Hi all, I wrote this because I felt like the options that come up when you "thumbs down" a game are too slim. The game I most recently downvoted was Khan Wars, mainly because the graphics were kinda messed up. But there was no "messed up graphics" option. How are we supposed to specify why we didn't like games if there aren't good options?
You can always write a review about the game in the game comments below it @C_R_U_S_HER ... whether you like it or not, it may even be worth a Merit. But there needs to be some effort taken in order to get that.
I'd have to agree with OP. As I think I've stated before, only three of the options currently availabe are informative in any way.
"No reason" is, of course, not a reason and is completely impossible.
"I played it on another website" doesn't make sense as a reason for disliking it (despite the assertions of at least one player).
"It's like another game" is at least understandable if you don't like the other game, but doesn't indicate why.
"I just don't like it" also isn't a reason and doesn't even answer the question.
Furthermore, being broken and being unplayable are not the same thing, but only sometimes concurrent, and being too hard is a matter of personal opinion.
@FishPreferred in that case, how do you suggest the current options be modified to be more...informative as you said? There are not many constructive reasons one may not like a game and if the choices there do not cover someone's thoughts, there's always the commenting option like DayCee said.
The best I can thing is adding an 'other + text field' option if it's not there already but that's about it
It's broken, I can't play: FishPreferred drew a distinction between broken and unplayable, but I consider it constructive to downvote an unplayable game. That being said, there's already an option to flag games that are broken, so this reason would be better worded as "It's unplayable."
It's too hard: Poor difficulty balancing is a sign of low quality, so it's constructive to downvote a game because of that. However, the way it's worded now seems to encourage giving higher ratings to easy games, which AG has been criticized for doing at least once in game comments (I once saw someone comment to the effect of "AG gives high ratings to easy games when hard games are more deserving of ratings, like they get on [some other gaming site].''). I'm not sure if hard games deserve higher ratings than easy games, but it would be a better look to be neutral in offering difficulty-based reasons.
It offends or disgusts me: This is a legitimate reason, even if it's subjective (ratings are subjective, so that's not really an issue).
I played it on another website: FishPreferred called it nonsense, and it kind of is. I'm guessing the reason was added to encourage higher ratings for games that are released on AG first compared to other games. I can see why AG would want that, but it's not constructive as a reason to downvote.
It's like another game: This seems to be an attempt to include unoriginality as a reason, which is constructive, but I think it would be better worded as "It's not original."
I just don't like it: Like the first option, it's not a reason.
There are a few other constructive reasons not included in the current list, like the following:
The game has poor graphics: The OP downvoted Khan Wars for essentially this reason, though "kinda messed up" is probably not enough to downvote based on graphics alone unless it includes glitches that affect gameplay as well.
The game is seriously buggy: This would cover cases where the game is technically playable, but it's so buggy as to be unenjoyable.
The game has annoying music/sound that can't be turned off: In a previous thread about downvote reasons, someone downvoted a game due to bad music. I said it's not enough as AG is about games, but I also mentioned that poor settings is a reason to downvote, and this would cover that.
As for the other text field, it's not there, but adding it would be an improvement. However, if AG wants people to use the commenting system to review the game, adding an encouragement to comment would also work.
FishPreferred in that case, how do you suggest the current options be modified to be more...informative as you said?
Here's what I would include:
1I can't even play it. 2Parts of it are clearly broken. 3It isn't interesting/engaging enough. 4It's shoddy or poorly implemented. 5There isn't much to actually do in it. 6There aren't enough clear instructions. 7The sound or visuals are irritating and can't be changed. 8I find it offensive or inappropriate. 9It's unfairly weighted or impossibly hard. 10It lags too much to tell what's going on. 11The quests for this aren't working. 12People are cheating/exploiting a bug or feature. 13My reason isn't listed here.
[...] if the choices there do not cover someone's thoughts, there's always the commenting option like DayCee said.
Well, since the purpose of the form is to give staff and devs a set of numbers that indicate what the problem areas are in a particular game, the options should relate to each of those areas in a general way. Comments help explain the specifics, but they need to be located and read through first.
I'm having trouble understanding the suggestion. What I'm picturing right now is, when you 'thumbs down' a game, you basically get a menu that opens up which allows you to select why you don't like the game.
If my understanding is correct (or, at least close) it could be useful for developers to have specific data readily available without having to read through the comments. But the main thing that crosses my mind is that this is precisely what the comments are for - they're for giving your thoughts on the game. So I'm just confused about what's wrong with using the comments to provide feedback.
If the argument is that it's easier for developers to fix problems when there's easy-to-access data, my intuition is to counter that developers should be reading through the comments. Even a quick glance through the comments for a game can give an overall idea of why a game has a particular rating. Plus with Disqus, our game commenting system allows for developers to actually engage with the community if they decide to do so.
So I guess I'm just not seeing what problem this is meant to solve.
N.B. I'm not trying to shoot down the idea - I just want to better understand what the idea is
From what I can tell, the thread isn't about whether or not there should be a menu. Instead, it's about improving that menu, and even a good menu wouldn't cover everything, which is where the comments would come in.
@FishPreferred: Your proposed list of reasons is good, but number 11 only applies to quest games (currently less than 5% of all games on AG), unless you want to include in-game achievements, which may fall under number 2 (Parts of it are clearly broken).
