suggest making MAGS an attribute instead of a category, most of them are short or medium length games and MAGS should only be an additional search criterion.
The one example of this type of experience that I remember playing (in the sense that you play a movie, rather than a game) is the AGS Awards. That's in the database as a demo, which may be the best category available but still isn't quite right.
I agree with ProgZ's call for a more extensive and better-adapted classification system, and that at least some of them should be more like attributes or tags than like categories, so that one game could have multiple of them. If CJ or someone gets the time to implement this, we should probably have a discussion about which tags would be useful, and how they should be worded. (Isn't the kind of scripted animation we're talking about in this case what's usually called machinima?)
Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, so the hope for some future ideal system stop us from more immediate incremental improvements, though. This is not an argument over whether the ratings/non-ratings are "wrong" (much as Harg would like it to be), but an example that illustrates Ascovel's suggestion that the ratings panel consider how non-adventure games and non-games should be evaluated, if at all.
Yes, it might be just enough if there was a category/tag Interactive Movie (or just Movie) - it should clarify such games have a slightly different purpose. I agree that having completely separate rating methods for such gameplay-lacking titles would be messy and not that helpful for people browsing the database (I still think LimpingFish's idea to not give any rating to Life was the best).
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 08/11/2010 11:00:20
You're welcome to disagree with the ratings as we've never suggested they were anything other than subjective opinions based on a set of guidelines.
At the end of the day, we all take away something different from a game we've played or a movie we've seen, whether it's a memorable quote or a catchy tune or some horrible gameplay mechanic or awful voice actor. We're all critics and that's okay as long as you don't take stuff like the ratings too seriously.
Subjectivity + guidelines is a perfect combo for the database ratings, but I think their value shouldn't be looked at too lightly either.
They are serving as a guide for most people browsing the database (you can even search by the number of cups) - this means the ratings have an important function and serious consequences in how much exposure a game gets.