AGS Games page review

[remixor]

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!!!

[santiago]

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.

[After]

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.

[LucasFan]

but maybe how many rooms and puzzles there are instead.

Heh, CJ should build in a "Use inventory on hotspot"-counter...  

[Matt Brown]

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.

[remixor]

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.

[remixor]

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.

[Kweepa]

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".

[Pumaman]

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?

If 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

[Vel]

I absolutely agree with you, CJ.

[Matt Brown]

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

[Vel]

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.

[Kweepa]

It's not obvious to me.
(Nor is it in any way relevant )

[Barcik]

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.

[Pumaman]

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.

I 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.

[After]

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

[santiago]

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?

(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.  

[Barcik]

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.

I 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.

[Captain Mostly]

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?

[big brother]

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?