• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

How would a Quality Badge system work for PlayStation and beyond?

EDMIX

Member
It has come to my attention that a seal of approval might be needed for PlayStation but in my opinion maybe the entire industry

I think a better way of possibly doing this might be to Simply allow fans to create the rating as opposed to something given by any one publisher as clearly a bias would exist as a businessman myself I completely understand it because if it's me I would always put business first as well but this is a situation in which the opinion of quality needs to be unbiased.

Allowing fans to do it makes it easier for us to respect the score given or the badge given.
A few bullet points to lay out how I believe it could work.

  • The eligibility to put a score is going to be based on if you purchase the game.

  • The eligibility for a perfect score will be based on completing the game

  • The eligibility of the worst score will be based on functionality (if something is wrong like the game crashes multiple times after three crashes the crash reports should be submitted and under the game title will clearly show that users experienced some issue that warrants a very low score something so it's not abused and actual evidence supports crashes or something)

  • After a certain number of people give out a very high score that completed and purchased the game a badge should be awarded to the title that shows it's a superior title amongst its peers.

Because we all know someone who is a fan of those isometric RPGs that might tell us how great pillars of Eternity is or divinity or something like that but there's always going to be some isometric games that might be actually pretty bad in a system like this could help filter that out for users so they're able to see bad people who completed it are showing that looks can be deceiving and maybe something that might look like a good game is given a bad score by those who completed it.

The complete score card will appear on the game tab after completion for a final score and can be returned to for online games for a continuous score that is open.
So completing a single player game, the score card appears, you can enter the checkboxes BUT you can return to it after if you change your mind, like a if patch makes something worse or something.

A online game will have a open one where elements can be scored after a few hours of play time or something and can be returned to after patches. We all know online games that can get better after months or even years with patches and updates, but we all know online games that started out amazing and patches might have hurt the game. I feel this better shows how gamers think about games as they are not finite, its more dynamic and open with some games.

So I'm trying to think of a way that allows it to be scored without being abused on either end.

Let me know what you guys think and how this would be fine tuned theoretically.


 

Fredrik

Gold Member
  • The eligibility to put a score is going to be based on if you purchase the game.

  • The eligibility for a perfect score will be based on completing the game
Yeah this should’ve always been there, for all reviews. In Steam you see the playtime in user reviews, that makes them a ton more useful than Metacritic user scores which is almost not worth existing at all since anyone can go there and post a 0/10 or 10/10 without even touching the game, there is so much console war and reaction scores there.

And even critics should have playtime shown, sometimes you see things said where you question how far they actually played before posting the review.

Goes for all of us here as well. I often post my playtime because I feel like it’s important info even if I’m a nobody, goes for when I’m critical as well as positive about a game. If I’ve barely played the game, is my opinion worth listening to?
 

Guilty_AI

Member
so, uh, steam user reviews for playstation?

Don't get me wrong, it'd be great to have it there, but i doubt sony would allow something like that (that'd be working as it should least).
Big companies generally don't like having costumers rating their products, that'd mean they would have to actually put effort in instead of just waving cash around to generate positive outlooks.
 
Last edited:

EDMIX

Member
Fredrik recommended this thread be made and I think a foundation can be made on what we think makes a solid title that sets itself apart.

Especially with the indie titles.

Just copy whatever Steam is doing. It's working fine.

Agreed. I think it can be more detailed, but seeing the hours, knowing you must own the game to review and getting a "mostly positive" type thing helps set apart titles better.

And even critics should have playtime shown, sometimes you see things said where you question how far they actually played before posting the review.

Agreed, thats why I feel its not enough to have it set by the publisher or a critic's word alone and that users who bought the game, played many hours or beat the game should be the metric that matters.

I'd go a step further and say that each game would need its own way to rate it.

RPGs, good long or bad long? Filler quest or quality quest? I feel if most who beat the game give a rating, it can show majority might have a view on a title that can help other users. We know of many long games where some actually dislike the game, like with the AC titles of people saying stuff like "bloat", so even the idea of people looking for games solely based on "content" would need to factor how do the people who beat the game actually feel about that length?

100 hours to gamers in AC might be different then 100 hours from Dragon Quest XI
13 hours from The Order 1886 might be different then 13 hours from Uncharted
 

Fredrik

Gold Member
Fredrik recommended this thread be made and I think a foundation can be made on what we think makes a solid title that sets itself apart.

Especially with the indie titles.



Agreed. I think it can be more detailed, but seeing the hours, knowing you must own the game to review and getting a "mostly positive" type thing helps set apart titles better.



Agreed, thats why I feel its not enough to have it set by the publisher or a critic's word alone and that users who bought the game, played many hours or beat the game should be the metric that matters.

I'd go a step further and say that each game would need its own way to rate it.

RPGs, good long or bad long? Filler quest or quality quest? I feel if most who beat the game give a rating, it can show majority might have a view on a title that can help other users. We know of many long games where some actually dislike the game, like with the AC titles of people saying stuff like "bloat", so even the idea of people looking for games solely based on "content" would need to factor how do the people who beat the game actually feel about that length?

100 hours to gamers in AC might be different then 100 hours from Dragon Quest XI
13 hours from The Order 1886 might be different then 13 hours from Uncharted
I hope my morning ramblings aren’t clouding your good ideas…


Anyhow, as a start I think Steam reviews is a solid base to build upon.
That you can actually see how much a user has played when writing the review plus their current total playtime is a big deal.

It says a lot if someone is still playing a game they slammed at first. Maybe it has been improved? Maybe it turned out being quite good after all? Maybe mods has made it awesome?

And it says something if a user stopped playing right after posting a perfect score way too early. If it’s so great then why stop playing? Did it become boring half way through? Was it broken with a patch?

The way you can go back and edit Steam reviews is great since games do get patched and can get updates, as with No Man’s Sky.

Critics never(rarely) go back and re-review a game after it has been patched, can make day 1 critics reviews completely irrelevant just weeks after launch. But people still look at the Metacritic scores as if they show the truth all the time.
 

EDMIX

Member
I hope my morning ramblings aren’t clouding your good ideas…


Anyhow, as a start I think Steam reviews is a solid base to build upon.
That you can actually see how much a user has played when writing the review plus their current total playtime is a big deal.

It says a lot if someone is still playing a game they slammed at first. Maybe it has been improved? Maybe it turned out being quite good after all? Maybe mods has made it awesome?

And it says something if a user stopped playing right after posting a perfect score way too early. If it’s so great then why stop playing? Did it become boring half way through? Was it broken with a patch?

The way you can go back and edit Steam reviews is great since games do get patched and can get updates, as with No Man’s Sky.

Critics never(rarely) go back and re-review a game after it has been patched, can make day 1 critics reviews completely irrelevant just weeks after launch. But people still look at the Metacritic scores as if they show the truth all the time.

Completely agreed. Most critics won't even make updates to their reviews to factor updates, patches, corrections added content etc

They simply try to rate games, like music, film, shows etc. Games are dynamic. How we feel about the state of No Man Sky today, is wildly different then at release and any score on any platform should recognize that.

Its why I feel a badge type system must be based on users who own it, beat it or played enough of it and can edit parts of their review. Steam's setup is a great foundation.
 

EDMIX

Member
RPG titles.

What do gamers favor in this genre?

  • Content?
  • Time?
  • Story element?

The rating for this would be different then other titles, no different then in film when rating a horror, the scare factor would matter.

  • Content a lot or very few? Did the content feel like many quest felt done with purpose or a bit of filler?
This would prompt to show it has content or not and how meaningful that content is.

  • Time
So when they are done with it, a prompt merely ask, 100 hours, enjoyed it or could it be shorter?

Short? (this prompt would show everyone else that its a long game, but those that beat it felt it could be shorter and it overstays its welcome)

Longer? (It would show that its a long game, but worth the journey and those that beat it, want more)

All 100 hours can't be equal and its why I feel gamers need to talk about such things as I remember hearing stuff about DLC being cut from games and the game being too short or unfinished etc, only to have the same fucking gamers telling its its too long, too much content lol All I can think about is, Someone from Ubisoft read this...they said to themselves "oh boy, too short? add more quest, bigger world" etc

Thus, I can't even fault what they did, it was something folks talked about, but maybe it should be more clear about WHAT EXACTLY they disliked. I doubt someone wants a short game IF its 100 of the best hours they've ever spent in a game.

So it questions, is 100 hours in such a game bad or is the 100 hours doable if the content is better like the actual quest being varied. Maybe if a team like Ubisoft sees those scores on PSN of people beating it, yet stating "shorter", but also saying "Content felt like filler and padding" they'd get that 100 hours may not be bad, but the quality of the quest needs work in terms of making most of them very different.

I feel a system like this can truly help users find some gems as someone playing a game a long time may not mean they themselves feel it needed to be that long, but a way to have that listed and marked can get that conversation going and have that a more understood thing in gaming.

1 season from a HBO show isn't the same as
1 season from a CW show with like 25 epiosodes, doesn't mean that CW is bad either, maybe gaming needs something to set those things appart better. I find we are stuck in this "short bad, long good" type thing lol Then when a AC Origins rolls along its like "WOOOOW thats not what we wanted" lol
 

reinking

Member
IMO it will not change much if anything. We all know that marketing companies dump money into paying for reviews. We also know that review bombing exist. I don't want to bring the "rate the game 5 stars for an exclusive in game item" type of reviews to the market. Influencer marketing is already over the top. I can't imagine how bad it would get in this scenario.
 

EDMIX

Member
IMO it will not change much if anything. We all know that marketing companies dump money into paying for reviews. We also know that review bombing exist. I don't want to bring the "rate the game 5 stars for an exclusive in game item" type of reviews to the market. Influencer marketing is already over the top. I can't imagine how bad it would get in this scenario.

yea...thats nothing like what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is

  • The eligibility for a perfect score will be based on completing the game

As in, you can't just put in any random score at any time. You know....kinda the point of this thread, this idea that the system shouldn't be abused and a score should be able to be entered after the game is completed to give a perfect and only time a lower score can be give before completion is with a number of crashes that would just trigger the ability to leave a quality score or something.

So I don't know what you think I'm saying, but I'm not arguing for anyone to be able to put in a score at anytime for DLC or something, with this system...such a thing would be against any policy to ensure the score is legit in the first place.
 

Fredrik

Gold Member
yea...thats nothing like what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is



As in, you can't just put in any random score at any time. You know....kinda the point of this thread, this idea that the system shouldn't be abused and a score should be able to be entered after the game is completed to give a perfect and only time a lower score can be give before completion is with a number of crashes that would just trigger the ability to leave a quality score or something.

So I don't know what you think I'm saying, but I'm not arguing for anyone to be able to put in a score at anytime for DLC or something, with this system...such a thing would be against any policy to ensure the score is legit in the first place.
As said before I like your ideas. I don’t know why people don’t want something like this, would instantly make it harder to troll and review bomb and user reviews would actually be useful.
 

EDMIX

Member
As said before I like your ideas. I don’t know why people don’t want something like this, would instantly make it harder to troll and review bomb and user reviews would actually be useful.

Agreed. I think the steam scores are a great foundation and some questionnaire based on genre would help gamers know the type of game it is as a score alone might not tell the whole story.

I'm even in favor of some system that resets the scores of online games based on when the person last played the title.

How can a perfect score or a 0 /10 be relevant years later of an online game that changes? If the user is still playing the game actively, has hours in the game, the score can be changed, added on to etc, but if the user stops playing the game after lets say 5 updates, their score from 1 year ago can't be valid in regards to how the game is today and they'd need to play for some time limit to be eligible for a new score representing the game as it is today or something.

We've seen too many times a game change over the years and become better, but the scores from years ago paint some picture as if its a awful game, it can't just be based on world of mouth alone, a badge showing up on PSN, XBL etc showing that the current base loves the game would help signal that it was a revival of sorts and is worth playing, but if no badge is there and the base still has issues, gamers will know that the game didn't get any better or something.

I don't think its as easy as just getting a 10 or 0 day 1 and thats all there is to it, gaming being dynamic means its scores must be a floating thing that reflects that and the majority user install base should be the biggest judge of that.
 
Top Bottom