Suggestion-star ratings on game pages

[charxsetsuna]

Let me know if this is a awful idea, but what about a star rating on game pages and have it so that if you own the game you can rate it.

This way if someone looks at the trophy list they can see what the community thinks of the game without going on a review website.

[DaivRules]

Would you be able to rate before you get 100% of the trophies? 

[charxsetsuna]

9 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

Would you be able to rate before you get 100% of the trophies? 

I was thinking you would need to have at least 70% of them.

[visighost]

1 minute ago, charxsetsuna said:

I was thinking you would need to have at least 70% of them.

 

I'd say at least one trophy? Otherwise it would force people to play through games they don't like to give a review and therefore skew everything positively.

 

Either way, I like the idea. Especially if coupled with search functions like "4 stars and above, less than 1000 owners". Could help people discover nice games. Guidelines would be nice as well (rate as per enjoyment of game, not trophy lists...) otherwise we might see trophy bombing et al. of Rata etc.

[Cassylvania]

I like the idea in theory, but I'm not sure how it would work. There are already star ratings for guides, and because this is primarily a trophy website, people might think the ratings are referring to the trophy list and not the game.

 

A lot of game forums have a topic along the lines of, "How is it?" or "What does everybody think of this game?" Personally, it might be better if a topic like that was automatically added to each forum as new games are released. That way, people would have a place to post their opinions. I know it's frustrating to be interested in a game and then see an empty forum when you're trying to get a feel for whether or not it's worth a buy.

[DaivRules]

11 minutes ago, charxsetsuna said:

I was thinking you would need to have at least 70% of them.

 

7 minutes ago, visighost said:

I'd say at least one trophy?

 

Ratings are inherently emotionally subjective, I suppose it doesn't matter if it's 1 trophy or 100% (so someone is actually able to judge everything about the trophies on the game), it's not like every rating will represent every members opinion of each game on the site.

 

Where this could be valuable is to look at one member and see their history of ratings. If I find a member that has highly rated 5-6 games I also rated highly, I'm going to look at other games they rated highly for things to play. If someone rates over 90% of games as one star, I will likely ignore any of their ratings.

 

1 minute ago, Cassylvania said:

There are already star ratings for guides, and because this is primarily a trophy website, people might think the ratings are referring to the trophy list and not the game.

 

I thought that was the rating of the guide for the game and it had nothing to do with the trophies or the game, but the only the guide itself. Presentation, content, accessibility, etc.

Edited April 15, 2020 by DaivRules

[PooPooBlast]

I'm on-board with this but it has to be implemented well. 

 

Some suggestions (my opinion) would be:

 

- Not allowing to vote unless the user has a certain trophy completion percentage of that game of that specific region they own. Perhaps 50%? Perhaps a little less? 

 

- putting down how long the game was played when placing a rating. Hopefully we can have a distribution chart that shows the ratings given by players along with time played by the users who voted. Although somebody can lie or exaggerate but hopefully the results will converge on a certain reasonable value if sample size is large enough. 

 

- Ability to leave comments alongside ratings to get a better idea, should people care to elaborate why they like or dislike a game. 

[DaivRules]

2 minutes ago, Cassylvania said:

it might be better if a topic like that was automatically added to each forum as new games are released.

 

Please not automatically... People already feel compelled to open a Trophy thoughts of every game that pops up on the front page and rarely are they things of value actually discussing the pursuit of the actual trophies.

[charxsetsuna]

7 minutes ago, visighost said:

 

I'd say at least one trophy? Otherwise it would force people to play through games they don't like to give a review and therefore skew everything positively.

 

Either way, I like the idea. Especially if coupled with search functions like "4 stars and above, less than 1000 owners". Could help people discover nice games. Guidelines would be nice as well (rate as per enjoyment of game, not trophy lists...) otherwise we might see trophy bombing et al. of Rata etc.

I feel like the people who play rata games wouldnt care at all about what rating psnprofiles have it at.

 

If it's just one trophy then longer games like jrpgs might suffer because they take a while to get off the ground gameplay wise. I said 70% because there are games I have played for about a hour or so like witcher 3 but I don't feel qualified to give it any sort of review.

[HusKy]

I think as long as you have the trophy list on your profile, you should be able to vote on the game whether you have 0% or 100%. It doesn't actually matter.

[Cassylvania]

3 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

I thought that was the rating of the guide for the game and it had nothing to do with the trophies or the game, but the only the guide itself. Presentation, content, accessibility, etc.

 

Right. I mean, if another rating system was added, it'd have to be clear what it's intended for, and that it's somehow different than the existing rating system. And what's to prevent someone from giving a game a lower rating just because they're mad at some trophy? We see topics all the time of people complaining that a game sucks because something is too difficult or takes too much time.

 

Another option would be to include links or popular review scores below the game information on the side.

[Dauersack]

Generally a good idea, though one star rating system is not really going to cut it. In many games enjoyment of the game and the trophies are the same, but I had games that were fine on their own if you just casually played them and would therefore get an ok rating from me, but the trophy lists of said games were complete garbage that I would rate as low as possible. If only one star rating was in place, I'd have to decide what was more important to me, and I'd usually go for the more negative option to warn other people that they might be about to face an unpleasant experience there, be it because the game sucked or because the trophy list was atrocious.

 

Tying the right to review a game to an arbitrary percentage of trophy completion is questionable. Someone does not need to complete a game to know that its something he really dislikes. If several ratings are in place maybe the one rating the trophies, or the trophies difficulty, can make the completion of said game mandatory, but even then it could be argued that someone does not need to earn "Mein Leben" to think that its a pretty shitty requirement for a platinum.

[HusKy]

3 minutes ago, Cassylvania said:

And what's to prevent someone from giving a game a lower rating just because they're mad at some trophy?

 

These outliers don't matter as long as the number of votes is high. Same happens on book and movie rating websites. There's no way to police this and it doesn't even matter for the big picture.

[MandA60VISE]

Maybe have multiple thresholds of ratings:

-less than 30% trophies earned

-between 31-70%

-71%-99%

-100%

 

[charxsetsuna]

If a star rating might get confusing because of the guide ratings theres always the 1-10 rating system but I've never liked that much because people generally dont use it right. Instead it becomes the 7-10 rating system wheres a 7 is considered awful.

[DaivRules]

1 minute ago, charxsetsuna said:

If a star rating might get confusing because of the guide ratings theres always the 1-10 rating system but I've never liked that much because people generally dont use it right. Instead it becomes the 7-10 rating system wheres a 7 is considered awful.

 

Trust me, anything beside a 3 point system:

 

-1 Didn't like it (Wouldn't recommend it)

0 Meh

1 Liked it (Would recommend it)

 

Will be not be used "right".

[sepheroithisgod]

Sadly, whenever people get the opportunity to rate a game, it gets really negative for very minor reasons. On this site, in particular, I could definitely see people giving a bad review based on trophies. I think it's best to avoid this.

[Beyondthegrave07]

39 minutes ago, PooPooBlast said:

I'm on-board with this but it has to be implemented well. 

 

Some suggestions (my opinion) would be:

 

- Not allowing to vote unless the user has a certain trophy completion percentage of that game of that specific region they own. Perhaps 50%? Perhaps a little less? 

 

- putting down how long the game was played when placing a rating. Hopefully we can have a distribution chart that shows the ratings given by players along with time played by the users who voted. Although somebody can lie or exaggerate but hopefully the results will converge on a certain reasonable value if sample size is large enough. 

 

- Ability to leave comments alongside ratings to get a better idea, should people care to elaborate why they like or dislike a game. 

I like the idea in theory of having a threshold before voting (personally an E rank would suffice), but there are games that I personally stopped playing because they were too frustratedly hard like Spelunker HD, Jet Set Radio, or Darkstalkers where the trophies are difficult to obtain. Though, I've played them enough to have an opinion on each one. 

 

Funny enough, I found Jet set to actually be pretty fun, Darkstalkers, was meh, and I found Spelunker HD to be God-awful. So pretty much a positive, neutral, and negative review on my end which just shows that it's not all negative.

 

I do like the idea of leaving comments and maybe showing their trophy rank at the time of the comment (E-S). I think that'd be the easiest distribution or indicator even though it doesn't necessarily reflect time played. I realize that it'd have it's flaws, but it'd be better than nothing or trusting the user's honesty on playtime.

 

30 minutes ago, charxsetsuna said:

If a star rating might get confusing because of the guide ratings theres always the 1-10 rating system but I've never liked that much because people generally dont use it right. Instead it becomes the 7-10 rating system wheres a 7 is considered awful.

Yeah, that's the issue with a 10 point system unless you specifically definite each # as a specific opinion. For example:

 

1 - Game is unplayable; has multiple glitches, crashes etc. that make it impossible to play.

2 - I did not find the game enjoyable at all and would recommend to stay far, far away

3 - I found the game to be terrible and uninspiring for the most part. Would not recommend.

4 - The game is below average of the normal games I play. There are better games out there.

5 - Game was average. Did not find it to be particularly bad, but was not particularly good either.

 

And so forth.

 

The only problem with this is that you'd have to find a way to force people to actually read the scale which is probably more challenging than programming this 1-10 scale tbh. I mean, how many people read the leaderboard rules before creating a dispute or read the forum rules when joining? Regardless of what system you'd use, it'd still be 100% subjective.

[Kiyan-13]

Not a bad idea, but I don't understand in what situation is this gonna help someone?! I mean, there are other places where you can find people's opinion if that matters to you, but most of us here already know what we want to play.

 

About restrictions. If there are no restrictions, then haters will just jump in start rating 0/10 because they hate a game. You can check metacritic site to see for yourself what is gonna happen. If we there are restrictions, like 50% sounds reasonable, then only people who actually played a good part of the game will be able to rate a game.

 

If they add this, then definitely add it with restrictions if you want it to work properly. Otherwise it would be mess.

[TheDarkBlade9]

I like the idea, but like people said already - you should only be able to rate a game after getting at least one trophy.