User Reviews

[TheLastSurvivorD]

I'm not reporting problems or anything, the site is awesome. Guides were a great idea, but I'm curious why you guys didn't put user reviews or something like that to rate a game. (Just additional/suggestion)

Edited June 8, 2014 by TheLastSurvivorD

[Arkthur]

I guess it wouldn't be a bad idea. But those kinds of systems tend to be abussed later on.

[Parker]

I brought this up when the site was in beta and while there is no review section, members are more than welcome to post their own user reviews in the game specific forums. 

 

 

Parker

[FluffyAssassin64]

I guess it wouldn't be a bad idea. But those kinds of systems tend to be abused later on.

 

Yeah, it has the potential to become like a "Metacritic User Score"... where games either get 10's (if they're on the hype train) or 0's (if there's any connection issues - a la BF4 - or it 'doesn't live up to the hype/promise' - like Watch Dogs).

 

Nice idea though LastSurvivor, maybe we could have a trial run with some new games and then apply the system if it seems to be legit?

[TheLastSurvivorD]

That's a good idea having a trial run.

Edited June 9, 2014 by TheLastSurvivorD

[STRANGEgenius]

Yeah, it has the potential to become like a "Metacritic User Score"... where games either get 10's (if they're on the hype train) or 0's (if there's any connection issues - a la BF4 - or it 'doesn't live up to the hype/promise' - like Watch Dogs).

 

Nice idea though LastSurvivor, maybe we could have a trial run with some new games and then apply the system if it seems to be legit?

or maybe only premium members can vote? Or people with at least 50 posts or some little thing like that.

[TheLastSurvivorD]

User Reviews, or votes on how good a game is, can start with Enemy Front...

Edited June 9, 2014 by TheLastSurvivorD

[vivan000]

Yeah, it has the potential to become like a "Metacritic User Score"... where games either get 10's (if they're on the hype train) or 0's (if there's any connection issues - a la BF4 - or it 'doesn't live up to the hype/promise' - like Watch Dogs).

Metacritic is a shit because it's full of trolls that never even played the game, let alone completed it.

PSNP is one of few sites that could do this right, because it can check if user have the game (and put enough effort) before letting him vote (or count his vote).

[TheLastSurvivorD]

Metacritic is a shit because it's full of trolls that never even played the game, let alone completed it.PSNP is one of few sites that could do this right, because it can check if user have the game (and put enough effort) before letting him vote (or count his vote).

I would've never have thought of that. Why don't people who've platinumed a game submit, or have reached at least 70% completed, get the option to do a user review?

Edited June 9, 2014 by TheLastSurvivorD

[supabaron]

Metacritic is a shit because it's full of trolls that never even played the game, let alone completed it.

PSNP is one of few sites that could do this right, because it can check if user have the game (and put enough effort) before letting him vote (or count his vote).

 

I doubt it with all the fanboys, liars and haters that could be here but it would be closer to perfect than anywhere else. 

[Happy]

Maybe have the system function in a way so that only people with a certain rate of completion can rate the game? So you'd need a minimum C Rank to influence the overall rating score?

[TheLastSurvivorD]

A C rank is easy to achieve. You can get a C rank with only 30% complete. If you prefer choosing by ranks, then at least A rank (around 55%).

(This escalated very quickly.)

[vivan000]

I doubt it with all the fanboys, liars and haters that could be here but it would be closer to perfect than anywhere else.

you can't lie that you've completed (put enough effort) the game.

And there's nothing wrong with haters/fanboys as long as they have actually completed the game. Like if they hate something for being overrated they either convert or confirm their opinion.

While I do prefer base 100% (platinum), A rank seems to be fine (it is avg. completition * 1.55). Rank B (starts from 1.20) is still over average completiton, so it could be ok as well...

[TheLastSurvivorD]

Ok, so people are capable of doing a user review as long as their at Rank B. We can test it and then if it does good, then turn it into a system like FluffyAssassin said.

[supabaron]

you can't lie that you've completed (put enough effort) the game.

And there's nothing wrong with haters/fanboys as long as they have actually completed the game. Like if they hate something for being overrated they either convert or confirm their opinion.

While I do prefer base 100% (platinum), A rank seems to be fine (it is avg. completition * 1.55). Rank B (starts from 1.20) is still over average completiton, so it could be ok as well...

 

The fact is people over blow things (Myself included) and this could cause problems with integrity of the reviews submitted, But if you your way is good enough I won't complain. 

[TheLastSurvivorD]

Well, I couldn't say to have the guide team check the reviews to make sure they are high quality, or could I?

Make rules?

[Lucas]

I would've never have thought of that. Why don't people who've platinumed a game submit, or have reached at least 70% completed, get the option to do a user review?

 

This ^ would be a great idea!

[TheLastSurvivorD]

Ok so now what do we next? Tell someone about it?

Edited June 9, 2014 by TheLastSurvivorD

[Arkthur]

I don't think the vote should be restricted to only those with the Plat. If it is to be restricted, I think it should be allowed to whoever has a higher completion rate above the average (showed in the game page). That way we rule out the casuals who didn't cared much about the game, but include those that play games without caring for trophies too much.

[Naoto Shirogane]

I don't think the vote should be restricted to only those with the Plat. If it is to be restricted, I think it should be allowed to whoever has a higher completion rate above the average (showed in the game page). That way we rule out the casuals who didn't cared much about the game, but include those that play games without caring for trophies too much.

 

I was thinking of the same thing Arkthur_us. Suppose people want to give a review for a game but the platinum is too hard for them such as Lost Planet 2 or Persona 4 Arena. So what you said having a higher completion rate above average seems fair. 

[merciful84]

I'm not reporting problems or anything, the site is awesome. Guides were a great idea, but I'm curious why you guys didn't put user reviews or something like that to rate a game. (Just additional/suggestion)

 

Great idea!

[Hemiak]

The only problem with this is :

Someone buys the game plays it with an open mind and truly dislikes the game. They play a couple hours and then sell it back. That persons opinion is still valid. I don't really have a good fix for this problem but restricting it to people with a higher percentage basically only allows people who truly liked the game and hunters/completionists to vote on it.

The only thing I can think of would be to restrict it to people who have at least one trophy(so you know they played a little) and only one vote per profile per game.

[Goekie]

I have 1% trophy completion on FFX but I put in about 600 hours on the PS2 version, I'm more than capable of writing a review. Why not let the Guide team have a quick look at the review before posting and just let everyone who wishes to write a review do their thing?

[willmill97]

I would've never have thought of that. Why don't people who've platinumed a game submit, or have reached at least 70% completed, get the option to do a user review?

 

I like this idea. This makes sense

[madbuk]

The only problem with this is :

Someone buys the game plays it with an open mind and truly dislikes the game. They play a couple hours and then sell it back. That persons opinion is still valid. I don't really have a good fix for this problem but restricting it to people with a higher percentage basically only allows people who truly liked the game and hunters/completionists to vote on it.

The only thing I can think of would be to restrict it to people who have at least one trophy(so you know they played a little) and only one vote per profile per game.

Sometimes, you need to have the platinum to be able to give a valid viewpoint of a game.

 

For example, Rayman Legends.

I was really enjoying the game, and then the grind started to reach Max Awesomeness level, which darkened my views on the game. Trophies are a part of the game, and they affect your viewpoint of the game. If I had been allowed to write a review with just the average completion %, I would've sung high praises of it. Now? Nope.