Well, yeah, you'd expect the people who recommend those games to actually play them, and you can't expect all the admins to play every single game out there. Whether or not they're good. It's a flaw that's always stay a flaw unless the admins actually play every game up there. I played Knytt Stories and Eternal Daughter, I really liked them, so I highly recommend them. Aside from that, I don't recommend them just because everyone else did.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by Shroomlock If I wanted to find a quality game on the site, I'd trust an admin recommended game over a game in the top ten.
Well, this is where we disagree I guess.
Originally Posted by Shroomlock
factors like troll ratings, busy weeks, slow weeks, popularity of the game maker
Troll ratings, I'd like to think that the admins are taking care of. Busy/slow weeks may affect the GOTW results but not a game's standing over time as it sits on the site.
Your last point is very interesting. I think that the "popularity of the creator" factor is even more flakey with this system than taking an average of all user's opinions. What's to stop an admin from Highly Recommending an above-average game just because their friend made it? On the other hand, you know how controversial Adam is around here and yet Roly Poly Pumpkin is doing very well in popular opinion (despite still not being recommended by admins)
You're probably right about the slow/busy week thing more affecting GOTW.
But do you really think that Rikus, Shab or Muz would "highly recommend" a game just because their friend made it? I really don't think they would. Maybe that's the basis of our disagreement? You wouldn't trust the admins to make unbiased selection, and I would. Regardless of how much I agreed or disagreed, I would still trust that those selections were made in good faith and for good reason.
Originally Posted by -Adam- Perhaps if the Admins were actually good at making games they should have the rights to judge what's good and what's not?
Yeah, you know what? Let's start a campaign against everyone who's ever criticised something without first making a superior example of their subject of criticism. Film critics? Fuck you, irrelevant, you've never made a hollywood blockbuster! Everything should be community-rated! NO OUTSIDERS!
Film critics work for magazines, which are not the same as community sites. See page 1 of this thread, where this was already discussed.
Originally Posted by AndyUK What the hell? Saying one game doesn't deserve a 'highly recommended' when another does is just as much one persons opinion as the Admins choice is. Making your argument a bit... hypocritical.
My basis for saying that certain games don't deserve to be recommended was their rating and comments, NOT my own opinion. It was in response to Rikus' post about the ratings being perfectly in sync with user opinions.
I directed that at Lachie. I guess i should have said so. Sorry about the confusion.
Originally Posted by Shroomlock You're probably right about the slow/busy week thing more affecting GOTW.
But do you really think that Rikus, Shab or Muz would "highly recommend" a game just because their friend made it? I really don't think they would. Maybe that's the basis of our disagreement? You wouldn't trust the admins to make unbiased selection, and I would. Regardless of how much I agreed or disagreed, I would still trust that those selections were made in good faith and for good reason.
It's nothing to do with their friends making it, it's to do with personal preference. They may love a game that many people hate.
Originally Posted by Shroomlock You're probably right about the slow/busy week thing more affecting GOTW.
But do you really think that Rikus, Shab or Muz would "highly recommend" a game just because their friend made it? I really don't think they would. Maybe that's the basis of our disagreement? You wouldn't trust the admins to make unbiased selection, and I would. Regardless of how much I agreed or disagreed, I would still trust that those selections were made in good faith and for good reason.
Yes, I think that's the point at which we disagree I like all of the admins here, but I do think that humans are opinionated and flakey. The example of an admin recommending a game that their friend made was a bit extreme, but I do think that there are a lot of recommendation-worthy games that are being ignored, for whatever reason.
The problem of some games being ignored has existed for as long as admins have been able to mention new games on the front page. This is no less than an extension of that problem. Example: Space Barnacle. A great little game that went horribly unnoticed while other games in the same week got front page coverage.
Here are my problems with this system:
1) It's based on one person's opinion,
2) and yet games are recommended "by The Daily Click".
3) The Top Downloads list should give visitors a better indication of what most users (and therefore, "The Daily Click", no?) like.
4) The average ratings system was never so broken that this was needed.
5) "Recommended" and "Highly Recommended" have no clear definition.
6) It's only based on popular opinion to a certain degree.
7) I can think of a lot of very good games (in the opinion of the great majority of site members) that I know the admins will have played but are not recommended.
Does anyone here go to Rottentomatoes.com? If Roger Ebert says a movie is good, I trust his opinion because he's earned that trust. I know him (by his previous reviews) enough to know that I'll most likely enjoy a movie that he recommends. So even if some people disagree with him, the important thing is that the MAJORITY of people agree with him, because that means the majority of people will get value from his opinion.
I'd say that the admins choices so far have been good choices, and I'd say that the majority of people here would agree. So even if some people disagree with their choices, the majority of members will get value from their recommendations.
But like Muz said, the admins can't get around to playing everything, so some good games get overlooked. That hasn't hurt the popularity of "Roly Poly Pumpkin" or "A Mini Falafell Adventure", both games were hugely popular without any kind of star.
(EDIT: Nim, I hadn't read your last post when I wrote this, we were writing at the same time.)
I think perhaps games should just have a "Recommend button" instead of any stars what so ever. When the game reaches 10 or 20 recommends (w/e), it gets a star, and the top games are the ones that are recommended the most, like with the favs in the project section. This way the community have recommended the game, no one can be a cry baby over getting less than 5 stars, and people aren't forced into recommending games.
I totally agree with that idea. I've said before that the only way to really recommend a game now is to give it 5 stars. Anything less hurts a games rating and adds pressure on the person rating it.
However, I still think there is a place for the opinions of the admins, or at least in the form of an official review team of some sort.
I don't know who Roger Ebert is but I think I get the idea. You trust him because of previous experience reading his reviews. Even if you disagree with him, at least you'll know why because you know what his tastes are. If there were a TDC equivalent reviewer, that would be you, and I'd much rather you were dishing out the stars (if it must be one person's job) than admins I don't know because at least I know that you would back it up with a nicely written review.
However, the admin recommendations are somewhat random. Generally they follow public opinion for games that are recommended, but often games are not recommended and there's nowhere to find out why. Also, I'm still puzzled over what is HIGHLY Recommended and what is plain old vanilla Recommended.
Originally Posted by Shroomlock But like Muz said, the admins can't get around to playing everything, so some good games get overlooked. That hasn't hurt the popularity of "Roly Poly Pumpkin" or "A Mini Falafell Adventure", both games were hugely popular without any kind of star.
If games are doing just fine on their own, maybe we should question whether or not we need this additional admin recommendations system.
Sorry to keep quoting you, Shroomlock, but we were the only ones talking for a while. I'm enjoying the discussion
Originally Posted by Shroomlock HOLY CRAP ADAM!!!!!
I totally agree with that idea. I've said before that the only way to really recommend a game now is to give it 5 stars. Anything less hurts a games rating and adds pressure on the person rating it.
However, I still think there is a place for the opinions of the admins, or at least in the form of an official review team of some sort.
I like Adam's idea too, and agree with you about less than 5 stars being some kind of sensitive decision. A "Recommend" button would be nicer. The idea of admins backing up their decisions with reviews is a nice one but I think we know that it's never going to happen.
Originally Posted by Nim The idea of admins backing up their decisions with reviews is a nice one but I think we know that it's never going to happen.
Actually, that IS a good idea.
But guys, no more new voting systems, though, please. Wasn't it only a few weeks ago when someone suggested that only admins could decide which games were good, because of trolls voting down games. Now you guys don't like this voting system and want to go back to the old one which everyone hated? The recommend button has been done and what happens was that old games get a lot of votes and new games never ever reach the same level of votes as the old one.
What's unfair is the articles rating system, because people are voting 0 for some perfectly fine articles for no reason. But in the end, that system works too.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
"Now you guys don't like this voting system and want to go back to the old one which everyone hated?"
No one has suggested that.
"The recommend button has been done and what happens was that old games get a lot of votes and new games never ever reach the same level of votes as the old one."
Pff like backing it up with a review is going to make everyone happy.
You'll just get people bitching about how wrong the review is in their precious opinions instead of writing decent ones themselves.
Then eventually no one will want to review anything for fear of getting flamed.
I for one have no problem with the recommendations by the admins - if anyone only downloads games from this site just because there is a blue or red star next to it then they are only cheating themselves! I download 99% of games from this site and make my own mind up over what i like, then i either give a good 100+ word account of most of those games with a rating on the downloads page, else i'll write a full review.
I'm not surprised that many others do not do the same (since it is a little time consuming), yet at the same time i think i am more than fair with both the number of and the content of my contributions.
The Admins have as much right to give recommendations as anyone else though. If i could suggest one improvement it would be really nice if the admin issuing the blue/red star would reveal themselves, then people who tend to agree would get more out of their choice of recommendations. Maybe a few words as to why would be nice too but not essential.
As for admins submitting their own games on TDC - don't you think they have enough to do with moderating this site and updating it? And since their are plenty of other people contributing, does a few games less make that much difference. And to say that their opinions of quality in games is irrelevant just because of this fact is stupid; look at the amount of boxing trainers in this world who never made it as pros themselves. It's the same with most coaches in sports - the better ones usually had poor playing/competition careers themselves!
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
