I find it really wierd that there are a lot of good games that are not featured, but still get the same amount of pts. I'm talking about games rated 6+, but are not rated. We Have 'Featuring' already. Could we have 'Plus Storygames'? these would be worth 25 pts to the publisher, so featured games are still a long way off, but this still gives the author the distinction from regular games. There are a lot of good games that are close to the bar but not quite there. We should give them credit.
Said extermination is planned; check News and Updates.
I see what you mean, October. I'd like to go with getting bonus points if your game hits the 6 mark, however, the more people that rate a story, the more their score changes. Usually, with time, it will just go down from where it was. So, if just one person rated the story, and gave it a 6, would they deserve bonus points? Or would a certain number of people have to rate it that well? I'm not sure how it could be done, and still be balanced.
As for a seperate category, I don't think that's needed. When you go to view all the stories in a story category, and it lists them, you can just click on the word RATING in the top right, to sort the games according to their rating, thus all the games with good ratings get grouped together for that category.
i agree fully with doc oc and tsmpaul, they bring up very good points and how about we make it like tsmpaul said, you get a bonus if a certain amount of people rate it, but it has to be membered influenced too... but iguess thats already incorporated in the rating system itself... so...
Octsolopaul - the Ultimate Story Writing Triumvirate...
or was that mister Berstriketsm ?
LOL haha!!!! Octsolopaul Berstriketsm
Hyde: can u imagine what we could create muhahahahha!!! dr Jekyle: we could never unleash this on the site, it could cause chaos!!
OOoooooOOOooo! alright, its late, lol!
WHAT HAVE I DONE!!!
Noo the ultimate triumvirate would have to be:
It would have to be a quintumvirate;
nooo!!! it would have to be a sixtumvirate:
But october hasnt made any games.....
yeah but you know it better lol. OK well heres teh scripting people.
I thought you meant like putting them on the main game page with the featured games. If you meant the same thing as me then great idea.
Yep. Games like:
Lance's Test Your Knowledge series
Postie Rips it Up
WWII GS (if it doesn't get featured)
Mage of King's element quiz that was just released
In short, games that are good or almost good enough to be featured, but have better competition. Also, if a game gets unfeatured, it should automatically go here (unless it sucks.) So a DZD game for example...
"I don't have any problem with giving extra points to people who make good storygames, but just don't go telling everybody else that they're better than normal by using a moon symbol, because then all the games left without a moon or star symbol will be crap, and that'll be looked at as 'the average'." -- October
I totally agree with October.
Basically, everything on the site will then be coded as "special" or "crap." That's really what it seems like you're suggesting. If only 14% are marked as 6+, it ends up making it look like the rest of the games are not worth reading/playing.
Every game that is any good at all will be marked special, and the author given extra points.
Do we really need a "medium between featured and normal"? The very title seems to say that "normal" is kinda sucky. Shouldn't "normal" be "pretty good, but not quite feature-worthy"?
I have a lot more to say on this subject, but I have to go. . .
Normal is not 6+ though. Who said in the first place that normal was taht good...
If your game is 6 or up your in the top 14% of the sites games... Just cuz those games get a moon or a star does not make the other EIGHTY SIX PERCENT look bad. I bet people had the exact same argument for featuring games.
Its just like a middle ground. Almost like runners up.
If your only interested in playing the 14% that are rated six up, then how is a moon going to affect that anyway. Adding a symbol is not going to stop people from playing 86% of games or start making those games look bad...
The 'normal' on this site is 4-going on-5. There are many games below it, but they suck. It is games rated 4 and 5 that are 'normal', and this is actually halfway up the ratings ladder-exactly where you would expect them -
1-soon to be deleted 2-these just plain suck 3-just good enough to stay on the site 4-lower limit of 'normal' games 5-upper limit of 'normal' games 6-something special 7-featureworthy 8-frontpageworthy.
This is what the ratings truly mean. If there are so many games under 4, then that just means the writers need to make better storygames with more effort, or improve on their existing ones. Maybe the above list should even replace the ratings chart to give people a better idea of what they are actually telling people.
There has been too much confusion around this topic, but it all seems to stem from the fact that there is NO definition of normal. Here it is: 'A game in the middle of the ratings spectrum (ie-4 to 5), that is not a boring waste of time, but not a gripping masterpiece either.' There is a suprising lack of these, because most of the games produced on the site are rated 3. We have to shift the gears people! If your story is rated 3 IT IS NOT NORMAL!
I think I see an article here...
I agree on everything but one point.
I don't think ratings will affect what makes the front page. Thats all gonan be March's decision.
I meant Ulysses rather then Light Space!!! ZOMG!!! Mommy is the best!!!!
Well, that's JJJ's equivalent of heresy. But he's right. Ratings alone shouldn't decide.
heresy? Yes... X100000000
What can I say... I love my mommy....
2 Posts to 10,000