• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

I decided to create a new, better review aggregator

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lord Azrael said:
I've got a better idea. I will make a spreadsheet and put my own scores on it, which will then be used to objectively categorize the quality of all games. All other outlets will be ignored.

Who's with me?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I have to oppose your idea. Obviously, it's my spreadsheet that must be used. Yours is biased.
 
What's the point of having an aggregation system that only aggregates five numbers per game? The point of aggregation is to compile data that would be infeasible for someone to go through individually.

... oh right. Dick measuring contests.
 
MyNameIsRye said:
Lmfao. Please don't continue working on this. Use your time for something else.
Click to expand...

exactly. biggest waste of time ever. also - not a great idea in general


edit: gaf should just have a poll in every review thread or OT of a game, so members can give their ratings. it wouldnt mean TOO much, but would be fun.
 
herod said:
One day 'games are art!'

The next day 'gimme score aggregates!'

Do y'all think we should start scoring Cezanne paintings out of 10?

Grow up kids.
Click to expand...

TBH we should. Starry Night? 65/100 at best. Mona Lisa? A 98/100 for its time, only a 97 now. Sistine Chapel? Review scores obviously paid off by the church, shouldn't believe them.
 
SirNinja said:
I could've sworn RT itself used to do this for games several years ago, but then stopped for some reason. Probably just confusing it with something else though
Click to expand...

RT would be a better system (dividing reviewers into positive vs negative). But then there would be endless bitching over the number of games with 'perfect' RT scores, even though the best films of the year rarely get them.
 
Hierophant said:
and they're all losers too

just sick of seeing this shit affect the reviewers who put their opinions out there and immediately get all the manbabies on the planet screaming at them
Click to expand...

You feel bad because fans feel bad when a game reviewer feels bad about a video game. Stop feeling bad.
 
So a
sub
aggregator that highlights the sites most likely to be paid off by publishers?

Bold strategy. Let's see how it pays off.
 
Sho_Nuff82 said:
RT would be a better system (dividing reviewers into positive vs negative). But then there would be endless bitching over the number of games with 'perfect' RT scores, even though the best films of the year rarely get them.
Click to expand...
We would have to have any score less than 8/10 be Rotten for that to work.
 
More_Badass said:
Why should the highest and lowest scores be ignored?
Click to expand...

Because the only reason one of those few "trusted" reviewers would score a game lower then the others, is because they have a secret agenda to bring down the overall score. Because people can't have different opinions about games without ulterior motive.

Ignoring the highest score is only to not make ignoring the low score look suspicious.
 
adj_noun said:
Imagine if he'd given it a 6/10.

There'd be blood in the streets.
Click to expand...

Oh but giving it a 6 would have been way too obvious it was a troll score! Therefore he gave it a 7 to deliberately anger the fanbase, while still retaining his credibility!

N.Domixis said:
What should happen, all reviews are allowed from the beginning, as soon as a a reviewer scores a 7 or below if the game is at 90+ they are banned. If a 60 or below at 80+, banned, etc. etc. Aditionally, for every 100 a game scores we are allowed to drop two of the lowest scores. If the score is 20 away from the average it's removed. All this should filter out the trolls from the authentic reviews.
Click to expand...

If this isn't a troll post then it's truly scary. I can't tell anymore...
 
This is basically just cherrypicking reviewers you like. Tosses the idea behind aggregation out the window.

If it works for you, great, but the concept is lost on me.
 
N.Domixis said:
What should happen, all reviews are allowed from the beginning, as soon as a a reviewer scores a 7 or below if the game is at 90+ they are banned. If a 60 or below at 80+, banned, etc. etc. Aditionally, for every 100 a game scores we are allowed to drop two of the lowest scores. If the score is 20 away from the average it's removed. All this should filter out the trolls from the authentic reviews.
Click to expand...

You mean this would filter out anything other than groupthink. These ideas are nuts!
 
Arion said:
I think you are totally mixing up "technical reviews" and "artistic reviews".

Technical reviews deal strictly with measurable quantities. Like a car review will talk about the acceleration and mileage etc.

Artistic reviews deal mostly in subjective opinions. They will sometimes mention technical aspects like frame rate and resolution but ultimately the goal is to give a purely subjective critique.

Neither types are "good" or "bad". They are just different types of reviews.
Click to expand...

I'm agree with you in almost all, but the artistic review for me it's kind of useless when you have to buy a game, how I know this person had the same tastes like me?


hampig said:
Comparing with other games that people enjoy would mean subjectively comparing to a subjective view of those other things. You can't combine two subjective things and come out with an objective thing.

Use reviews as a way to get an idea of how you may feel about a game, then give the game a try and form your own opinion. You're taking a risk when you spend money on any form of entertainment. Everyone has different tastes and there's no surefire way to tell if or how much you will enjoy something until you try it. It's never going to not be a gamble.
Click to expand...

Agree with the bold one, but I didn't explain myself too good, I was trying to say that two subjective reviews can appeal each other, if you like shooters and scifi you should probably try Halo, that's what I'm saying.


Arion said:
"games and themes that actually people enjoy"

How would you determine that? There isn't a single game or a theme that everyone unanimously likes. Certain things are popular but a large enough quantity of people can hate those things at the same time i.e Justin Beiber.

"subjective experience can't tell me a lot about the game if I don't know what do you enjoy"

They absolutely can. The best reviewers out there break down exactly what they enjoy and why they enjoy it. If you read that you can easily figure out whether you are in agreement of not.
Click to expand...

I'm just critizing the artistic reviews that target an objective score, what I'm trying to say is that you can actually tag games with themes and if you like almost all of then you probably will be pleased.

And for the second answer, that would mean you found a reviewer that actually your can relate, because if Jim doesn't enjoy the mechanics of the weapons in Zelda that actually couldn't mean much for me when I havent played the game yet. Instead if I knew that probably Jim doesn't like Dark Souls or arcade games (it's an example I don't actually watch his statement about the Zelda) I could relate much more.
 
Eeeeh, doesn't really work. Being selective of which outlets get used is never a good idea. It's close to the reason why I hate Metacritic. I don't like they idea of them being the ones who decide which review outlets weigh more than others.
 
This is like troll physics with statistics. Blood moon cutscene and regular framedrops (even on handheld) are enough to knock Zelda down
 
Acid08 said:
Do you dopes actually still think this shit happens?
Click to expand...

Don't want to bite the hand that gave you the free Switch and copy of the game or the hand that flew you out for an early preview!

Can't make their blacklist or the reviews of your site won't be up as quickly as the others which will cost site visits and ultimately revenue.
 
The Greek Freak said:
Hilarious that people would consider IGN aka the 8.5-10 scale legit but not someone like Sterling because he hurt your delicate Zelda feelings.

Why not just pretend every game you like got universal 10/10s so you don't go insane.

Zelda fans at this point sound like Trump calling everything they don't like fake news.
Click to expand...

I think the aggregation sites are fine but articles or videos from somebody who regularly engages in trolling should not be allowed to be posted on NeoGaf. These posts and videos are toxic and do nothing but feed the troll.

When somebody comes out with an article "Why x game Is Blantantly Better Than y game" he is looking for an angered response from a certain fan base. He is looking to get DDos'ed so that he makes the news and people start sharing his "work." Suddenly, his "work" bubbles to the top of search engines and Youtube.

He is looking to become the victim so people can support him on Patreon. He says things like I don't monetize my videos or website and people drink the Koolaid that he is one of them when he is working against them. Is he really doing God's work? If he didn't get paid to be a troll, he wouldn't be trolling. If nobody fed the troll, he would just go away. You don't need to remove "critics" from Metacritic. You just need to stop talking about them.
 
diablos991 said:
Don't want to bite the hand that gave you the free Switch and copy of the game or the hand that flew you out for an early preview!

Can't make their blacklist or the reviews of your site won't be up as quickly as the others which will cost site visits and ultimately revenue.
Click to expand...
Okay, InfoWars991.
 
You'll only get people complaining no matter what sites or magazines you pick as sources.

That said, Edge, polygon and IGN? Lmao.
 
More_Badass said:
Why should the highest and lowest scores be ignored?
Click to expand...

Averages can get skewed too much by outliers. Judged sporting events generally work that way, its not an unreasonable to counter it.

For example, I think a game that scores 9,8,9,8,9,9,1 should score above one that scores 8,8,8,7,8,8,6

Though having lots of reviewers also works well for limiting the impact of outliers, which is one reason I don't think limiting the "panel" so severely is a good move.

Video game scores are also more vulnerable to negative outliers because "average" is so high on the scale. This makes it easier to shift the score with a strongly negative review than a strongly positive one.
 
Onyar said:
I'm agree with you in almost all, but the artistic review for me it's kind of useless when you have to buy a game, how I know this person had the same tastes like me?


I'm just critizing the artistic reviews that target an objective score, what I'm trying to say is that you can actually tag games with themes and if you like almost all of then you probably will be pleased.

And for the second answer, that would mean you found a reviewer that actually your can relate, because if Jim doesn't enjoy the mechanics of the weapons in Zelda that actually couldn't mean much for me when I havent played the game yet. Instead if I knew that probably Jim doesn't like Dark Souls or arcade games (it's an example I don't actually watch his statement about the Zelda) I could relate much more.
Click to expand...

On your first point, it's easy. Read that person's previous reviews of games you have played. Do they agree with your impressions? Yes, then you have a match.

On your second point, these aren't objective scores. Just because it's a number doesn't mean it's objective. Your tag suggestion also doesn't work. A game can be mix of a bunch of things I like but if the execution isn't good it doesn't matter.

On your final point, I'll just have to repeat my self. Just read the review. A good reviewer won't just say "I like X mechanic and I hate Y mechanic". They will explain why they don't like it, why the mechanic doesn't work. They might also make comparisons to other games with similar mechanics and how it's different. If they review is well written you can easily understand whether you will like the game or not, regardless of how the reviewer feels about it.
 
Wulfram said:
Averages can get skewed too much by outliers. Judged sporting events generally work that way, its not an unreasonable to counter it.

For example, I think a game that scores 9,8,9,8,9,9,1 should score above one that scores 8,8,8,7,8,8,6

Though having lots of reviewers also works well for limiting the impact of outliers, which is one reason I don't think limiting the "panel" so severely is a good move.

Video game scores are also more vulnerable to negative outliers because "average" is so high on the scale. This makes it easier to shift the score with a strongly negative review than a strongly positive one.
Click to expand...
Why shouldn't a negative review be allowed to shift the aggregate?
 
gamerMan said:
He is looking to get DDos'ed
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ.

LuigiIsEvil said:
Explanation: This is a draft for a possible review aggregation system. If people like it I will continue to work on it.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

I think your goal would be better served using a simple weighted system with user input. For instance, have the user input the score they would give a game. Then, weight the results accordingly using the following formula:

Weighted review score = [base review score + [user score - base review score]]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Will Marathon Review Better Than ARC Raiders?
2
91
2K
Light_Crusader25 replied
Trails series to end in 2032, ending already decided
12
338
BennyBlanco replied
[Digital Foundry] Cyberpunk 2077 PS5 Pro Review: All New Modes & Features Tested!
Analysis Review  2 3 4
159
1K
Lagspike_exe replied
AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D review thread- The best CPU got a little bit better
8
503
DeepEnigma replied
Invincible VS | Review Thread
Analysis Review 
0
103
Draugoth replied
Top Bottom