AGS Games page update

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Complaining makes people hate and distrust you; asking nicely often works .

[Ultra Magnus]

Curious, at least. If some people discuss about have a different rating for commercial games, do not be the same for a training game?

"Training Games" is in itself a compromise. It means the panel understands that these games were just made to try out AGS, but a cup rating will still be awarded just the same.

Soooo.... the term "training game" basically refers to someone's first game when it isn't any good?
Surely good first games are equally "training", no?

[mätzyboy]

How would I as a games creator bring attention to the fact that a broken link has been fixed? I tried scanning this thread for instructions, but couldn't se any. If I missed it, please point me in the right direction.

I think this new rating is interesting, but I think the outcome will be that more people will play a smaller selection of games (i.e. the ones with many cups). Yes there is the alternative votes by people who played the game, but I can't see how this will ever have an impact for game sthat receive a low cup rating to start with as they are unlikely to be played.

I also have never understood and still do not understand, why the user rating can not be used for searching the DB. Especially now that the cups are in place, and we can search by them.

It's fun to see some change happening with the games page though! Kudos to the team of rating people for completing this daunting task!

[AGA]

Anyone can edit their own game's page, by clicking the "Are you this game's author? Then you can edit its entry." link at the bottom of the page. Do that if you want to correct your game's download link. You don't need a password to do this if you're signed into the forums with the same account as the game's creator is marked as.

[Andail]

I think this new rating is interesting, but I think the outcome will be that more people will play a smaller selection of games (i.e. the ones with many cups). Yes there is the alternative votes by people who played the game, but I can't see how this will ever have an impact for game sthat receive a low cup rating to start with as they are unlikely to be played.

This was the issue before, with people looking for games with plenty of downloads and users' grades. Problem was that less honest authors "improved" those figures on their own. The cup system can't be abused in this way.
Instead of regarding it as a system that only promotes high grade games, you can see it as a way to ignore the games that aren't worth downloading and playing.

I think we must all acknowledge that a lot of people have published games that they didn't spend much time or serious effort in producing. A good portion of the database are very rashed releases, made only because it's cool to have a "game" out there and get some attention.

I also have never understood and still do not understand, why the user rating can not be used for searching the DB. Especially now that the cups are in place, and we can search by them.

For the reason you mentioned yourself; there's no need to further encourage people to avoid the "middle" games and only focus on the top titles.

It's fun to see some change happening with the games page though! Kudos to the team of rating people for completing this daunting task!

I agree, the panelists have done a tremendous job. As I was involved in, and partly responsible for, the conception of this project, I can only regret that I haven't been more active in the rating process.

[bicilotti]

I also have never understood and still do not understand, why the user rating can not be used for searching the DB. Especially now that the cups are in place, and we can search by them.

If the mountain won't come to Muhammad, SSH will bring him the mountain on a silver plate: http://ssh.me.uk/ranking200712.html Horray to SuperScottishHero and handshake to everryone who worked on the cups thing.

[mätzyboy]

Anyone can edit their own game's page, by clicking the "Are you this game's author? Then you can edit its entry." link at the bottom of the page. Do that if you want to correct your game's download link. You don't need a password to do this if you're signed into the forums with the same account as the game's creator is marked as.

The game link is fixed since a few months back and is working. What I'm wondering is if I can draw the voting panel's attention to the fact that I have fixed the link.

I also have never understood and still do not understand, why the user rating can not be used for searching the DB. Especially now that the cups are in place, and we can search by them.

For the reason you mentioned yourself; there's no need to further encourage people to avoid the "middle" games and only focus on the top titles.

I disagree, I think we can find plenty of examples where the user rating differs from the panel rating, and that is where the user vote becomes interesting. I would for example be interested in looking for games with a high user rating and low cup spec. It is also the only way for peer reviewers to show an opposing opinion to the panel's rating. By not allowing searching for user rating we give the cup rating validity, and disqualify the user votes completely for any useful comparison. The panel vote is thereby not questionable.

[Radiant]

IMHO the category "MAGS" or maybe "Games made in competitions" or something should remain since games made with a deadline are different from normal games, and people have different standards for it.
At least as an extra option (like with commercial games) so people can include/exlude them from their searches.

In my opinion, whether or not a game is a "MAGS game" would best be implemented as a checkbox (just like whether a game is "commercial" is also a checkbox).

This is because some MAGS games are short games, some are medium-length games, and some are non-adventure games; if all of those were simply placed in the category of MAGS games, it would not be possible to tell them apart.

It is useful to be able to search for MAGS games; however, I believe it is also useful to be able to search for all non-adventure games, or all short games, and so forth, regardless of whether or not these were made in MAGS.

[Ishmael]

In the essence of MAGS games being indicated by a checkbox, should OROW games be aswell? Since they're usually at the shortest end of the short games range, and not everyone knows at all what OROW is...

[TwinMoon]

Mags as a checkbox instead of a category is indeed better, for the search option reasons Radiant put forth.

(and with extra option I meant checkbox of course, my mind needs a holiday I guess)

[LimpingFish]

Soooo.... the term "training game" basically refers to someone's first game when it isn't any good?
Surely good first games are equally "training", no?

Heartland Deluxe was not the first game I made, but it was the first game I decided to give a proper release to. In learning AGS, I had made numerous "games" beforehand that will never see the light of day. Those are my training games.

When people choose to add this kind of game to the database (usually accompanied by "My first ever game! I made it to try out AGS! It's crap, but please play it!") they receive the label "Training Game".

The game link is fixed since a few months back and is working. What I'm wondering is if I can draw the voting panel's attention to the fact that I have fixed the link.

Sorry about that. I've removed the "not working" status from your game's entry.

[Radiant]

When people choose to add this kind of game to the database (usually accompanied by "My first ever game! I made it to try out AGS! It's crap, but please play it!") they receive the label "Training Game".

You know, this strikes me as a not such a good idea. If the label "training game" essentially means that "this game is bad", then that would be the exact same thing as giving it a one-cup rating.

Giving a game both a one-cup label and a training label is saying it's not only bad, it's so bad that it has to be explicitly stated twice how bad it is - insult to injury, so to speak. And indeed, with a single exception (a game which ought to be in the "short" category anyway), every single training game has one cup. So this extra category doesn't seem to actually help anyone, and it does seem disheartening to whomever gets his games rated like that.

Besides, the more complex the category scheme becomes, the less likely people will actually be able to find what they want. The "game length" tag is meant to, you know, indicate game length (short, moderate, long); not to indicate that "we really think this game is too low quality to be in the database".

[LimpingFish]

When people choose to add this kind of game to the database (usually accompanied by "My first ever game! I made it to try out AGS! It's crap, but please play it!") they receive the label "Training Game".

You know, this strikes me as a not such a good idea. If the label "training game" essentially means that "this game is bad", then that would be the exact same thing as giving it a one-cup rating.

Apples and oranges, really.

We could label them Training Games and leave the rating off, I suppose. It wouldn't affect the quality of the game, though, and wouldn't give any indication of said quality either. Training games, in most cases, also happen to be "first game" releases, made simply as an "Hello world!" to the AGS community, and the label would generally be applied in those circumstances.

Joke games, in general, receive 1 cup also. We could leave the ratings off those too, but people would just accuse us of not warning them that the joke wasn't funny.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

It would be unfair to rate some games and not others and would pretty much defeat the point of a coherent, rated database of games.

About the added categories.  I'm all for a more robust selection of categories in general.  Right now there are too few classifications (imo) to satisfy all the games in the database, sports and boardgames being the two most obvious to suffer.  I don't see a problem with MAGS being entered as a sub-category because it's an official AGS contest.  OROW is not, really, and is run by scotch randomly and when he has the free time and interest.  Still, if enough people really wanted an OROW tag I don't think anyone would care, and it's ultimately up to CJ whether more distinctions are added to the list.


And yeah, we will be happy to restore games to working status if the authors update their download links!

[Ultra Magnus]

Soooo.... the term "training game" basically refers to someone's first game when it isn't any good?
Surely good first games are equally "training", no?

Heartland Deluxe was not the first game I made, but it was the first game I decided to give a proper release to. In learning AGS, I had made numerous "games" beforehand that will never see the light of day. Those are my training games.

When people choose to add this kind of game to the database (usually accompanied by "My first ever game! I made it to try out AGS! It's crap, but please play it!") they receive the label "Training Game".

From what I understand, a lot of people don't release their first game(s), but then a lot do, too.
How about NES Quest or Infection? They were both first-ever efforts, and were both pretty darn good.
They're just as much about learning AGS as the crap ones.

Maybe "training games" could just be expanded to "first games" and include the good with the bad.
I'd personally be just as interested in how good a first game can be as how bad. More so, in fact.

[BlackDragon1200]

While skimming through the new ratings i noticed that 'Principles of Evil I' was given only 2 cups. This surprised me as it seemed to be a very well recieved game but of course these ratings are subjective so obviously it didn't have the same appeal to whoever rated the game.

What surprised me more though was that such a highly rated game was given such a low rating without a comment from the panel being included. I would be really interested to know why the person who rated this game felt it deserved such a low rating and therefore would like to request a comment be added to the game from the panel.

[EDIT]Actually it would be really great to get comments on any game with a large difference between it's cup and user rating, just so we can see why the reviewers opinion was so different from the communities.

[LimpingFish]

PoE was rated during the first days of work on the new database beginning, when adding comments wasn't a priority.

Notes about the ratings on a number of games were kept, however, so more comments may be added to already rated games in the future.

If you look at the user comments, you'll see a number of issues people had with the game, which may not be accurately reflected in the rating.

[BlackDragon1200]

PoE was rated during the first days of work on the new database beginning, when adding comments wasn't a priority.

Notes about the ratings on a number of games were kept, however, so more comments may be added to already rated games in the future.

Good to hear.

If you look at the user comments, you'll see a number of issues people had with the game, which may not be accurately reflected in the rating.

While there are definatly negative parts to many comments, most also paint the game in a positive light (Plus the games thread was largely positive). The general vibe i get for this games seems to me to be "flawed but i enjoyed it non the less". I'm interested to see what the panel thought.

[SSH]

Just in case anyone is interested (and I know bicilotti is!) I've updated my games rating trawl for July 2008 and added in a column for the cup rating which leads to some interesting things:

http://ssh.me.uk/ranking200807.html

The 5-cup games have user ratings of 86-93%

The 4-cup games have user ratings of 67-93% (Lowest: Dance Til You Drop)

The 3-cup games have user ratings of 27-91% (Lowest: Marty Chonks In Dances With Camels, Alien Threat, Ace Quest)

The 2-cup games have user ratings of 29-88% (Highest ranking: Quest for Glory 4 1/2   , Principles of Evil I, Casablanca,The Day After, Trevor Daison in outer space - Chapter one, Maniac Mansion Mania - Episode 9 - radioactive, Maniac Mansion Mania Episode 15: Place Machine, Bernard's Room. Lowest: Adventures of PQT, Don the Dweeb, Henk Stroem in Lost In Cellar)

The 1-cup games have user ratings of 1-89% (Highest ranking ones are Maniac Mansion Mania Episode 2 - Commotion, Rude Awakening!, Unfinished, Battle Warriors : Rovendale Tactics, La Gran Castanya and Rapstar 1.5. Lowest ranking: Proof of Fiction, Scnidersom and Murder)

[bicilotti]

Just in case anyone is interested (and I know bicilotti is!) I've updated my games rating trawl for July 2008 and added in a column for the cup rating

Thanks SSH! That will allow me to put my economectics studies into good (?) use.