There is something seriously ridiculous about AGS reviews

[lapsking]

Yes, it definitely does seem like there is a language barrier at play here. No, "Your game was rated by the AGS Rating Panel" does not inherently imply that multiple people played your game and collaborated to decide on a rating. Such a system would be impossible, and we'd never get any ratings done at all (even as it is, the Ratings panel is far behind the released games).

This system is possible and already exists. Check out your favorite movie on rotten tomato. If you don't have the possibility then why bother with it?

[Babar]

Critical ratings on rottentomatoes don't work anything like that. Rottentomatoes takes reviews from other sources (individuals and newspapers/sites/magazines) who have given them permission (and they have accepted), and combine and average those ratings. Every person/group who qualifies doesn't have to have written a review before there is a score for something on rottentomatoes. In fact, for new movies or obscure/unpopular movies, it is very possible that there is only a single critic's review when the score goes up, and more may or may not be added later.

Nobody is specifically writing reviews for rottentomatoes. It is a review aggregator with a selection process for reviewers.

[Crimson Wizard]

By the way another reason I deleted my games was to tell you there was/is no personal interest involved, in case anyone is struggling to understand that.

One thing amazing about this is how you claim certain goal, but achieve the opposite impression. After every addition or edit to your post(s) your position begins to look worse.
And you still cannot avoid putting condescending remarks into your posts... I mean "struggling to understand" in this case.

What's my goal?

I was referring to your very previous post, I think it was stated pretty clear:

By the way another reason I deleted my games was to tell you there was/is no personal interest involved, in case anyone is struggling to understand that.

What's amazing is the number of people that need to try to defend one by one that AGS panel review is "perfect".

I never had an intent to defend AGS panel. I had an intent to point out that you act silly and you put insults vs other people in almost every your post in this thread.

[lapsking]

Well Rotten tomato  is closer to what you are imagining. At least there is a group of people who don't come together but decide on a particular matter. Yours is not a group of people and you don't come together, and they don't decide on a particular matter. Each of them are deciding for a different matter. By the way I don't know if rotten tomato is using the word panel. I mean, really? One person? Why there is even a need for such a review or rating? If there was a group we could give the rating a value, or if it was a personal website we could this particular person has this review. What's the point of this kind of rating system? Do you see any accuracy or anything that makes a need to have a different rating and review for each game besides audience review? Maybe AGS panel review should also become visible after 5 people from the panel rated the game? I'm honest, it doesn't make sense to me.

[Babar]

I don't understand your point. I'm not the one who brought up rottentomatoes, you did. If now you feel they don't fit your meaning of how ratings should be done, then...why mention them at all?
As per the link I've already shared with you, the Ratings panel's function is to bring order to and categorise the vast number of games in the AGS DB.

[Rik_Vargard]

No you don't still get the point. I respected AGS so much and still I do (obviously, not as much as before). I had reviews more than "meh". Someone just made an account to give my game 0 or 1 out of 10 in the reviews. You guys still don't get it, I have no connection with media but someone can use this forum and edit AGS Wikipedia page and tell the world how the rating and reviewing system works. If you can be honest with yourselves there is no thing such as AGS panel rating or review. Each game is rated or reviewed by only 1 person. Then what's the point of it, abolish it. Audience ratings and reviews are enough. But still it seems you can't comprehend. And what bothers more than reviews and ratings is the fact that I don't see honesty here. My English is terrible, but it can be considered fraud (maybe not legally, but at least morally). If someone makes money with this system, you know , maybe it can even become illegal. I don't know much about laws.

I don't even know what to answer to something like that.

C'mon man, I do get the point; there's more than one. And at this point right now, your arguments are your so-called terrible english and the ethymology of the word "panel".

PS.: The review by LimpingFish did really recognize all the work you've done as a painter.

[lapsking]

I don't understand your point. I'm not the one who brought up rottentomatoes, you did. If now you feel they don't fit your meaning of how ratings should be done, then...why mention them at all?
As per the link I've already shared with you, the Ratings panel's function is to bring order to and categorise the vast number of games in the AGS DB.

I didn't mention panel. It's all over AGS website. It's written on each game page. So the function of AGS panel is not to review or rate a game? Obviously it is according to each game page. Even Snarky "confessed" yourselves didn't think it communates perfectly but it is a perfectly valid term. You reply I have to reply.

[Rik_Vargard]

ention panel. It's all over AGS website. It's written on each game page. So the function of AGS panel is not to review or rate a game? Obviously it is according to each game page. Even Snarky "confessed" yourselves didn't think it communates perfectly but it is a perfectly valid term. You reply I have to reply.

So, if ten people had played your game and they considered together that it's a 3 cup game, would that be OK with you?

[Babar]

Reviewing and rating every game is part of categorising them, yes. The rest of it, I don't know what you are saying or asking.

So now that we've established:
- There is an AGS Panel
- The Panel rates games as part of their function
- "The Panel rates games" does not mean that ever person in the panel played the game and rated it, and had their ratings averaged for the panel score.
- Nobody, ever, anywhere, at any time, suggested any system like the one above
- No system like the one above exists at this scope (including rottentomatoes, which you now accept does not work like that)

[lapsking]

Look at each game you want. There is "AGS panel rating" was this rating done by AGS PANEL? If not why call it AGS panel rating? It's the simplest English.

[Babar]

Look at each game you want. There is "AGS panel rating" was this rating done by AGS PANEL? If not why call it AGS panel rating? It's the simplest English.

Again, yes, nobody is denying the word panel is used. I don't know why you keep going on about that. The point being made is that it is only YOU who assumes that because the word "panel" is used, that automatically means something involving every member of that panel playing every game and rating every game together.

This is why I said there appears to be a language barrier. You are the only one who seems to think that's the way a panel has to operate. Nobody else has claimed that here.

[Rik_Vargard]

Yes,  it's like "Press Review" and "Mermbers Review" for like, every movie website.

PS.: You didn't answer my question 

[heltenjon]

Maybe AGS panel review should also become visible after 5 people from the panel rated the game? I'm honest, it doesn't make sense to me.

If I understand you correctly, you're referring to the way user reviews work, where five players have to have rated a game before the system shows the result as orange cups. Well, so far this year, one game has gotten the five ratings necessary to earn orange cups. One of all the games released in 2024. It's pretty clear that most people don't rate the games they play. Many games have lots of comments, but still no player rating. So in my opinion, more of us should rate (using the tiny vote button on the game page.)

Now, the point of the comments and user ratings are mainly to give feedback to the game dev, and also to other players. The panel ratings I think serve more as some sort of information to the players looking for a game to play. I think both are useful, in their own ways. But they are opinions of someone, and hence subjective. They will also seem odd when time passes. A game from fifteen years ago may have gotten praise for its graphics, yet not be so impressive when compared to something people can do today.

In the FAQ Babar linked to, it says:

How does the Panel work?
The Panel works on the following premises:
1. Every member records which game he/she has rated in a special thread, along with a motivation. There is no anonymity within the panel.
2. Any rating can be challenged and discussed by fellow panel members.
3. The panel works under the supervision of each other and moderators.
4. The panel members are instructed and trained to rate according to certain guidelines and criteria that have been worked out in beforehand.
5. The panel members do not rate their own games.

The system is if course not perfect, but it opens for panel members to rate on their own or together, or challenge/discuss ratings. There have been several discussions about how the ratings should work or if they should exist at all over the years, but this information about how it is done has been public for a long time.

[lapsking]

There is a BIG difference in rating system, between "a member of AGS panel" and "AGS panel". Ask whoever is sitting next to you what's the difference.

[Snarky]

Even Snarky "confessed" yourselves didn't think it communates perfectly but it is a perfectly valid term.

I did not say that. I said: "You didn't know, and that is perhaps a signal that what it means could be communicated more clearly."

In other words, your misunderstanding is one data point that suggests the term might be prone to  misunderstanding. If others also find that it is easily misunderstood, then perhaps it needs to be explained better.

Being open to a possibility is not the same thing as believing in it. Also, there's no collective "yourselves" here: I gave my opinion, but I have nothing to do with the panel.

There are some questions around the panel that could be worth discussing (again, but it has been 15+ years), but I don't think it's worth discussing them with you, given how you are behaving in this thread.

[Stupot]

Why has this become a debate on the definition of the word 'panel'? It's just a word somebody chose to describe the group of blue-cup reviewers and this is is the first time I've seen anyone challenge that description.

They could have easily gone with 'jury', 'board', or 'committee'. And all of those could also be interpreted as a group of people all playing through a game and then discussing it at length and giving it a score everyone agrees with.

I know that in an ideal world that is exactly what the AGS Panel would love to be able to do, but they also have real lives, and everything that entails. So, usually one person plays the game, they inform the rest of the panel of their verdict and invite agreement or disagreement from any other members who may have played the game. Also if another panel member plays a game at a later point and totally disagrees with the current blue-cup rating, they can (and it has happened) challenge the score and then the panel can discuss it and, if agreed, change it.

So there is a panel/board/committee-esque approach to the blue cup ratings, moreso than you have been led to believe in this thread, but yes, it is usually one member who gives the initial rating.

[Ponch]

Ultimately, an AGS Panel review is just that: a single review. Some of my favorite games, be they triple A or freeware, didn't get the best reviews from the gaming press, but I still love them. And other games I've played were critical darlings but they didn't do much for me. Heck, most of my own Barn Runner games earned a middling 3-cup rating, and that's fine. Two of my games did a little better, and one was rated a measly 2-cups (which it probably deserved, although for a MAGS game, I'm still really proud of it). Further, two of the games I worked the hardest on, and am the most proud of (Forever Friday chapter 3 and 5) never even got a rating by the AGS Panel, but that's fine too.

Everything that happens at this site is done by people who give up a little (or a lot) of their free time to support a hobby that is kind of fringe nowadays. Some people work on the next build of the engine, other people take time to help newcomers trying to understand the rather quirky AGS engine, and some take the time to actually play many of the games made by this community and rate them for the benefit of people poking around in the ever-growing database looking for a new adventure game to play.

If one reviewer really liked one of my games, that's great. If another reviewer didn't, that's okay too. Like most of the people here, they're doing this because they have a passion for AGS (and they're doing it for free -- let's not forget that!). At the end of the day, it's just a single review. And a rating of 3 is more than acceptable (unlike that 2, which will haunt me until my last breath    ). I've played lots of 3-cup AGS games, and enjoyed most of them. I'm chagrined to admit that I rarely rate the games I play    but most of them I would probably rate a 2 or 3, if I'm being honest.

I'm glad to have you here, Lapsking, and I appreciate that you've chosen to spend the time and effort needed to make good games with this engine. As someone who's been using AGS since 2003, I understand why the games we make mean so much to us. But there's not much to be gained by being this upset over something as inconsequential as a couple of average game reviews. I don't know about you, but I make my games to entertain myself more than for any other reason. Sure, I wish all of my games were rated 5-cups and swept all the categories at the annual AGS Awards, but that's not why I do this, you know? 

[LimpingFish]

I must say that I'm very disappointed that you've removed your games from the database, especially since your argument keeps refocusing on whatever straw is closest to grasp. First, it was the fact that your game wasn't held to judgement against your previous game, then it was the wording of my panel comment, now it's the very meaning of the word "panel".

People have largely been more than gracious in their responses to you, yet you continue to claim you have been wronged and repeatedly belittle both the community and those behind the scenes. Perhaps we do have a language barrier, yet I'd only accept that as an excuse if you showed any sign of cooperation or willingness to correct yourself. You haven't, and instead you've removed your games from the database and continue to argue that everyone except you is in the wrong.

Frankly, I believe it's simply a case of your ego being hurt and you're either unwilling or incapable of owning up to that fact, and instead you're determined to find fault, not with yourself, but with a community that's been gracious and largely supportive of your work.

That being the case, I won't be replying to this thread any further, and my last contribution will be to urge you to rethink your position, and to consider returning your games to the database.

[lapsking]

Imagine there are 10 dishes of food and 10 food testers. Each food tester rates one dish and separately gives the food a rating. Do you have any value for this rating? Gavin says the

Imagine there are 10 dishes of food and 10 food testers. Each food tester rates one dish and separately gives the food a rating. Do you have any value for this rating? Gavin says the bean burger is good and Edward says the pizza is good in this restaurant. Maybe Gavin loves burger and Edwatd hates burger. What's the point of this kind of rating? Unless Gavin publishes his rating on a personal website or under the name Gavin in a newspaper. So some people trust Gavin's food tasting and buy his highly rated food. What should I do with a rating that comes from an anonymous person? I have no clue, personally. At audience review is a group of 5 people or more.

Edit We are a family of 5 and each has a different favorite food among my grandmother's food. What value does this give to my uncle specially if we keep it anonymous. Please give attention rhe cook is the same, now find the tailor.
Edit 2 Another thing:
Is LimpingFish = AGS Panel. I was taking AGS panel reviews seriously, now I've realized it was just LimpingFish reviews.

Edit 3 You don't have the resources but you are insisting to give a kind of professional ratings from AGS. This kind of rating has nothing to do with professionalism. Which makes it very awkward.
Edit 4 and the more you defend this rating system the more awkward it looks.

Edit5 I understand somehow your reactions. It's like telling someone after 20 years or something your holy religion doesn't make sense. Their whole being will crumble. I've tried it before and it never worked. I don't why I'm trying it again. I think AGS has become kiind of a religion for you.

Edit6 if LimpingFish wrote his review in comments like the rest, I would be greatful. But reviewing separately as AGS panel like it's a very professional review or rating that deserves to have a separate entity? Still maybe audience gave 1 cup to the Order. I could learn something from that too. That people don't like these kind of games and I have to become a Uber driver. But I have no value for AGS panel rating and review as a separate phenomena.

Edit7 putting AGS panel rating aka LimpingFish rating above audience rating makes me think AGS panel rating aka LimpingFish rating has kind of superiority to 5 audiences rating. Do you guys see that in yourself? I wouldn't even allow myself to do something like that on AGS website.

Edit8 What do you know about "art" LimpingFish aka AGS panel? Can we discuss art for a while?

[Stupot]

Mate, you keep getting more wrong with each edit.

It is just a fun(?) feature of a hobbyist website. No one said anything about professional journalism.