Score system proposal

[Kingzjester]

This is actually yet another thread about the star game ranking system thing. I have a new SANE proposition for making a system that would rate the games against their price. We agree that it is somewhat hard to pull off since older games may be cheaper than the newer ones and since games prices fluctuate often.

Enter The Jesterian Graph System(tm).

It is really not as elaborate as it sounds. A simple Cartesian graph system where the y-axis denotes the star rating, and the x-axis is the price (it can simultaneously be in Euros, Dollars and Queen's Pounds). The reviewer, however biased and wrong and stupid and ugly, will give the game a rating he in his folly thinks would be fair at the price he bought it at, and the graph would account for bang versus buck if the price drops (the rating rises), if the price rises (the rating drops). This system would work in lieu of the stars, though it could be implemented in addition. I suggest for dollars the following equation:

p = cost
s = stars (value)

y = -x/10 + s + p/10

--where one star is gained with every 10 bucks price drop. So a game that gets 3.5 stars at $ 20 would get no stars at 55 dollars, and would get 5.5 stars if free. Perhaps there should be some tweaking to this. The graph doesn't have to be too big, say 250 by 250 pixels (IF you don't go overboard and include some of the negative stars and some of the extraneous prices), and you could stuff it somewhere within the right stack with screenshots, and pros and cons. It doesn't have to be generated by the server, you only need about 15 to 20 images made 'manually' beforehand.

Waddayasay? I bet Jesus Evan will think this is a dangerous liberal invention to be despised.

[Erwin_Br]

I have another system in mind which doesn't involve rating in numbers, but I'm too lazy to elaborate on it here. Besides, nobody asks for my opinion :shifty:

--Erwin

[Kode]

I'm wavering between "Dunno" and "There is potential." :shifty:

You make it sound like a good game would be rated down just because it costs the regular 40 bucksees, and a bad game would be rated up if it cost less. A bad game, at the end of the day, is a not so good game, and price shouldn't be much of a factor in increasing its goodness. Yes, the cheaper it is, the less you are inherent to expect from it, but still...

Like you said, specific tweaks in the system could indeed make this a ratings system with potential. A 1 star game that cost 40 bucksees shouldn't suddenly be comparable to Grim Fandango and Monkey Island, just because they reduced the price to 10 bucksees.

[Kingzjester]

A 1 star game that cost 40 bucksees shouldn't suddenly be comparable to Grim Fandango and Monkey Island, just because they reduced the price to 10 bucksees. Such a game would have four stars at 10 bucks, whereas Grim Fandango (assuming it was 40 bucks when it came out, and then it got 4.5 stars) would be worth 7.5 stars at 10 bucks. It is fairly linear. But I see that it is not as great as it should be. Perhaps a sine graph with limits carefuly positioned (so that it only shows from the tip of one convex-up boob to one concave-up boob) would be better... hm...

[mycroft]

i think a change in the rating system might be in order...

but frankly kingz...i don't like the idea..

consider this...

what if a game is available in two packagings...retail and budget...does the budget game get a higher score simply because it is cheaper...it will make the retail game look as if it was bad or something (buggy, i mean)...and what about the simple pleasure of smelling the game manual that the budget version does not provide...but a higher score to a budget game will make it look somewhat superior to the original retail version of the game...

consider compilation packs as well...what if GF later comes in an uber compilation pack with every lucasarts adventure game uptil MI4 ;) ...the individual cost now comes down even more...the score becomes higher...

a game like GF will have an impressive 'normal' score anyways...what if its price dips so low that its score goes off your scale...

we can always have the 'graphics,sound,tilt' thing that gamespot uses...but we'd rather have something more specific for adventure games..

or how about we go the quandaryland way and give no score whatsoever... :shifty:

[ragnar]

Why stop at two dimensions? You could have values for development cost, how much the game was hyped etc. :)

[Tom_K]

I think we should use this (http://www.hotornot.com/) rating system. I'm currently at *9.6, so it HAS to be fool-proof. Woohoo!












* (thanks mom)

[ragnar]

Perhaps we should just use the Sol star system. ;)

A really good game gets Jupiter and the worst gets Pluto. :P

[DomStLeger]

It's an interesting idea but is it perhaps a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a tiny peanut? Perhaps it would just be simpler to have a Value for Money rating and a Game Quality rating, rather than having a system where the overall mark will change as the price changes. As games come down in price, you may have to allow rating inflation to compensate with that system?

[Curt]

Personally, my conscience is still grappling with the possibility that the Kingz may simply be jesting................

To quote the great, er, ..... himself: "hm..."


On an entirely similar note, how about a 1 star system whereby if the reviewer finished the game as a result of enjoyment the game gets a star whereas if the game was either not finished because it was shite or was only finished because the reviewer wanted to suck up to his/her boss, the game gets no star?

[Tamara]

HAH! Now that, speaking as an ex-reviewer, is a truly ingenius system. Lost count of the number of games I had to literally force myself to finish. :)

[remixor]

I agree, that's actually quite a good system, Curt (as long as it's not the only rating system used).

[Kingzjester]

Ah, c'mon people! If you accept Curt's idea you're going for simplicity rather than complication! The complicated takes the pie AND the cake every time! Haven't you heard of Macco's Razor*?

*) Sortof like Occam's Razor only in reverse.

[Tamara]

:P

*pats Kingz on the head, gives him some pie and tells him to go sit in that nice corner* ;) :P

[remixor]

More like Macco's Slice 'Em, Dice 'Em, Any Way You Want 'Em, Works Some of the Time, All-Purpose Swiss Army Knife.

[syntheticgerbil]

Hey, well, I like Kingzjester's idea and I want it done this instant. Slaves

And it will go buy the lowest priced available package of the game. (Compilation or not, does not matter.) And all scoring will be revised by the jester guy himself and reviews will be changed from five long paragraphs about nots and whatnots into five words turning all nots and whatnots into a simple whatnotnot.

Go for it. I'm interested.