Recommend
39 
 Thumb up
 Hide
97 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

Rahdo Runs Through» Forums » General

Subject: Rahdo's Ratings rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Richard Ham
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
CLICK THIS BEAGLE if you're looking for in-depth gameplay video run-throughs! :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
On my main geeklist, I was asked

djdano wrote:
Richard, I have to ask: you've played over 400 different games, but only ever rated 11 lower than 7 (but not lower than 6), everything else is a 7 or above.
Do you actually prefer NOT rating games you don't like? Or do you actually find that every game you play is above average?


I thought it would be better to bring that over here in case others are interested in the discussion, so here's my reply:

Well, I just checked and it's 430 games I've got recorded plays for, but that's nowhere near accurate. I've played 100's of additional sessions with dozens of different games that I haven't logged because I didn't play them with Jen (co-workers, mostly), and on top of that there's probably dozens and dozens more sessions that I didn't log because I'm lazy, or they're half games, or what have you. So I think we can throw out the 430 logged plays as any sort of a meaningful number. It's just a personal record I keep to track (very roughly) how much gaming Jen and I are getting together

But let's go with something more solid, related to how I rate games on BGG. Right now, I've got 233 games rated as of November 2013 (here's the list: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/rahdo?sort=rati... ). I own every one of those games. On BGG's 10 point scale, they break down as:

0 games are a 10 - "Outstanding. Always want to play, expect this will never change." (how can you give anything a 10 with that definition? FOREVER is a LOOONG time... who knows if my tastes will change or not?)

13 games are at 9 - "Excellent. Always want to play."

68 games get an 8 - "Very good. Like to play, will probably suggest it, will never turn it down."

141 games sit at 7 - "Good. Usually willing to play."

11 games come in with a 6 - "Fair. Some fun or challenge at least, will play occasionally if in the right mood."

I have 0 games ranked
5 - Average. No significant appeal, take it or leave it.
4 - Below average. Slightly boring, could be talked into it on occasion.
3 - Poor. Likely won't play this again although could be convinced.
2 - Very poor. Annoying, I plan to never play this again.
1 - Defies description of a game. You won't catch me dead playing this. Clearly broken.

Now, in addition to those 233 games we own which we have rated (as of today), there's another 96 we own that we haven't rated. In almost every case, that's because we haven't played them yet.

On top of that, there's 196 181 games that we've previously owned, which have been gotten rid of for various reasons - most commonly because we didn't enjoy them enough to keep them. Here's a list of those, sorted by BGG rank, for anyone interested: http://gone.rahdo.com

I think that's what your looking for: the games we've played (and owned) that we didn't enjoy enough to keep. Now, those aren't rated numerically, but instead have written descriptions of why we got rid of them (which is more informative than a number anyway, IMO). Why no number rating? Two reasons:

1) I figure it's enough to say that we didn't enjoy the game and got rid of it. No need to belabour the point and actively try to hurt the game.

and

2) I literally can't rate them on the current BGG scale, which I'm not a fan of at all, because it doesn't take into account objective vs subjective ranking, which makes it totally broken. I think Terra Mystica is an amazing game - objectively brilliant, probably would give it an 8 or maybe a 9. BUT, with BGG's ratings, I'd have to give it a 3 or a 4, as that's the closest description to how subjectively feel about playing it. But I KNOW it's an incredible game... just not a game for me and Jen because of our own particular preferences.

So BGG rating system is bogus and I therefore don't rate games that we don't enjoy.

If I were king of BGG, I'd have done a completely different system. When ranking games, people could choose from the following choices:

LOVE IT!
Like it
Indifferent, as this is really not my kind of game
Don't like it (even though it's the kind of game I'd normally like)
HATE IT! (even though it's the kind of game I'd normally like)

No numbers, just subjective preference based on a the voter. Don't ask people if they think it's a good game. Ask them if they how much they do (or don't) enjoy it with those 5 answers above.

Then, behind the scenes, hidden, give each one of those votes a value (with 'not my kind of game' equalling 0), and derive the overall rankings from that.

But that's just me. If BGG did that way, I'd rank every game I've ever played

edit: I just removed some games from my 'previously owned' list because I only ever had them temporarily as part of a maths trade. never actually played them, so never really formed an opinion at all...
52 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Morten K
Denmark
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Yes the system is in serious need of a change so we rate how good the game is and not how prepared we are to play it. It makes no sense to look at the level of a large group of people's willingness to play. A bit of civil disobedience seems apt here cool
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joao Henrique
Brazil
Recife
Pernambuco
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TLDR: "I don't rate games i don't like"

14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Ham
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
CLICK THIS BEAGLE if you're looking for in-depth gameplay video run-throughs! :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tormentin wrote:
TLDR: "I don't rate games i don't like"



Well, I do, by listing them as 'previously owned'. If I didn't rate games at all, I'd just remove them from my collection when I got rid of them and not say a thing...
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Mathias
United States
Hendersonville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rahdo wrote:

LOVE IT!
Like it
Indifferent, as this is really not my kind of game
Don't like it (even though it's the kind of game I'd normally like)
HATE IT! (even though it's the kind of game I'd normally like)


This is almost exactly how I do it on here. I use the numbers, because that's the system available, but I put this in my profile to explain the strange (compared to BGG) range.

Quote:
I use numeral ratings of 4 through 8 .

I think a rating system of 1 through 10 is unnecessarily complex for rating, well anything.

Additionally, avoiding the extreme ends of the rating spectrum allows me to have a specific rating system within an established system without skewing the ratings unfairly, based on my subjective opinions.

Below is a rundown of each numeral, and what it means to me.

8 - Love: Amongst my favorite games to play, teach and share.

7 - Like: Has a solid place in my collection and requires little to no coaxing to play.

6 - Indifferent: I don't love it or hate it, I enjoy playing it, but not my first choice.

5 - Dislike: No desire to play it, but will with the right people and may own a copy in certain rare cases.

4 - Hate: I will not play this game unless bribed, coerced, or threatened. If owned, it will soon be sold or traded.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Smith
United Kingdom
Solihull
West Midlands
flag msg tools
http://www.youtube.com/user/SmoothCJS
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think all people have their own way of doing it, and I do quite like the way Richard does it as it makes it easy to see the list of games he & Jen aren't overly fond of, rather than an arbitrary low rating. Still, I went through my rated games and adjusted them according to the BGG chart to trial it anyway.

Before now I kind of arbitrarily assigned ratings based on initial thoughts when trying to think of a rating and how it compares to other similarly fun games. This was quite different and it's actually resulted in rating drops all round, with 0 going higher.

Thinking about the BGG ratings I've gone through I don't think it's too bad a way to do a rating system, as it makes it more of a 'How likely is it that the average person wants to play'. Ultimately, does it matter if you think a game is terrible but enjoy playing it anyway for the social experience? I don't think I do.

I'm going to try and stick to the BGG system now and if that means being harsh as hell I'll do it, as I should imagine if a game is more fun than I think, averages will correct it anyway!

As a side thing, I removed my ratings for expansions as I think of them as part of the game once I have them. Is this normal or do people frequently play with and without, thereby having more of a need for separate ratings? Just curious!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Thunkd
United States
Northampton
MA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rahdo wrote:
I literally can't rate them on the current BGG scale, which I'm not a fan of at all, because it doesn't take into account objective vs subjective ranking, which makes it totally broken. I think Terra Mystica is an amazing game - objectively brilliant, probably would give it an 8 or maybe a 9. BUT, with BGG's ratings, I'd have to give it a 3 or a 4, as that's the closest description to how subjectively feel about playing it. But I KNOW it's an incredible game... just not a game for me and Jen because of our own particular preferences.

When you say that Terra Mystica is an 8 or 9 objectively, you're judging it on a quality scale. But BGG is a want-to-play scale.

Generally those run in tandem as you're more likely to want to play better games. So a 9 usually means a great game you want to play a lot. But it's a mistake to try and mantain your ratings in a way that fits both.

If you only want to play Terra Mystica at the 4 level on the BGG scale, then it's a 4 rating game for you. It doesn't mean it's a bad game, it means it's a not-for-you game. You do your fans a disservice when you refuse to rate it as such.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Indru
Romania
Timisoara
Timis
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rahdo wrote:

0 games are a 10 - "Outstanding. Always want to play, expect this will never change." (how can you give anything a 10 with that definition? FOREVER is a LOOONG time... who knows if my tastes will change or not?)


Actually that's not true. If you check your profile you will see that you rate several games as a 10, cause BGG considers a 10 everything that's more than 9. So a 9.01 is a 10, but really it's not.

rahdo wrote:

I think that's what your looking for: the games we've played (and owned) that we didn't enjoy enough to keep. Now, those aren't rated, because

1) I figure it's enough to say that we didn't enjoy the game and got rid of it. No need to belabour the point and actively try to hurt the game.

and

2) I literally can't rate them on the current BGG scale, which I'm not a fan of at all, because it doesn't take into account objective vs subjective ranking, which makes it totally broken. I think Terra Mystica is an amazing game - objectively brilliant, probably would give it an 8 or maybe a 9. BUT, with BGG's ratings, I'd have to give it a 3 or a 4, as that's the closest description to how subjectively feel about playing it. But I KNOW it's an incredible game... just not a game for me and Jen because of our own particular preferences.

So BGG rating system is bogus and I therefore don't rate games that we don't enjoy.


That's actually what I was looking for, low ratings for games you did not enjoy. Giving high ratings for games you own and like is fine, but I'd like to see what people don't like as well. If there's a comment to accompany the low rating, even better - I don't do it myself, but maybe one day I will start. You can relate to someone's taste in games better if you can get a glimpse of what their dislikes are.

I don't think low ratings "hurt" games or their designers in any way if that game has no broken parts, I actually believe that good criticism is always welcome. And ratings are meant to be entirely subjective because they express your taste in games, your relationship to an experience that you had. Objectivity is impossible here.

I did a little experiment and calculated my overall "Average rating" following your system, keeping only the ratings for the games I own. It's 8.45 compared to the actual 6.81, which is a huge difference and I believe the BGG top would look completely different if we all stopped rating games we don't own.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Igor Knop
Brazil
Juiz de Fora
Minas Gerais
flag msg tools
designer
badge
No disassemble! Vídeos de Partidas Completas Passo a Passo
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tigrillo wrote:
Yes the system is in serious need of a change so we rate how good the game is and not how prepared we are to play it. It makes no sense to look at the level of a large group of people's willingness to play. A bit of civil disobedience seems apt here cool


I think just the oposite way: I don't think we can agree with a common metric for a "good game". The only sensitive information that emerges from all blurred and passionate arguments about components, theme, mechanics, fun is just the willing of play. I saw some acquaintances rating the games like "Boring gameplay but the components are amazing! 9". gulp I tend to see the ratings as how "popular" the game is and not how "good" it is because only in my table it can prove his worthy.

Rahdo's videos shows this very well: look how game plays and, with your taste, see if it is for you or not.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glaya B
United States
San Mateo
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Smoothsmith wrote:
As a side thing, I removed my ratings for expansions as I think of them as part of the game once I have them. Is this normal or do people frequently play with and without, thereby having more of a need for separate ratings? Just curious!


Think about a game like Dominion, which has many expansions that can be combined in multiple ways. Maybe you really like the Prosperity expansion for what it adds to the game (more money! more victory points!) whereas Alchemy is more difficult to appreciate because adding only one or two cards with a potion cost to the set means it's generally not worth buying the potion...essentially wasting those card slots because no one will buy them. If you don't rate the expansions separately, how will you be able to distinguish such differences?

Edited to add: I guess what I mean to say is, when people are looking at ratings to help them prioritize how to spend their precious gaming budget, such information helps. If you can only afford to buy one expansion for a game out of several possibilities, you want that money to go toward the most enjoyable one--or maybe you learn that it's better to skip the expansion entirely and buy a whole new game instead.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Ham
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
CLICK THIS BEAGLE if you're looking for in-depth gameplay video run-throughs! :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thunkd wrote:
When you say that Terra Mystica is an 8 or 9 objectively, you're judging it on a quality scale. But BGG is a want-to-play scale.

Unfortunately, that's not the case, based on the current descriptions on the 1-10 scale. Each number has a "how much do I want to play it" element, as well as a straight "game quality" element. So if I rate something a 3 ("Poor. Likely won't play this again although could be convinced.") am I saying it's a poor game, or that it's just a game that I don't enjoy playing, or both? The current ratings system try to have it both ways, and that's broken. Pick one or the other!

Quote:
Generally those run in tandem as you're more likely to want to play better games. So a 9 usually means a great game you want to play a lot. But it's a mistake to try and mantain your ratings in a way that fits both.

I agree, but that's what the current rating defintions ask you to do.

Quote:
If you only want to play Terra Mystica at the 4 level on the BGG scale, then it's a 4 rating game for you. It doesn't mean it's a bad game

Actually it does. It clearly says in the definition of a 4 that I'm rating it as a "below average" game, which IMO it's not. That's the problem...

djdano wrote:
rahdo wrote:

0 games are a 10 - "Outstanding. Always want to play, expect this will never change." (how can you give anything a 10 with that definition? FOREVER is a LOOONG time... who knows if my tastes will change or not?)


Actually that's not true. If you check your profile you will see that you rate several games as a 10, cause BGG considers a 10 everything that's more than 9. So a 9.01 is a 10, but really it's not.

OMG, they round UP!?!?! That's even stupider!!! So if I rate something a 10, does it go up to 11?

Quote:
rahdo wrote:

I think that's what your looking for: the games we've played (and owned) that we didn't enjoy enough to keep. Now, those aren't rated, because

1) I figure it's enough to say that we didn't enjoy the game and got rid of it. No need to belabour the point and actively try to hurt the game.

and

2) I literally can't rate them on the current BGG scale, which I'm not a fan of at all, because it doesn't take into account objective vs subjective ranking, which makes it totally broken. I think Terra Mystica is an amazing game - objectively brilliant, probably would give it an 8 or maybe a 9. BUT, with BGG's ratings, I'd have to give it a 3 or a 4, as that's the closest description to how subjectively feel about playing it. But I KNOW it's an incredible game... just not a game for me and Jen because of our own particular preferences.

So BGG rating system is bogus and I therefore don't rate games that we don't enjoy.


That's actually what I was looking for, low ratings for games you did not enjoy. Giving high ratings for games you own and like is fine, but I'd like to see what people don't like as well. If there's a comment to accompany the low rating, even better - I don't do it myself, but maybe one day I will start. You can relate to someone's taste in games better if you can get a glimpse of what their dislikes are.

Yeah, I used to put comments on, but it became too much of a hassle to maintain them as my feelings about the game evolved. I don't mind going and adjusting the numbers every once in awhile (I actually do quite a bit), but editing or adding to little mini-reviews -- blech. Besides, that's what my end of year geeklists are for, I suppose, since I list EVERYTHING on those, including the games we didn't like...

Quote:
I don't think low ratings "hurt" games or their designers in any way if that game has no broken parts, I actually believe that good criticism is always welcome.

Critism yes, but ratings aren't good criticism. They're a blunt instrument with no context. People see a game is given a 4, and they assume it's literally the worst POS in the universe, even though (as Bryan points out above) it might have been rated a 4 because of personal preference and the rater actually thought highly of the game!

And unfortunately, a lot of people put a lot of weight into what I think of games (wrongly, I assure you all ), so in my case, giving something a 4 when I actually think it's a great game is almost guaranteed to hurt the sales of that game. I wish it weren't so, but it is...

Quote:
And ratings are meant to be entirely subjective because they express your taste in games, your relationship to an experience that you had. Objectivity is impossible here.

Impossible with the current system, sure. But not if the right question is asked. One can objectively state whether they enjoyed playing a game. That's not subjective, it's a definitive fact. That's why I'd have people rate it based on that one criteria, and not give things a number, but instead choose a text string ("love it", "like it" etc.)

Quote:
I did a little experiment and calculated my overall "Average rating" following your system, keeping only the ratings for the games I own. It's 8.45 compared to the actual 6.81, which is a huge difference and I believe the BGG top would look completely different if we all stopped rating games we don't own.

Well, since most people consider anything below a 7 (or 8 in many cases) to be crap not worthy of their attention, that's not necessarily a bad thing, and is probably more inline with the broader quality expectation anyway...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Ham
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
CLICK THIS BEAGLE if you're looking for in-depth gameplay video run-throughs! :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
igorknop wrote:
I tend to see the ratings as how "popular" the game is and not how "good" it is because only in my table it can prove his worthy.

And you're entirely right to do so, but unfortunately, most people (I'd wager) don't see it that way... they see it as wisdom of the crowds definitive quality rating endorsed by the BGG hive-mind
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Blaiberg
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Here's my take.

There are games out there that might be amazing - I wouldn't know becuase they are too long for me (anythig over 3 hours is a no-no).

Take BSG - I've played it once, and loved it. However realistically how often would I get it to the table? Hardly ever.

So my personal rating would be somewhere around a 4 or 5 - but I'd add a comment regarding why.

Sam ewith Trajan. I'm a big Feld fan, and hated Trajan - so I'd rate it lower but comment why - it's just not a game for me.

See here's the issue with not rating games you don't like. Michael McIntyre is a stand up comic and he does a skit about boarding an aeroplane. Essentially he says that there are people who refuse to board until the last minute because they know the plane won't leave without them. And whilst it's a good theory, if everyone did it, no-one would ever get on the plane. (he makes it a lot funnier then I've done here).

Same with the ratings. If no-one rated a game they didn't like then every game would end up somewhere between 6 and 10.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Ham
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
CLICK THIS BEAGLE if you're looking for in-depth gameplay video run-throughs! :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheRiddler1976 wrote:
Here's my take.

There are games out there that might be amazing - I wouldn't know becuase they are too long for me (anythig over 3 hours is a no-no).

Take BSG - I've played it once, and loved it. However realistically how often would I get it to the table? Hardly ever.

So my personal rating would be somewhere around a 4 or 5 - but I'd add a comment regarding why.

Yes, but unfortunately, most people won't see the comment, and with the current BGG defintions, the 4 or 5 you give will be officially recorded as you saying the game was "below average" or "average", which is not how you actually feel about it.

Quote:
Same with the ratings. If no-one rated a game they didn't like then every game would end up somewhere between 6 and 10.

And considering most people equate 6 with "not worth my time", I don't see how there's anything wrong with that. A scale from 1-10 is completely worthless when over half of it is ignored by most people...

And again, I do implicitly rate the games I don't like by listing them as previously owned - I don't have to do that, but I take the time to do so. And I do it in a way that can't be misconstrued...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tinwë
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
badge
Donkeys!! ^^
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rahdo wrote:

Unfortunately, that's not the case, based on the current descriptions on the 1-10 scale. Each number has a "how much do I want to play it" element, as well as a straight "game quality" element. So if I rate something a 3 ("Poor. Likely won't play this again although could be convinced.") am I saying it's a poor game, or that it's just a game that I don't enjoy playing, or both? The current ratings system try to have it both ways, and that's broken. Pick one or the other!


Simple solution: you get half of the vote for the "how much do I want to play it" element, and half a vote for the straight "game quality" element. That's actually consistent with the BGG scheme (at least in how it reflects itself in the geek rating and in the rank of a game).
So for you Terra Mystica is worth (8+4)/2 = 6. Simple enough!

rahdo wrote:
And unfortunately, a lot of people put a lot of weight into what I think of games (wrongly, I assure you all ), so in my case, giving something a 4 when I actually think it's a great game is almost guaranteed to hurt the sales of that game. I wish it weren't so, but it is…

rahdo wrote:
Yes, but unfortunately, most people won't see the comment, and with the current BGG defintions, the 4 or 5 you give will be officially recorded as you saying the game was "below average" or "average", which is not how you actually feel about it.

Either people look at your rating in your own collection, and therefore see the comment just next to it, or your vote simply contributes anonymously to the geek rating (which is a good thing).

Not saying here that you have to rate everything, just saying that there are ways to do it despite the limitations of bgg and the weight of your ratings
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon
United States
Urbana
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I say screw "objective quality" and save those ideas for comments and just rate based on desire to play. I came up with my own definitions for BGGs numbers:

Quote:
10 My personal favorites.
======================================
09 Great games that I would love to play more.
08 Great games I'll almost always play.
======================================
07 I'll request this often.
06 I'll request this occasionally.
======================================
05 Happy to play, although unlikely to request.
======================================
04 I'll rather play something else, but I'm in if someone else really wants to play.
======================================
03 I really don't want to play this.
02 Forget me -- you shouldn't play this either.
======================================
01 Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.


These track more or less to BGGs definitions, but worded in a way that makes more sense to me.

My ratings have nothing to do with how "good" the game is. For example, I think Go is a wonderfully designed game. It looks beautiful on the board and it is awe-inspiring. I rate it a _5_, because it is too abstract for me nd I always feel I am terrible at the game. I feel I'd have to dedicate a lot of time to be worthy of the game and not play anything else. So the rating is more about me than about Go.

I also see my ratings as a snapshot in time. Each time I play a game, I might decide to raise or lower it. Occasionally I look through my ratings and reevaluate them. If I used "objective" ratings, then that wouldn't be possible, and the system would be less useful to me.

When I look at other people's ratings, I try to look at them with as much other information as they provide. I compare how they rate X vs. Y, I look to see what comments they have included, I see how often they have played the game if they track plays, because a rating 8 with 50 plays compared to a rating 10 with 2 plays is interesting. I check the profile to see if they have their own definitions like I do. Basically, the more info, the better.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Federico
Italy
Val di Non
Trentino
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
rahdo wrote:
TheRiddler1976 wrote:
Here's my take.

There are games out there that might be amazing - I wouldn't know becuase they are too long for me (anythig over 3 hours is a no-no).

Take BSG - I've played it once, and loved it. However realistically how often would I get it to the table? Hardly ever.

So my personal rating would be somewhere around a 4 or 5 - but I'd add a comment regarding why.

Yes, but unfortunately, most people won't see the comment [...]

Why not?

I usually see the ratings either from a game's ratings list or a user's collection, and in both cases beside the rating there are the comments.

Are there any other ways to see them? Sometimes it's hard to navigate BGG, so I wouldn't be too surprised if I missed it for years
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Ham
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
CLICK THIS BEAGLE if you're looking for in-depth gameplay video run-throughs! :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fede__ wrote:
rahdo wrote:
TheRiddler1976 wrote:
Here's my take.

There are games out there that might be amazing - I wouldn't know becuase they are too long for me (anythig over 3 hours is a no-no).

Take BSG - I've played it once, and loved it. However realistically how often would I get it to the table? Hardly ever.

So my personal rating would be somewhere around a 4 or 5 - but I'd add a comment regarding why.

Yes, but unfortunately, most people won't see the comment [...]

Why not?

I usually see the ratings either from a game's ratings list or a user's collection, and in both cases beside the rating there are the comments.

Are there any other ways to see them? Sometimes it's hard to navigate BGG, so I wouldn't be too surprised if I missed it for years


I say that most people won't see it because I am always SHOCKED when I suggest to folks in various threads that they should hit the 'comments' for a game to get a wide range of opinions, and people admit they didn't know about that feature. Anecdotal, to be sure, but I suspect most people don't go deeper than the average rating (since you see stars, right up at the top of the page!) and the overall rank (because it's right next to the stars).

But who knows...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max Lampinen
Finland
Espoo
none
flag msg tools
(and a hermit)
badge
Fan of FUN games!
Avatar
mbmbmb
But the BGG rating IS subjective, it already asks you how much you want to play the game (right on the info box actually) and not how good you "objectively" think it is. That's pretty much the point..

So, I've rated chess 4 - "Not so good [for me], it doesn't get me but could be talked into it on occasion." for example, and I don't feel bad, because even though I appreciate the game and its grandmasters that description applies to me.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Ham
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
CLICK THIS BEAGLE if you're looking for in-depth gameplay video run-throughs! :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
max_s wrote:
So, I've rated chess 4 - "Not so good [for me], it doesn't get me but could be talked into it on occasion." for example, and I don't feel bad, because even though I appreciate the game and its grandmasters that description applies to me.


Nope, a 4 isn't "Not so good [for me]". It's "below average"... so by choosing 4, you are stating that you find chess to be a below average game, and furthermore, because you find it below average, you also think that it's "slightly boring, could be talked into it on occasion".

Now, I suppose one could parse the official definition for 4 as "4 - below average, *not* in terms of game quality, but rather in terms of my reaction to playing it, and further, I find it slightly boring, but could be talked into it upon occasion", but I find it hard to read it that way myself. I'm pretty sure that it should be read the way it's written, and probably most people do. At least I do.

It's pretty widely acknowledged on BGG that different people interpret the rating scale in many different ways. I'd say that's the mark of a bad set of rules, if they're so open to reinterpretation...

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max Lampinen
Finland
Espoo
none
flag msg tools
(and a hermit)
badge
Fan of FUN games!
Avatar
mbmbmb
Well, it could be ruleless and most people wouldn't probably rate any different. I don't think imdb (worlds biggest movie database) has any set rules for rating for example (if it has I've never seen them and I've used it for 10 years or so), people just rate.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Ham
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
CLICK THIS BEAGLE if you're looking for in-depth gameplay video run-throughs! :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree, and honestly, ruleless would be better that what we've got right now (though not the best it could be). My issue, and the reason I don't rate games that we've gotten rid of, is that the rules/defintions that have been set up (and are widely ignored) are inconsistent and conflicted, and I can't use the system in good conscience, since my giving something a 3 or a 4 because we don't like heavy conflict games would be disingenuous, if one adheres to the letter of the definitions. And so, rather than follow rules/definitions I find to be broken and misleading, I just opt out.

Remember, this thread is basically just me explaining why I don't apply ratings to the games Jen & I don't like as much using the current system, and where you (or Dan, rather) can go to get the info
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Felix Rodriguez
United States
Somerville
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
rahdo wrote:

Yes, but unfortunately, most people won't see the comment, and with the current BGG defintions, the 4 or 5 you give will be officially recorded as you saying the game was "below average" or "average", which is not how you actually feel about it.


I don't know if I am most people, but I find the ratings number mostly useless. Mainly because the all range between 6.5 and 7.5. Seriously who is making a decision to buy a game because it is rated 7.2 vs 7.1?

So I always go into the comments and look at those.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joao Henrique
Brazil
Recife
Pernambuco
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kaelistus wrote:
rahdo wrote:

Yes, but unfortunately, most people won't see the comment, and with the current BGG defintions, the 4 or 5 you give will be officially recorded as you saying the game was "below average" or "average", which is not how you actually feel about it.


I don't know if I am most people, but I find the ratings number mostly useless. Mainly because the all range between 6.5 and 7.5. Seriously who is making a decision to buy a game because it is rated 7.2 vs 7.1?

So I always go into the comments and look at those.


So true. Rates are useless and thats why i proudly wear my Rahdo badge. Because in the end, i have to see the game in action and like it in order to buy and play it.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin B. Smith
United States
Lake Forest Park
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kaelistus wrote:
I don't know if I am most people, but I find the ratings number mostly useless.

Right. My only "10" has a BGG average of 5.96, so a low BGG rating doesn't mean I'll dislike the game. Going the other direction, my conscience is clear when I give a "3" rating to games with a BGG average over 7, like El Grande, Go, and Survive: Escape from Atlantis!.

However, there are cases where decline to rate a game, or maybe I'll fudge it up by a point or two: Games with so few ratings that my low rating will materially shift the game's BGG rating.

An example was Vehicles, a clever worker placement game that was self-published on The Game Crafter. The game had (way) too much conflict for me, so it probably deserved a 4 rating. But the designer is a nice guy, and the game is a solid design, so after not rating it for a while, I gave it a 6. The only other person who has rated it is the guy I traded it to, and he gave it a 7.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.