Ability for users to rate games?

[SIDEWINDER_21X]

Here's a thought I just had when trawling through the long list of PS3 games on amazon (I was looking for a new game which has good reviews):

How about a column on the games list which displays a rating which shows what other users of PSNProfiles thought of the game? - this would enable users to submit a rating (out of 5 stars) for each game (1 - very bad, 5 - excellent).

This may not be feasible but I just thought it would be pretty cool being able to sort the games list by their user rating in order to see other highly rated games you could be missing out on.

[uPDATE: Due to the positive feedback I'll expand on this idea below]

It would be similar to the rating that appears on Amazon next to a game:

Also it could branch out into there being a dedicated section for user reviews on a game's profile page:

This would go hand in hand with the trophy tips system for a game (already a feature that allows user input on a game's profile).

Also, going on what users below have said: to add authenticity to these ratings/mini reviews the user should definitely own the game (on their trophy profile) and possibly have at least a B rank for the game? (To ensure they have played it enough to come to a considered conclusion).

Edited May 31, 2012 by Sidewinder

[Jarred_450]

I like this idea

[Kyouko_Sakura]

I quite like the idea but I'd say best to limit it to people who have at least 50% or so of the trophies or something so people don't just down-vote or up-vote certain games without even playing them.

[DanielVT]

This is a great idea Sidewinder, and I also agree with Sakura, not just anybody should be able to rate a game.

[Aexuz]

That would be a great addition to the site.

[Paranoimia]

Nice idea.

I also agree with Sakura's point about needing to have trophies in the game before you can rate it. Perhaps not 50%, though - you can complete many games without earning most of the trophies, so it's not necessarily a good measure of how much of a game someone has played.

[BDKSimba]

BDKSimba Approved.. . Great idea ya got here hommie. even though My collection is limited @ the moment. rating the ones I have played is a Plus.

[Myers]

This would be great for the site. Great idea!

[silver_pigy]

deffenatly a great idea although i think if you have the game on your profile then you should be able to rate it because i have a couple games that i did not earn a single trophy in because i did not like the game at all

[Lady Lilith]

Yeah, this is a great idea. I definitely agree that people should at least beat the game (since there usually is some kind of trophy for beating the game) first.

[AndroidFox]

Definitely something I would be interested in, although I think the idea could be expanded on. Maybe a box where we could write a mini-review/summary of the game could be implemented. If it proves a successful feature we could even have a reviews section added to the site and have a group of staff reviewers/featured writers, or something like that anyway.

[skidmarkgn]

If it did happen it might be a good idea to have a (willing) mod. specifically for that feature/thread. That would hopefully prevent the inevitable overflow of nothing but fanboy 10's and hater 0's. I personally wouldn't use it very often because I'm not much of a fan of user review systems but it's nice to be able to browse the occasional opinion.

[Death]

[Dreakon139]

I swear something akin to this has been suggested before.

I don't know why people feel every feature on the site would need to be super moderated. I get why I guess... but the intelligent users will far outweigh the "fanboys" we insist on protecting everyone from. Other sites have features like this that get by well enough without going to borderline obnoxious lengths weeding out the bad eggs or requiring 50% of the games trophies just to leave a simple star rating.

[SIDEWINDER_21X]

A further thought:

Anyone who owns the game can leave a rating, but to submit a mini-review you must have at least an A/B grade rank. (Reviews could be rated helpful/unhelpful by other users and the reviews would also count for say 5 ratings or something like that, being more reliable than a rating)

[Paranoimia]

I don't know why people feel every feature on the site would need to be super moderated. I get why I guess... but the intelligent users will far outweigh the "fanboys" we insist on protecting everyone from. Other sites have features like this that get by well enough without going to borderline obnoxious lengths weeding out the bad eggs or requiring 50% of the games trophies just to leave a simple star rating.

Have you looked at user ratings on Metacritic lately?

[Dreakon139]

Have you looked at user ratings on Metacritic lately?

A simple five star rating system will NEVER be perfect. No matter how many rules and regulations you put on it.

If anything, forcing people to have 50% of the trophies (especially for some games)... or really any trophies for that matter... will immediately skew the ratings more towards people who like the game. Trophy whores aside, the majority of people don't hunt trophies in games they genuinely dislike.

I'd say owning the game is a fair requirement... but personally (like with Trophy Tips) I'd rather see more ratings then have the same 5 people rating any particular group of games because they're the only ones who have the game on the PS3, on this account, that actually care enough to do so. 100 is a larger sample size than 5.

If you want to implement in-depth user reviews, I agree those could stand to have some restrictions... but just a measly five star system? I'd say owning a PS3/registering on the site should be the only thing keeping you from that.

[Kittens Are Awesome]

I like the idea. I don't know about so many restrictions, however, the rating system would be nice. Like on Amazon, you can usually tell who is the fan boy and who is just a hater by reading the review. Also, you can tell if somebody actually played the game or if they just popped it in, didn't like the beginning, decided within 5 minutes that it was crap. I think the fairly intelligent reader can figure this out.

I happen to like reading reviews to get the gist of what I may be getting myself into.

[BeautifulTorment]

I agree with Dreakon on two parts.

1) It was mentioned before. By me. A long time ago.

2) There are some games that I have low on my trophy list that I have strong opinions towards. I should definitely still be able to voice my thoughts on them even though I have <50% trophies.

[Paranoimia]

A simple five star rating system will NEVER be perfect. No matter how many rules and regulations you put on it.

If anything, forcing people to have 50% of the trophies (especially for some games)... or really any trophies for that matter... will immediately skew the ratings more towards people who like the game. Trophy whores aside, the majority of people don't hunt trophies in games they genuinely dislike.

I'd say owning the game is a fair requirement... but personally (like with Trophy Tips) I'd rather see more ratings then have the same 5 people rating any particular group of games because they're the only ones who have the game on the PS3, on this account, that actually care enough to do so. 100 is a larger sample size than 5.

If you want to implement in-depth user reviews, I agree those could stand to have some restrictions... but just a measly five star system? I'd say owning a PS3/registering on the site should be the only thing keeping you from that.

It was only a light-hearted comment, not intended to be taken seriously - even if there is an underlying truth to it.

I did say earlier that I was dubious about the "user should have 50% of trophies" aspect. You can spend hours completing some games and get very few trophies, while others spit them out like a broken gumball machine - so the number of trophies doesn't necessarily have any bearing on how much of a game you've played.

If such a system is implemented, I simply agree that there must surely be some proof of ownership of a game before a user can rate it - but as you say, there is no perfect system.

People may well rate a game with 1 star because they played 5 minutes, hated it, and traded/sold it - which in theory is wrong, but on some level could also be considered a perfectly valid rating.

[Dreakon139]

People may well rate a game with 1 star because they played 5 minutes, hated it, and traded/sold it - which in theory is wrong, but on some level could also be considered a perfectly valid rating.

If enough people are rating it that badly after the first five minutes (enough to be a problem), there must be something really wrong with the first five minutes of that game. If it's only a handful of people, but there are hundreds of other votes, they'll be diluted out for the most part.

Like I said, it's a simple five star rating system. Even if it were perfect, which is impossible no matter how many restrictions are in place, it wouldn't tell you much... just a small gauge of what fellow site-goers think of a game. An imperfect version (though perfection is terms of game ratings is subjective) wouldn't work much differently. Would it really bother you if a game you like is 0.5 stars less or more than what you think it should be? How would you even know that the rating was compromised anyways? Because you disagree with it?

If something like this were implemented, you would just need to take it for what it is. An imperfect rating system that offers a brief, inconclusive (but still interesting) view of the communities thoughts on a game.

[Paranoimia]

If enough people are rating it that badly after the first five minutes (enough to be a problem), there must be something really wrong with the first five minutes of that game. If it's only a handful of people, but there are hundreds of other votes, they'll be diluted out for the most part.

Like I said, it's a simple five star rating system. Even if it were perfect, which is impossible no matter how many restrictions are in place, it wouldn't tell you much... just a small gauge of what fellow site-goers think of a game. An imperfect version (though perfection is terms of game ratings is subjective) wouldn't work much differently. Would it really bother you if a game you like is 0.5 stars less or more than what you think it should be? How would you even know that the rating was compromised anyways? Because you disagree with it?

If something like this were implemented, you would just need to take it for what it is. An imperfect rating system that offers a brief, inconclusive (but still interesting) view of the communities thoughts on a game.

That's all any rating system is, because any rating is unavoidably clouded by personal opinion. Every magazine, website or newspaper review/rating there ever was or ever will be is in some way affected by the reviewer's personal opinions, hopes and expectations. No matter how much magazines like Edge claim otherwise.

I've bought games that were rated quite low (example: AMY) because despite what people say, I know I'll enjoy them. Similarly, I've completely ignored games widely rated 10/10 (examples: Batman Arkham Asylum/City, Red Dead Redemption) because there are aspects I know I'll dislike or generally have no interest in.

Any rating, even a supposedly 'professional' one, is nothing more than one person's opinion, and can therefore be described as imperfect - perhaps even irrelevant.

Anyway, the main point here isn't whether the rating system is perfect or not. The point is that if a rating system is implemented, people should at least have proof that they have played some of the game (i.e. a trophy or two) before they can rate it. That alone would make it a better and more valid rating system than the user scores on Metacritic, where anyone can vote whether they've played the game or not.

[Dreakon139]

That alone would make it a better and more valid rating system than the user scores on Metacritic, where anyone can vote whether they've played the game or not.

I suppose it would, but then you run into problems where some games have so few people that have played it... and you know, even fewer that have played it and found this site... that the ratings become skewed to the one or two people's opinions who vote anyways. As I said, it'll never be perfect.

And who's to say the large majority of those voters on Metacritic haven't played the games? Maybe they have and they are just unreasonable (not too much of a stretch).

In this day and age... with so many multi-platform games, people with multiple accounts (such as myself), playing games at friends houses or trying demo's... who's to say that just because the game doesn't appear on your profile that you can't have enough experience with a game to give it what almost boils down to a "like it" (>2.5) or "don't like it" (<2.5) rating? As much as it'll hurt my point to say this, many of us can make that call just by watching gameplay footage or reading about a game.

I guess I'll try and say it like this. It should be expected that you have played a game before you rate it, but it shouldn't be required.

[Parker]

Personally, I don't want a game rating system to be put in place. I think a bunch of starts next to a games title would look very tacky and if you have the ability to look on the internet then you can look at YouTube videos of the game or even start a thread asking opinions bout the game. Allowing users to rate games would open the floodgates for all the fanboys to either make a bunch of 5 star ratings or 1 stars simple because they don't like a series. Plus, everyone knows how dramatic gamers are, if they don't like the main characters name some people will give the game 1 star.

I think the way we do things now is fine. If you're unsure about a game as in the forums or look up YouTube videos.

Parker

[Paranoimia]

It should be expected that you have played a game before you rate it, but it shouldn't be required.

Sorry, but that's just daft. It should absolutely be a requirement to have played a game before you can rate it. Would you rate a movie without seeing it? Music without hearing it? Food without tasting it?

Yes, I'm sure that happens all the time. The difference is, you can't prove that someone has or hasn't watched a movie, heard a song, or eaten a particular food - but with trophies/achievements, you can prove that someone has played a game... so why not use that to give a little more validity to the ratings?