Rules: - Rate from 0.1 to 10 (two decimal places are fine, more than that and I'll round for you). I'd prefer if 5 were an average rather than 7. - You may vote for any games you want that have been rated before at any time. You may also change your vote at any time. - No alts, no joke voting, no “purposeful downvoting” - you all know this. - Please only vote if you've played enough of the game to be able to rate it. - You may nominate as many games as you want on any given day. Multiple noms of the same game aren't necessary. Spreadsheet with prior games/ratings: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Ap-Cxjhwem1PdFR5Wk1NUkhDX3NmM3NIU1hVaFFZY2c&hl=en_US#gid=0
Previous Game's Performance: 129. Super Mario Kart (7.117 / 26 votes) 130. Final Fight (7.025 / 12 votes) 131. BioShock 2 (7.013 / 15 votes) 132. Halo 2 (6.952 / 38 votes) 133. Super Paper Mario (6.895 / 20 votes)
As for the rule change, I am getting some opinions from people as to whether or not I should just bump up all current "0s" to "0.1" or if I should remove all "0s" and then the burden would fall on to the raters to submit a new score. I personally like the second one even though it would screw up with the vote totals for lower ranking games. Feel free to chime in your opinions.
Though I don't know what you'd be doing itt if you haven't played the game
--
You're such a kid! By fr0q. - http://img.imgcake.com/genirisjpgde.jpg Me. By me - http://i974.photobucket.com/albums/ae221/GenesisSaga/JustForFun.jpg
And the game being too easy was kind of linked to making the gameplay bad. Not to mention it started the whole "straight lines and wide circles" design for worlds.
KH1 was so full of secrets and goodies for those that dared to explore. Platforming could be a b**** at times but that was the only downside.
8/10 The first game was better even if the controls weren't done as well as the second.
--
I bring order and chaos, I am life and death, creator and destroyer, just like the rest of humanity. My bunnyslug: http://img.imgcake.com/nio/catapngzu.png
From: KCF0107 | #002 As for the rule change, I am getting some opinions from people as to whether or not I should just bump up all current "0s" to "0.1" or if I should remove all "0s" and then the burden would fall on to the raters to submit a new score. I personally like the second one even though it would screw up with the vote totals for lower ranking games. Feel free to chime in your opinions.
Please oh please the first one. It should be obvious that by voting zero people wanted to give the game the lowest score possible, so by changing the zeros to 0.1's you allow that to remain true. Nobody who gave a game a zero is going to give it any higher than a 0.1 anyway in a revote.
--
Will not remove this line of my signature until the Seahawks, Jazz or Rockies win a title (Started 5-16-09) SuperNiceDog: Guru winner
From: Emporer_Kazbar | #051 Nobody who gave a game a zero is going to give it any higher than a 0.1 anyway in a revote.
In that situation, I wouldn't be telling people, "Hey, User X, I removed your votes for Super Mario Bros. and Portal. You must re-submit your scores to me." People would have to look at the doc, remember that they voted for a game, and then submit the 0.1.
However, I am thinking that it would be more likely that people would see that they do not have a rating for a game that they have played and then rate it fairly.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think that any rating that is less than one was actually a fair rating. Increasing the minimum rating to "0.1" is likely not going to stay. It will probably rise to "1.0"
I'd just keep the votes and let people do whatever they want, maybe ask people to specifically explain why they drop a 0 on a game with a decent average or why they drop a 10 on Custer's before including the score.
--
Donny: Are they gonna hurt us, Walter? Walter: No, Donny. These men are cowards.
Uh, what. Let people do what they want. People drop 10s on games when it isn't warranted all the time. I don't know why you're starting a crusade against low scores in a topic where the average score for a game is already well above 7, despite the rules saying "I'd prefer if 5 were an average rather than 7."
Just leave 0s as they are.
8.5 for KH2
-- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love!
I'll keep what everyone has said in this topic and outside in mind and make my decision soon.
As for the game, I'll give it a 3.3
The original was an above-average game that had some potential but had too much holding it back. The sequel failed to capitalize on that potential, failed to work on the original's problems (in many cases they ended up being worse), and they introduced new problems.
It was simply a mess with some, but not many, bright spots.
I have decided to just bump all "0" ratings to "0.1" and that will be all. I don't know when I will actually get around to doing that, but it will happen
From: TomNook7 | #106 Um. Why is it 0.1 now? That make absolutely no sense unless you change the maximum rating to 10.1. Keep that **** zero.
For a myriad of reasons that people have brought up with me over time, and I agree on several accounts.
Actually, changing the maximum to 10.1 makes no sense. For 5.0 to be the absolute average, the scale has to be 0.1 - 10.0. Under the previous rating system, a 4.9 was the absolute average and under your suggested system, the absolute average would be 5.1