Those medals look a bit weird (maybe some shading would help it), but otherwise I like that design (though I would remove the "x stars" text)

[quote="DJ Coco"]Those medals look a bit weird (maybe some shading would help it), but otherwise I like that design (though I would remove the "x stars" text)[/quote] I agree.

I agree the metal needs a bit more contrast. Besides it fits well for the new main site.

It was a super-quick photoshop thing using whatever graphics I could pinch from Google at the time, but it gets the point across. [img]http://i.imgur.com/byBj8n6.png[/img] Obviously whoever designs the website can do it however they like, but this is my simple compromise for coloured stars and I think it'd look quite snazzy at the end of a review, even if it's not a very high score!

I would not mind having the average rating appear right under game previews when scrolling down I just think It'd look pretty cool! Example: (credit to Kritter and Mario Silva) [img]http://imgur.com/Pd9PatO.png[/img] [size=50]quick terrible edit. (i'd probably rate the game 4/5 though not 3/5 :P)[/size]

[quote="Cap'n Coconuts"][quote="DJ Coco"]@Coco: I'm not sure about giving three stars the bronze color. It's supposed to be a fairly good score, bronze makes it look rather subpar.[/quote] I think of 3/5 as average. as it's right in the middle between amazing and terrible. I don't understand how copper would be subpar for that.[/quote] See, THIS is the issue. 3/5 makes perfect sense for an average game, but with the newly proposed system, it's also what a good game, which happens to lack the difficult requirements to earn a 5, would be rated. As far as I can tell, what a 5-point system presents is this: 1/5 - Terrible 2/5 - Bad 3/5 - Average 4/5 - Really good game 5/5 - Truly spectacular, and demonstrates artistic integrity While the difference between a 1/5 and 2/5 may not be significant in most cases, the difference between a 3/5 and 4/5 IS quite big.

[quote="Willsaber"][quote="Cap'n Coconuts"][quote="DJ Coco"]@Coco: I'm not sure about giving three stars the bronze color. It's supposed to be a fairly good score, bronze makes it look rather subpar.[/quote] I think of 3/5 as average. as it's right in the middle between amazing and terrible. I don't understand how copper would be subpar for that.[/quote] See, THIS is the issue. 3/5 makes perfect sense for an average game, but with the newly proposed system, it's also what a good game, which happens to lack the difficult requirements to earn a 5, would be rated. As far as I can tell, what a 5-point system presents is this: 1/5 - Terrible 2/5 - Bad 3/5 - Average 4/5 - Really good game 5/5 - Truly spectacular, and demonstrates artistic integrity While the difference between a 1/5 and 2/5 may not be significant in most cases, the difference between a 3/5 and 4/5 IS quite big.[/quote] Not really. There's average games (which people would consider "good", just not great), and then there's great games, and then there's spectacular games. At least there is [i]some[/i] kind of separation, whereas a 6 and a 7 or an 8 and a 9 or a 3 and a 4 on a ten-point scale differ in very small ways. (And the separation is MUCH more open to individual interpretation, which messes up the system even more.) Like I said earlier, [i]these are fangames[/i]. We don't need to scientifically calculate the greatness of a game. Score out of five, it's fast, it's simple, it makes sense. No more "ooh a one is too harsh" or "well I personally think it's an eight instead of a seven". If you want details you read the review text. If you don't, hey, this score out of five is simpler to read and grasp compared to a score out of ten.

[quote="Willsaber"]See, THIS is the issue. 3/5 makes perfect sense for an average game, but with the newly proposed system, it's also what a good game, which happens to lack the difficult requirements to earn a 5, would be rated.[/quote] Uh, no, a good game that isn't quite worthy of a 5 would be a 4. You know, the whole number that is one less than 5. I don't understand why people are equating "good" with a 3/5 rating, even though it is right in between two extremes of quality. It's THE rating for a neutral opinion if there ever was one in a five point system.

[quote="Zero Kirby"][quote="Willsaber"][quote="Cap'n Coconuts"] I think of 3/5 as average. as it's right in the middle between amazing and terrible. I don't understand how copper would be subpar for that.[/quote] See, THIS is the issue. 3/5 makes perfect sense for an average game, but with the newly proposed system, it's also what a good game, which happens to lack the difficult requirements to earn a 5, would be rated. As far as I can tell, what a 5-point system presents is this: 1/5 - Terrible 2/5 - Bad 3/5 - Average 4/5 - Really good game 5/5 - Truly spectacular, and demonstrates artistic integrity While the difference between a 1/5 and 2/5 may not be significant in most cases, the difference between a 3/5 and 4/5 IS quite big.[/quote] Like I said earlier, [i]these are fangames[/i]. We don't need to scientifically calculate the greatness of a game. Score out of five, it's fast, it's simple, it makes sense.[/quote] I can totally get most of your points, but I don't see what being a fangame has to do with how it should be scored. If you are getting at being a fangame should allow it a certain amount of freedom from judgement, then I'm not sure I see how it should be any more free than any other game.

[quote="Willsaber"]I can totally get most of your points, but I don't see what being a fangame has to do with how it should be scored. If you are getting at being a fangame should allow it a certain amount of freedom from judgement, then I'm not sure I see how it should be any more free than any other game.[/quote] I don't really feel like getting into another argument again, so I'll just leave the remainder of my points as they stand. They have yet to really be refuted anyway so I needn't defend them. I only support having scores because they're easy to catch at a glance, and a five-point scale is easier to understand at a glance than a ten-point scale. If people want more detailed and precise reviews, [i]they'll read the text[/i]. Beyond that, a five-point scale would help eliminate the ambiguity the current review system kind of has. As far as the [i]text[/i] of the review goes, I think it should be totally free-form (aside from a field for the preview text) and not confined to sections as our current review system works. If people want formatting like that they can format it themselves - as it is right now it's kind of a "review formula" that can be restrictive.

[quote="Zero Kirby"]As far as the [i]text[/i] of the review goes, I think it should be totally free-form (aside from a field for the preview text) and not confined to sections as our current review system works. If people want formatting like that they can format it themselves - as it is right now it's kind of a "review formula" that can be restrictive.[/quote] Yes, I think with a 5-star system this would be the best way to go. Really the only reason reviews are sectioned off is so people can give each category a score. The problem with changing reviews so dramatically though is how will it work for old reviews?

[quote="Zero Kirby"]As far as the [i]text[/i] of the review goes, I think it should be totally free-form (aside from a field for the preview text) and not confined to sections as our current review system works. If people want formatting like that they can format it themselves - as it is right now it's kind of a "review formula" that can be restrictive.[/quote] I actually think that would work out well, at least compared to the current sections we have. Story and presentation aren't exactly the same as gameplay but with the current sections I'm forced to put them there anyway.

I have a question about the reviews. If they are all gonna be borrowed to the main site 3.0, will all of the reviews that have scores outside of the 1-10 range (or should I say 1-5 range?) be set to 1/5 (or 5/5)? [size=25]If they are gonna be kept the they were, I suggest that Ztars should be used to represent the negative scores.[/size]

[quote="Q-Nova"]I have a question about the reviews. If they are all gonna be borrowed to the main site 3.0, will all of the reviews that have scores outside of the 1-10 range (or should I say 1-5 range?) be set to 1/5 (or 5/5)? [size=25]If they are gonna be kept the they were, I suggest that Ztars should be used to represent the negative scores.[/size][/quote]I guess since scores will be represented with images, they'd break the images, so I guess we (and by we I mean Hylian) will have to clamp them between 1 and 5.

[quote="DJ Coco"][quote="Q-Nova"]I have a question about the reviews. If they are all gonna be borrowed to the main site 3.0, will all of the reviews that have scores outside of the 1-10 range (or should I say 1-5 range?) be set to 1/5 (or 5/5)? [size=25]If they are gonna be kept the they were, I suggest that Ztars should be used to represent the negative scores.[/size][/quote]I guess since scores will be represented with images, they'd break the images, so I guess we (and by we I mean Hylian) will have to clamp them between 1 and 5.[/quote] Wouldn't that be the least of your problems? I mean isn't the bigger problem is to reaverage the scores if existing games assuming if MFGG3.0 is going by a 1-5 rating system? Forgive me if this question sounds retarded. Also my views on what others have proposed: -I do like the idea of the review metric being shortened to 5, but I do wonder if its necessary to reaverage the games that already have their scores given by the current half-working metric system. (context: Guinea has stated before that the average review score functionality appears to be somewhat broken on the mainsite and never fixed: http://phpbb.mfgg.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=17650) -I like the idea of each star being colored coded by the cultural prestige of common metals. -On the like/dislike and thanking posts (or profile) thing, I would think that one would be mature enough to not get salty on whether their creations either get acknowledgement that is negative or none at all. Its more of a problem with a user's ability to take criticism rather than the system in and of itself. -On lounge/PPP, I fully support Mit's ideas on how that section can be reintegrated into MFGG if it means MFGG becoming a proper community again.

Wait a second, then if the former system for the main website itself is going to be "phased out", who's actually coding the new system? This is what's baffling to me right now.

I just made the design of rating. Honestly I think 1-5 rating suits better. [img]http://orig08.deviantart.net/c47e/f/2015/245/d/0/mfgg_fangame_rating_by_o_camtroartist_o-d984z4s.png[/img] (Credit to Kritter, Hero, and Mario Silva)

Do you guys watch The Completionist on Youtube? He rated games on a 1-5 scale essentially: Don't play it, Play it, Finish it, Fini-pete it, Complete it Notice his middle option: Finish it. Play it to the last level. 3/5 on his scale says that it's worth your time. 1 says it's not. 5 says it's worth LOTS of your time. 2 and 4 are more neutral, saying "it might be worth your time?" and "it might be worth lots of your time?" [quote="[url=http://phpbb.mfgg.net/viewtopic.php?p=457664#p457664]Merit Celaire[/url]"]Wait a second, then if the former system for the main website itself is going to be "phased out", who's actually coding the new system? This is what's baffling to me right now.[/quote] Guinea and I

[quote="DarkSideStrike"]I mean isn't the bigger problem is to reaverage the scores if existing games assuming if MFGG3.0 is going by a 1-5 rating system? Forgive me if this question sounds retarded.[/quote] What I'd do is divide the existing scores by 2 and round up.

[quote="Cap'n Coconuts"][quote="DarkSideStrike"]I mean isn't the bigger problem is to reaverage the scores if existing games assuming if MFGG3.0 is going by a 1-5 rating system? Forgive me if this question sounds retarded.[/quote] What I'd do is divide the existing scores by 2 and round up.[/quote] Yeah this EDIT: The overall scores of the games should be done this way, but maybe we should tape off older reviews, since we can't exactly reconstruct them?