I am not a game developer. I just like to play adventure games. The AGS site is a very good repository of adventure games.
However, it is very difficult to find the good games on the site. There is a rating system but there is no way to sort by rating or total number of downloads.
It will add a lot of functionality to the user experience if such sorting is added. Please add it.
Sorting by current ratings wouldn't work, as those ratings are highly arbitrary.
Sorting by number of downloads would be counterproductive, because then some authors would start artificially boosting their download rating (which actually they already do).
A couple months ago there was a project where a panel of forum members would go and rate everything; I assume they're still working on that since 900 games is quite a lot.
You can try Completed Game Announcement board. Popular games are on top all the time, because they get many comments.
Quote from: Radiant on Sun 02/12/2007 12:51:40
Sorting by current ratings wouldn't work, as those ratings are highly arbitrary.
Sorting by number of downloads would be counterproductive, because then some authors would start artificially boosting their download rating (which actually they already do).
Just because a system can be gamed, is no reason for the system not to be in place. Today's downloader is very savvy and gets his information from multiple sources. The ratings would be just one. Others would include total number of votes, and the user comments on the games page. But if the games are not sorted, he would likely not see the other information at all.
Quote from: Lionmonkey on Sun 02/12/2007 12:55:52
You can try Completed Game Announcement board. Popular games are on top all the time, because they get many comments.
This is only an option for a dedicated follower of the forum. And it does not give any idea of older games which are popular.
Quote from: ranon on Sun 02/12/2007 14:19:55
Today's downloader is very savvy and gets his information from multiple sources.
What makes you think so, especially as this "savvy" downloader is apparently unable to read the Finished Games forum?
And no, if a system is too easily gamed, that
is a reason for not installing it, because an easily abused rating system gives no meaningful information.
Quote from: Radiant on Sun 02/12/2007 12:51:40
Sorting by current ratings wouldn't work, as those ratings are highly arbitrary.
Every rating system is arbitrary. But still, it's better than no rating at all.
I would really like such a sorting function. I returned to the site after a few months, and I had no easy way to find out which good games were made in my absence.
Quote from: Lionmonkey on Sun 02/12/2007 12:55:52
You can try Completed Game Announcement board. Popular games are on top all the time, because they get many comments.
NEW popular games are on top, but as games get older, their threads disappear even for the most popular games.
If you're new tot the site and the games, currently the best ways is the 'Pick of the Month'-page, but it just takes a few days to play through thoses games.
Quote from: Radiant on Sun 02/12/2007 14:33:09
What makes you think so, especially as this "savvy" downloader is apparently unable to read the Finished Games forum?
You must diferentiate between an active user of this forum and somebody who is just browsing to play some games. Also as was pointed out the finished games fourm is not useful for older games that are popular.
QuoteAnd no, if a system is too easily gamed, that is a reason for not installing it, because an easily abused rating system gives no meaningful information.
Even if the system can be gamed, it should not come in the way of improving the user experience. As of now the system is hardly useful. Some rating is better than nothing at all. And as I mentioned, there are other ways that a user can tell if a game is good or the rating is just gamed.
Quote from: JimmyShelter on Sun 02/12/2007 14:41:52
Every rating system is arbitrary.
False.
QuoteBut still, it's better than no rating at all.
Also false.
No information is better than
misleading information.
This is being worked on. Eventually the games page will have additional genre categories and such to make finding a specific type of game easier. Progress is at or around 70% I would say.
You could also check out the Pick of the Month on the games page, or look at some of the sites that review freeware adventures, such as http://www.adventuregamers.com or Four Fat Chicks.
Quote from: Radiant on Sun 02/12/2007 20:59:04
QuoteBut still, it's better than no rating at all.
Also false. No information is better than misleading information.
But you have the rating system. So that is some information. What you are saying is that the system can be manipulated. However, how will sorting on that basis increase or decrease the ability of the system to be manipulated?
Quote from: Radiant on Sun 02/12/2007 20:59:04
Quote from: JimmyShelter on Sun 02/12/2007 14:41:52
Every rating system is arbitrary.
False.
Please elaborate.
Quote from: Radiant on Sun 02/12/2007 20:59:04
Quote from: JimmyShelter link=topic=33094.msg428687#msg428687
quote]But still, it's better than no rating at all.
Also false. No information is better than misleading information.
I'd rather choose to be one-eyed than blind.
Quote from: Radiant on Sun 02/12/2007 20:59:04
Quote from: JimmyShelter on Sun 02/12/2007 14:41:52
Every rating system is arbitrary.
False.
A rating system is always subjective, it's always based on opinions, not fact. How could it not be arbitrary?
Does a rating of 78% mean the game is precisely 1% better then a game with 79%? Ofcourse not.
But on the other hand, would it help my choices when trying to pick a game if I could sort it by rating? Hell yeah.
I'd love to play all the 90% games. If only, to see if the rating's right.
I always rate games after playing them, even more so if I disagree with the current score.
Quote from: bicilotti on Mon 03/12/2007 13:45:06
I'd rather choose to be one-eyed than blind.
Most people would choose to make their own decisions, rather than being misled by false data.
Quote from: JimmyShelter on Mon 03/12/2007 14:20:41
A rating system is always subjective, it's always based on opinions, not fact. How could it not be arbitrary?
That is simply false. Most
good rating systems are, or at least purport to be, based upon fact. You know, to make them
not arbitrary.
QuoteI always rate games after playing them, even more so if I disagree with the current score.
Yes, but because most people
don't do that, the current scores are arbitrary. So in effect, you want to play a number of arbitrarily chosen games to find out if you agree with their arbitrary scores. You can already do that.
Back in June 2006 I wrote a script that downloaded all the rankings and generated this page:
http://ssh.me.uk/ranking.htm
Quote from: ranon on Sun 02/12/2007 14:19:55
This is only an option for a dedicated follower of the forum. And it does not give any idea of older games which are popular.
Do you have to be a
dedicated follower to just look at a forum? You can sort by number of replies, by the way. This would take care of the age problem. I'm not trying to refute all your arguments, just pointing out a practical possibility that you seem to have overlooked. I don't give a damn about the ideology behind all this.
Quote from: bicilotti on Mon 03/12/2007 13:45:06
I'd rather choose to be one-eyed than blind.
And I'd rather be blind than hallucinating. I'm not taking sides in this discussion, just pointing out that non sequitur.
Here's the latest rankings: http://ssh.me.uk/ranking200712.html
Quote from: SSH on Mon 03/12/2007 16:37:09
Here's the latest rankings: http://ssh.me.uk/ranking200712.html
Thank you very much.
Edit: I already found a game that I want to download using this. I'll be playing the Earl Bobby games tonight. This is incredibly useful.
Quote from: EldKatt on Mon 03/12/2007 16:00:57
Do you have to be a dedicated follower to just look at a forum? You can sort by number of replies, by the way. This would take care of the age problem. I'm not trying to refute all your arguments, just pointing out a practical possibility that you seem to have overlooked. I don't give a damn about the ideology behind all this.
Yes that is a method that will work. Many forums do not allow sorting by replies and I guess I did not know about that feature until you told me about it. (and thanks for that)
However i still do not understand why a sort on the rankings are not provided. All I have got are convoluted arguments that really do not make sense.
You don't understand something and therefore you assume that it cannot make sense. Really now.
Quote from: Radiant on Mon 03/12/2007 15:50:43
Most people would choose to make their own decisions, rather than being misled by false data.
[...]
Most good rating systems are, or at least purport to be, based upon fact. You know, to make them not arbitrary.
Geez I really don't understand you. Many of the rating are genuine and made by fellows AGSers, there is a significant number of votes for the "major" games (and many useful comments too). You and I don't have to agree with them and the system is, like everyhing in this world, amendable, but I won't throw it into the bin labelling it "false information".
Having said that,
de gustibus: let's get over it.
Quote from: SSH on Mon 03/12/2007 15:51:49
Back in June 2006 I wrote a script that downloaded all the rankings and generated this page:
http://ssh.me.uk/ranking.htm
I'm browsing through it now, very,
very nice job SSH!
Quote
However i still do not understand why a sort on the rankings are not provided. All I have got are convoluted arguments that really do not make sense.
If the mountain will not come to Muhammad... again thanks SSH.
Quote from: Radiant on Mon 03/12/2007 16:54:10
You don't understand something and therefore you assume that it cannot make sense. Really now.
Why don't you answer the question I posed in post #11.
Quote from: Radiant on Mon 03/12/2007 15:50:43
Quote from: JimmyShelter on Mon 03/12/2007 14:20:41
A rating system is always subjective, it's always based on opinions, not fact. How could it not be arbitrary?
That is simply false. Most good rating systems are, or at least purport to be, based upon fact. You know, to make them not arbitrary.
Ok, that makes me wondering, what is in your opinion the difference between this rating systems, and good rating systems?
Quote from: Radiant on Mon 03/12/2007 15:50:43
QuoteI always rate games after playing them, even more so if I disagree with the current score.
Yes, but because most people don't do that, the current scores are arbitrary. So in effect, you want to play a number of arbitrarily chosen games to find out if you agree with their arbitrary scores. You can already do that.
Yes, you can do that, but you need to wade through pages of games before finding highly rated games, however arbitrary the rating system is.
You seem to think adding a sort by rating option won't advance the games listing, but I don't see how it would reduce the value of the listing in any way if such an option would be added.
Well, it would provide more motivation for people to falsely boost their own scores.
That would be a problem.
Quote from: Candall on Mon 03/12/2007 17:39:32
Well, it would provide more motivation for people to falsely boost their own scores.
That would be a problem.
Only registered users can vote right? Well, then it's checkable if there's cheating.
Quote from: Radiant on Sun 02/12/2007 20:59:04
Quote from: JimmyShelter on Sun 02/12/2007 14:41:52
Every rating system is arbitrary.
False.
Fun and beauty aren't facts and cannot be rated on a scale from 1 to 10. Something may be a turd for someone and a gem to somebody else and vice versa.
Back on the topic, if I was cut from the internet for several months, I'd simply trust the AGS awards (http://www.americangirlscouts.org/AGSAwards/awards.php) to keep me up to date with what I could have missed, and I'd just download all award winners and nominees. It has yet to fail me, even if 5 nominations per categories aren't enough when the number of quality games keep increasing every years.
Quote from: Candall on Mon 03/12/2007 17:39:32
Well, it would provide more motivation for people to falsely boost their own scores.
That would be a problem.
Actually, if the rating system is made more user friendly there will be more and more people like myself who will rate games after playing them and will swamp out any malicious voting.
There are ~3800 members at current count. Even the best games have at most 100 votes. If the system is improved there will be a large improvement in the total votes and it will take too large an effort to game the system.
Quote from: ranon on Mon 03/12/2007 09:43:57
But you have the rating system. So that is some information. What you are saying is that the system can be manipulated. However, how will sorting on that basis increase or decrease the ability of the system to be manipulated?
If the list can be sorted based on rating, then people are
more likely to attempt to manipulate their rating. At the moment, people are unlikely to bother trying to boost their game's rating because it's not really going to make any difference, except maybe get a couple of extra interested players who happen to see it.
But if the game list is sortable by rating, then people have an incentive to try and bump their game to the top of the list as a marketing ploy to get more players; this in turn means we have to have heavier moderation of the page to spot any troublemakers, which eats into peoples time, and so on.
However, as Progz has mentioned there is a review underway of the games page and we have a team of people giving each game an "official" rating which will be sortable.
Quote from: Pumaman on Mon 03/12/2007 18:48:48
However, as Progz has mentioned there is a review underway of the games page and we have a team of people giving each game an "official" rating which will be sortable.
Got any idea when it will be officially finished? Soon I hope :D
I find the system very easy to use as it stands right now, although I'm not against this new rating system. I don't understand how you can get confused or feel offended that the system is "hiding gem games" from you. When I look for a game I would look at the screen shot, then read the description, and THEN look at the rating. If nothing has put me off then I will download.
I'm sure I am not the only one who doesn't rely on ratings :-\
I just don't find the ratings to be very accurate, it's less accurate than if a team of people who review games professionally did one. Which is exactly why a non biased team is doing just that!
Looking at the overall enjoyment scores, Sydney Finds Employment is about 13 places below my own (unavailable unless I ever get some webspace) game "Secrets" which surprises me as I'd expect Sydney to be much higher than my own. It also was download over 5000 times to date where as mine is just over 2000.
Looking at the breakdown of votes on my game, 2 people rated the graphics as "super" and 1 person called it "Abysmal"! I agree with neither, I'd say they're "Average".
What I'm getting at, is although SSH's guide will give you a good idea, you're going to miss out on some good games if you only go so far down that list. (I'm not including mine in this sentence!)
Quote from: Pumaman on Mon 03/12/2007 18:48:48
Quote from: ranon on Mon 03/12/2007 09:43:57
But you have the rating system. So that is some information. What you are saying is that the system can be manipulated. However, how will sorting on that basis increase or decrease the ability of the system to be manipulated?
If the list can be sorted based on rating, then people are more likely to attempt to manipulate their rating. At the moment, people are unlikely to bother trying to boost their game's rating because it's not really going to make any difference, except maybe get a couple of extra interested players who happen to see it.
But if the game list is sortable by rating, then people have an incentive to try and bump their game to the top of the list as a marketing ploy to get more players; this in turn means we have to have heavier moderation of the page to spot any troublemakers, which eats into peoples time, and so on.
However, as Progz has mentioned there is a review underway of the games page and we have a team of people giving each game an "official" rating which will be sortable.
A rating is not the only piece of information that one uses to decide on playing the game. There are other pieces e.g. no of votes, the comments in game page. A rating is only the starting point. If one sees a game with a high rating but with poor reviews, a downloader is savvy enough to disregard that rating. but at least the information must be available in a good form.
There are two diametrically opposite ways to design rating systems.
The first would be an open system where everybody can rate and there is only rudimentary IP checking to check for duplicate ratings. This system is very scalable and can be used for large systems. It depends on the fact that it is very user friendly to rate and so a large number of people will rate the games and manipulating the ratings will take too much effort for anybody. The best examples of this type of system are digg and wikipedia.
The second is a closed system, which is suited for smaller communities. This system requires registration to rate and cannot be scaled to larger communities. It depends on authentication to prevent duplicate ratings.
The administrators must decide which one of the two methods they should use. From what i gather there is a fear about manipulating the vote and a trend towards the second method.
Still in this (second) method, I would offer a suggestion. Use a weighted system. In this the people who have submitted at least one game (submitters) get a larger weight than people who have not submitted any game. Say, each vote of the submitters counts as 10 votes of any other members. This will almost eliminate duplicate voting.