Hey, Domithan here. I'll be open and say I voted 'Usually'. I think that for the most part, the panel is objective and fair, and to make a decision ever so occasionally that is seen as 'unfair' by the public is only natural. Overall I think the panel does a good job.
The panel needs change. Whatever rules they have (I'm sure they have, because I PM with some of them) they have to change those rules.
Whatever. Just accept it already. And here I am "RATE HHGTG 1 cup!",to prove you Harg, I'll still support the panel and keep the game in the database. How's that?
Dual, it just prooves that you are blind supporter... I'm just saying that the change will be for good.
Personally I don't think the individual panelists are being unfair in any way, I just think the process of coming up with the panel's ratings for respective games is not clear enough and the individual ratings have different weight. For example, I imagine only some ratings get a proper discussion, since very few games are played by more than 1 panelist. I'd suggest to make public the number (not the identities!) of the panelists who take part in discussing the rating for each and every game. Also, I'd suggest to leave the ratings always officially open for further discussion in case a new panelist plays a game.
Just want to say that I voted "Sometimes". The only one "Mostly, except my games" is not my vote.Harg
The panel rating is just to organise the games database, so that newcomers can easily sieve through the crap and find the worth while and enjoyable games. I don't see why people get annoyed that their very amateurish first game gets 1 cup, when they are posting the game in a database with numerous excellent games, and some freeware games that people wouldn't mind to pay for. There is still the poll that the game can be rated on by the general public, there is still the comments section which people can be as open as they like, and there is the forum, where I think a lot of the plays of games are generated. The panel are doing an excellent job in organising the database, and they leave a comment to justify their rating. Sadly half the time the comment is used as fuel for the fire. I would be more concerned if after 3 or 4 games my latest game got a low cup rating, then if my first game got a low cup rating. There is no favouritism, no cheating or bias. Just a few casual asgers organising the hundreds of ags games.
IndieBoy, there are no complaints by the 1 cup game authors. The mess is with 2 and 3 cup rating games. Also there are complaints about the language of the reviewers - sometimes mocking and offensive.
I understand that the comments can not be the best worded, but I treat it as receiving service in a shop. At the end of the day the customer could think that the service wasn't that great, but at the end of the day they received a service and got what they wanted. I understand your point about the 2-3 cup arguement and I'll point out that I do class as a 2 cup rating as a low rating, even though it is non officially the average mark. Just I don't see the big ho-ha of it all. I'll repeat: I would be concerned if a couple games down the line, I'm still getting the 2 cup ratings. Anything that I've been aware of a 2 cup or 3 cup rating-wise is a very Marmite situation. So in that case I think it is better to be under rated than over rated.
Please keep comments clean: foul language means your comment will not get published. Sorry for the captcha, was getting to much spam.