Listen Up! Public opinions ...
Top 50 of Best Games! Read our Top 10! The Readers Top 1000 of the Greatest Games of All Time! So great, each word has to be capitalized! You see them everywhere - in every magazine and on every site. So many pages have been devoted to them, so many trees have been cut down to print them but, in the end, are they more than a display of public ignorance?
A game such as Fallout 3 gets much higher rankings and votes than its older turn based brothers Fallout 1 & 2. Yet almost every RPG player worth his or her salt, will proclaim the older two games to be far superior in many ways. Myself, I can appreciate both approaches but as far as turn based RPGs are concerned, you can't do much better than Fallout 1&2 and they truly are great games so why do they fail to show up in most top 100 lists? The answer is simple: because this is a popularity contest, and this means popular genres will always bully the less popular ones in submission. Flight simulators, turn based games, tycoon games, adventure games, etc. these are all genres which contain some incredibly gems that rarely make the big news. The developers of the next Call of Duty game can't fart without it being covered by every site, but news of a quality strategy game is quickly overlooked. Just like democracy is heavily flawed because it's all about popularity above qualities, so is any ranking of games based on votes made by the public. Even on Abandonia, the public score is completely pointless. The biggest gems receive 3.5/5 and the mediocre crap receives ... 3.5/5. (work in progress) |
You gonna use the word "crap"? :p
Seriously, this is the article that zine like AT should definitely have sooner or later. However, this may turn into something bigger. I wouldn't even try to create something like TA's history of horror games article. However, this could be that start of standard magazine section where we review couple of old gems - games that may not be popular or are not popular anymore, but their quality of gameplay deserves to be mentioned. If I understood correctly, those "qualities" vary depending on the game's genre, or even sub-genre. I like that kind of approach. |
My Comments on Article So Far (2-2-2011)
I would agree with mako river - this work-in-progress has the looks of a great article! However, with the article as-is, I would disagree with your argument "Abandonia's own public rating system is worthless because the biggest gems receive the same score as the mediocre scum. [I substituted c^%$ with scum to make it less potentially-offensive]"
The main gripe I have with this argument at this point is its excessive relativism - without an idea of what you consider hidden gems and mediocre scum, you're gonna get a lot of angry e-mails saying how X game is a gem and Y game is scum, and neither of them got the same rating as you suggested in your article than if you had given your audience a clearer picture. Also, even if did follow my advice above, a thoughtful reader could see your argument as begging the following question: How many people actually voted on those games? If the numbers are high enough (assuming you're using the mathmatical formula of (A+B+C+...)/X, with A, B, C representing votes, ... representing potentially many more votes, and X representing the total number of votes), the votes will, given a sufficient mix of high and low votes, even out around 3.0 since 3 is the median for the number range 1-5. In the case of potentially-hidden gaming gems, for example, Railroad Tycoon has a rating of 3.9/5.0 based on the average 5,763 votes; however, Transport Tycoon Deluxe - arguably the best version of Transport Tycoon - has the same rating, but its average is based on 15,934 votes. In the case of genuine garbage (relatively based, in this case, on my agreement with an Abandonia reviewer's game rating of 2.0 or 1.0), for example, Barbarian has a rating of 3.2 based on the average of 1,415 votes; however, Pole Position has the same rating based on the average of 10 votes. I hope this long diatribe wasn't excessively filled with complicated words, red_avatar, and I hope that my opinion was helpful in some way. |
Oh, well - this happens everywhere... movies, music... or "the hottest 100 women of all time" ;)
Media are paid to create fads. They do not have memory longer than 3-4 years. Don't expect fine taste from the masses. Don't worry, I'm also suffering from the "why people around are so much into crap" syndrome. You get that when you have independent taste. I'm afraid no shrink can help us, it's a personality trait. |
So, should we be polite and simply point out some games we consider gems despite public acceptance, as well as their aged looks and capabilities, or should we start Don Quixote mission of flaming new cliche games and dig out some mostly old and unusual ones?? First approach is surely smarter, second approach is surely more fun :sneaky::ph34r::ouch::mischief:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The amount of votes will always have an influence, obviously - that's basic statistics - but your point is missing the mark because you don't seem to get what I was aiming at. I was basically saying that the scores are pointless - if you have tons of votes, it will even out at 3-3.5/5 for the huge majority of games regardless of their generally believed quality. Now, the big problem with this, is that people who are in no position to judge certain games, still get to judge them. I wouldn't read some romance novel written for middle aged women and if I was forced to, I'd probably rip it to pieces. So why do people see a strategy game and go "meh, strategy games are dull" and give it a 1/5? In my book, only adventure gamers should judge adventure games and so on. The myth that a game should be open to everyone regardless of genre is a ridiculous claim made by console players who want every genre to get dulled down around the edges so that even their 5 year old can play it without needing to read a letter of text. The PC used to be very genre exclusive in the early 90s, with deep and complex strategy games (including HEX combat) and flight simulators. The result is that, when you lump all platforms together, these complex games (which have a very faithful audience) will get "bullied" out of any ranking by the mainstream games and its (far larger amount of) players. Does this make these games, inside their own sub-genre, less quality? Of course not. Games need to be compared to others within its genre - you can't make the average gamer judge every game and expect the result to be reliable. Someone who doesn't like tactical RPGs, should know better than to play Fallout 2 and complain how hard it is yet they'll still give it a 1/5 while it clearly does not deserve such a score. |
I won't get into the fight over console games ruining PC games again since me and Red have similar ideas but different people to blame, however I do want to point out that mainstream games will always get more votes/likes/downloads/love whatever you want to call it. But they also get more hate as well.
There are always going to be people who play something that they were never going to like and then want to tell everyone they know how bad it was. It often makes them feel better. But saying that only people who like certain types of games have valid opinions is a bit odd. I don't really like FPS games but am quite able to understand why others do and find things in them that I like and dislike. I also think I can be a rather unbiased judge of any game I play and I think that is more the point, bias. Some people just can't seperate their emotinal bias from thinking about how to judge a game. E.T on the Atari is a prime example, everyone who has heard of it will tell you it is a horrible game, the worst ever to come out, however looking at it critically it isn't a good game but it isn't a horrible one either. It even sold well. Until every person who votes or judges a game (or anything else) can remove all of their own personal bias the scores will always be the same. I think your idea is valid Red but it smells of elitism something I can't stand that amongst gamers, everyone likes different things and are allowed to voice that opinion if they are given the chance. Anyone who decides what they are going to play just because of a artifical score is bound to be let down and anyone who thinks that something is wrong just because their favourite game is scored just like their most hated is missing the point. Someone else out there thinks that it is all the other way around. |
This raises again the question of user ratings. :P Have you noticed that many websites now tend to use a binary like/dislike rating instead of 1-5 stars (YouTube actually changed from the later to the former)? Myself I think something like 0-10 score is appropriate for the editor's rating (event though it's completetly subjective and other editor would give a completely different rating), but I think simply like or dislike, thumbs up or down, works better for "collective intelligence".
|
Quote:
And Darth: this is not about elitism, though. It's about genre bullying or: more popular genres totally overshadowing the great talent in the smaller genres which leads to even average games in the popular genres getting way more attention than even the best games in the smaller genres. AND about public voting being useless as an extension to that. |
I am not saying it is elitist Red just that it has the smell of it.
Even with a thumb system games are going to get voted down more then up. Think about it a game you would vote 3 on is one you might not like, so it gets a down thumb. Even a game that would get a 4 rating could get voted down because even though you respect other stuff about the game you don't like playing the game due to one thing. Just saying any voting system will be unfair to some games to some people. As far as I am think the votes on a game matter little, I will happily play a 1 game and find out for myself if it is good. If people are too focused on what games have been voted they are going to miss some classics and some horrible games. |
The whole Web 2.0 concept (user votes & comments) is just a glorified publicity stunt.
Imagine a public internet poll on the latest Hamlet performance in your city theatre. There will be people voting 1/5 who not only hadn't seen it, but who actually think "WTF is that hamlet? who cares about a small village? they made a play about it?" Another example: I've returned to watching old movies recently (back to childhood memories). I'm checking out ratings of certain 2 movies. One gets around 5/10, another 9/10. And I wonder why people choose one over another... as BOTH of them are NOT AVAILABLE to modern viewer (no private screenings, not shown on TV or released on home video). I doubt we have so many 90-year-olds (who could see the theatrical release) on the Internets? |
If you saw the movies as kids then others might have too and voted on it. But the point is why do we seem to care so much about the scores....why does it affect us when something we like gets a low score? Herd instinct at play, a fear of being different from the rest, or a sense that we know better then others?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Say, I enjoy Myst games. I enjoy the convoluted puzzles and the lack of deaths. No need have trigger fast fingers either so if I was a 60 year old guy who just retired and bought a PC, it might just be my thing. So a new Myst-style game gets released: great graphics, good puzzles, nice story. And it gets tons of negative votes by young gamers who give it comments like "boring", "no action!", "what a lame game", etc. How would that help me as a gamer who enjoys this type of games when the game gets bad votes exactly because it's that type of game. This has ZERO to do with knowing better, and everything to do with knowing what you enjoy yet scores being totally useless because the wrong kind of people vote. In short, the public is too big a mass, and just like in democracy, the biggest group within that public will win. If they dislike a genre, they'll just give it 1/5 while people who do like the genre, and even if the game was mediocre, it would still get 2 or 3/5. And yes, thumbs up/down have been proven to work better. It gives a more accurate picture of whether people in general like it or not - and it's not a score either. While it's still open to abuse, you won't see the problem of all the scores slowly creeping towards a 3.3/5. |
You are still missing the point Red. Why does a low score for a game you like upset you? It doesn't affect the game or if they will make another (that is normally based on sales and the people who like the game will buy it no matter what) and reviewers scores are normally the ones that developers care about not users. There will always be good games that slip through the mass media nonsense and be hidden gems normally due to the marketing department for that game relying on word of mouth to sell their games. You will always find loud people making a big deal about how bad a game is and they are often very loud making them seem to be more then they really are.
There is also the natural way humans react to a good or bad experience, when someone doesn't like something they want to tell everyone they know about how bad it was (leading to people voting 1 on any game they did not like even if it did have some good features). People normally don't feel the need to tell people about a good experience unless it was a very very good one (leading to fewer votes of 3 and 4 and only votes of 5 really getting used a lot.) Also can you please give me a current game that has had this low voting from people who don't like the genre lower it's game score amd on what site. You suggest that games that aren't CoD or MoH or their ilk get bashed all the time. However from my experience this is not the case, even indie games with new and odd concepts tend to get pretty good user scores. |
You could always phrase it differently, like the "x number of games you might never have thought to play before." Without arbitrary rankings etc.
Just a thought. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I have never said that your point about the users scores being useless is wrong. I think they are useless for a different reason, I hate all reviews giving scores or points or thumbs or whatever. I pay no attention to them what so ever, if I like a game I like it, I don't need to be validated by a review score nor do I get angry when others don't agree with me.
Lulus idea is the best one so far, it solves all the problems. It stops this from sounding like people being elitist and might actually make people look at a game they never would have before. However if this isn't really about having a part of the mag to showing off a game that others have panned but isn't really all that bad but rather about how you don't like user ratings then this isn't really the place for it. Peoples opinions will always differ and no matter how good a game is there will always be people who don't like it. |
I recently read an interview with the guys from Dynasty Warriors, regarding DW7 and how they manage to keep selling games. He boldly confessed that their games don't really bring a lot of new stuff compared to the previous installments. The secret to their success? It's something we call niche, or a specific part of the demographics.
Now niche players are the ones least affected by scores, user or otherwise. They know what to expect from the game, and they will buy it, cause it is the only one that gives what they seek. DW games might be average when putting all the parts together, but when I want a game where I would kill entire armies with just two hands, this is the franchise that immediately pops in my mind. Let's admit it, you can't have scores that suit all people, cause frankly we all have different tastes. So scores should usually apply to the bulk of the gamers, in other words mainstream players. That is if regarding from a professional site's perspective. |
Wouldn't it be simpler to change it to 'Reviewer's Opinion' and 'Other's said:' opinion?
The number scale opinion rating was put in place (I think) because of the way everyone thinks things are great, or they suck. Opinion, nothing else. Politics, music, smell, taste... basically all.. fall into this category. Face it! No vision of the world is the same when viewed by all others in a mix. And we are all kind of fortunate to have our eyes, ears, hands and minds to criticize all of those things. The world could be a much worse place to be in. |
Quote:
|
You're just not looking hard enough Marko. Here you go :)
|
Quote:
Oh wait! Compared to all of the other lives I've lived... um... Oh wait! When I was thinking about how great things were when... um... Hey! I think I hear my Mom calling me... <RUN AWAY!> :coward: I clearly have an advantage over most others though. I can wake up every day, look in the mirror, and laugh... after I am done screaming, of course. And then the neighbors call the cops because of the screams, and then I explain it all to the cops about what I saw in the mirror and they nod amongst themselves, knowingly. Then I get to ride in the fancy car with the flashing lights on top and see some people who have handfuls of pills for me. I get to spend some "alone time" to gather my thoughts in the room with all of the padded mattresses on the floors and walls... and then (after I am out of jail) we all sit down together and have a good laugh. :wacko:So the world isn't really all that bad. Just don't believe everything that you hear, and listen up when people share things like what Lulu_Jane had to say. Very, very small things add up to very, very big things. Ask any ant. |
Quote:
It is also stated that "almost RPG player worth their salt will agree that Fallout 1-2 is far superior [to other turn-based RPG's]..." I challenge this assumption as Fallout 1-2 is not the only "superior" turn-based RPG game out there. If I'm not mistaken, Final Fantasy is a turn-based RPG as well and has a totally awesome plot, graphics, the works AND if I'm not mistaken, it's still pretty popular even today! However, putting Final Fantasy aside, there are other really good turn-based rpg's that are out there and to say that Fallout 1 and 2 are the only good ones worth playing is most certainly a stretch. |
Quote:
For the rest - you're skirting around the issue which is that a genre which is popular will always get more votes while a game that is less popular genre-wise and is not within the line of interest for many gamers, will get more negative votes even if both games are seen as great ones within their genre. Fallout 1&2 are perfect examples because they're quite complex and deep and require effort to get into but not so much that it's daunting. But people used to simpler games might just as well give it a poor rating for being too hard and I've seen that all too often on sites with younger gamers, where they enjoyed Fallout 3 and decided to try Fallout 1 or 2 out of curiosity. Is it fair? Hell no. If you're not into deep turn based games, don't play them but, also, don't down-rate them for what they are. You shouldn't rate a game for the kind of genre it has (although its tempting with sequels that dumb down the experience *cough DA2*) |
The current time is 03:29 PM (GMT) |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.