Forums » The Parlor Room » Read Thread

It seems to me that a lot of people on this site have decided that just because they dislike a game, they tend to rate them lower than they should. I'm sure no one here actually believes that some of the stories here have the singular use of a toilet. They might not be good, but do you truly prefer to do homework? It upsets me that this community judges so harshly, especially when they haven't succeeded themselves. It really does discourage the authors.

What bugs me the most is when people see a short game, and decide it is awful. They can be just as entertaining as the longer ones, if not more. Length isn't everything. Some of the longer games here aren't as good as they are made out to be, and the a lot of short stories are rated as 1 to 3, when they are just more simplistic. 

Another idea is to change the rating description altogether, as none of these games deserve to have fecal matter on them, and few are less fun than homework. I hope this will help the people here rate games with further thought to the actual quality of the game. A good rule of thumb would be "quality over quantity", or "actually read what the rating says".

Thank you, and good night.

People decide their ratings in different ways. Some try to be more objective, some just base it on how much they enjoyed it, but I don't think many rate based on length alone. To an extent, length is an indication of effort, and therefore, also to an extent, an indication of quality, but long stories aren't guaranteed good ratings. If something is disliked, the comments are going to say as such, and it's the author's decision to either be discouraged or consider the criticism.

What I hope is that people are basing their ratings on the numbers (i.e. 1 to 3 is below average, 6 to 8 is above average, and 4 and 5 make up the mean of quality) rather than the descriptions, which are pretty clearly metaphorical.

The descriptions are supposed to be more amusing then anything. I mean, come on now, obviously peanut butter cups are better then enlightenment. And a good place to take care of, ah, 'business' better then homework. So the descriptions are all out of order, at least, from my perspective. It's better then saying 'on a scale of 1-8, how good was the story?' and then have people rate it a 1 thinking that 1 was the best and an 8 the worst. 

And, er, *pokes at Snow and Farewell My Childhood Self, short/sweet stories that are in the top-rated games list, and Militi Impromptu [however you spell it. Semi brain fried at the moment.] which is really good and shorter then the ones above, and several other short/good games here.* 

.....just, generally, the shorter games have trolls that breeze through them and rate them a 1, and/or they really are quite horrid in quality and not just quantity. 

Are you referring to your own work? Because I can assure that 'Hippo Clicker' was rated quite fairly for its linearity, repetition, lack of depth and detail, the fact that is wasn't at all a story, and the fact that it only just barely qualified as a game. If not, though, do give some examples, please. Specifics will help you and the community better understand each other. 

Everyone rates games their own way, but I can tell you that most reviewers explain their rating thoroughly and the complaints are never about personal preference, but of story quality and the effort they see put in. 

Length is part of effort. Stories that are too short often do not allot time for character development, realistic relationships, proper explanation of a world, or decent build up for the sake of a proper payoff. I do like some short stories on here, I've gone as far as to call some of them brilliant... but some stories simply should not be short. 

It's pretty clear that the rating names are not meant to be taken seriously. Sure, they give a cheeky little explanation of the rating, but 2's a Triumph, Insult Comic Dog quote, and I guarantee you, not everyone likes Reece's or finds enlightenment from Homo Perfectus 8. Hell, worth every cent is practically a poorly disguised insult, because all the games here are free. :p No one actually rates a 6/8 and says "and by that, I mean it's worthless."

Sorry, but I wrote out a long reply to this, and while I was writing, the text editor got deselected and I pressed backspace, sending me backwards. To sum it up, I said hippo clicker was me practicing and making a joke, my games have declined as a result of bad ratings, and that I meant quality was more important than quantity, not that quantity was good or bad. I also said that when rating, people  should have a checklist of what they look for in a story, that way people don;t rate on what isn't there, they rate on what is there.

Your games have declined, as a result of poor ratings? Seriously!? Your constitution must have the consistency of pudding. No one here is going to coddle you like a toddler or a terrified puppy. Take what you can from your criticisms, ignore the blatant insults that offer no constructive help and work on ways to improve your writing. Figure out your biggest weaknesses and put extra effort into those areas. Don't cry about being rated poorly. Strive to achieve.

I meant it like I tried less and less hard to appease the people here, and I only started trying to appease myself. And a good thing to remember is that insulting people isn't the best way of convincing them they are wrong. It just makes them dislike that person.

I have no cares whether you like me or not. I'm simply telling you an honest truth that you will have to learn at some point in your life.

If you allow criticism to tarnish your resolve so much, you will never succeed at anything because you will be to craven to try. Many of the members here are sarcastic by nature and are prone to lighthearted japes and jokes. Dear gods, have you met, Briar? Anyway, you may have noticed it's not an uncommon trait in human society. And writers tend to be prone to witty jests even more so.

I've written a fair number of stories I would not deign to publish because they were written specifically for friends and premised entirely on inside jokes with said friends. While they enjoyed the stories, most would not because of the inherent meanings in the story that were real life experience related. So while the stories were fun to write, if I were to post one here, which I won't because it wouldn't make sense, I should expect poor reviews. Seriously, who here would want to read about a man wandering upon a conspicuous pen of lusty ostriches in the middle of a zombie apocalypse? The story does not suit the audience. That being said...

As a writer, you absolutely have to write the story YOU want to write. Anything else will be rubbish. But at the same time, you have to accept that the story YOU want to write, may not be the story other people want to read. So if people do not like it, you still have the satisfaction of having written the story YOU wanted. That should be solace in itself. Aside from that, if criticism rankles you so much, don't publish your stories for everyone with a working internet connection to read. Show them to your friends. Or your mother.

Sorry, but I just think it is stupid to tell people their games should have poop on them. I did not intend for this to be about me in any way.

As I said before, it is a quote. Whoever  created the rating names expected people to get the reference, not to take it seriously.

... You're making an assumption that all of these people have a "checklist" in the first place, and your comments and history make it seem as though you believe that as a means of excusing yourself, much like the "my games have declined because of bad ratings" thing. It's kind of bullshit. Also, you repeated the same, what... 9 lines for about 200 clicks? No one wants to hear the same damn joke 200 times, man. Even the best joke in the world would devolve into spiteful trolling if you forced someone to read it that many times in a row for the sake of earning a single point and a brief "yay, you win" line.

Why do you have to publish your practice attempts, anyway? :P Lots of us toy around with the editor, I don't feel the need to show anyone my experiments because they're not actual, solid games that warrant critique. They are experiments. Half-baked ideas that are purely for my own learning process. You want good ratings? Don't blame other people for your problems and failures. Just focus on yourself and making the best game you can make, and then it won't MATTER what anyone rates it, because you'll have a game you can and should be proud of--but yes, other people will also notice your effort.

First of all, it was 30 lines, not 9, and it was a joke with my friends. What I am trying to say is that when everyone hates your games when you actually put effort in, why should a  writer try again? Just to fail once more? I really do not want this to be about me now though, so let's try to focus on the subject. And there is no need to mock people. I'm trying to keep this civilized, so please don't use those tongue faces. 

Arguing details does not negate my point. "Why should a writer try again"? That's a very good question, and if you can't find a suitable answer for yourself, you shouldn't be writing. I can't decide what motivates you, or if you're motivated at all. That said, I have to assume that you are not very old, because you would've probably grown a thicker skin by now. People are going to criticize you throughout your life. If you decide to quit every time that happens, you will accomplish nothing. Sure, you can quit. Or you can ignore it. Or you can try to make critiques a positive experience by learning from it to better yourself.

:P I will use text emojis if I want to, it is just a part of my mannerisms when talking online. However, I am not mocking you, and I am being civil, but I am not in control of your perceptions. 

It is a face sticking it's tongue at people. That either means that you are making a joke, which you weren't, or you are insulting me. I see none of you are understanding that I am trying to say that when rating, people should take more consideration into what they are telling the author. I in no way intended to make this about me. I was trying to talk about bad rating in general. Most my stories deserve what they got.

Oh, well, thank you for telling me what I meant. Gee, you'd think maybe I'd know what I was trying to express myself, but nope, guess not. :P I'm suggesting that you do not know how much consideration people are taking individually. Seriously, what are you basing this on? I asked for examples, but you have yet to give me one.

And here I thought the face was Kiel's way of saying he wanted to lick you.

You learn something new every day.

Funnily enough, I have legitimately used it to mean that. Not here, but still.

... ?

... !

... @

... :P

xD

o.o Berka, are you licking people too now?

I've started a trend...! :D

I think taking things literally ON THE INTERNET might be a mistake :) When someone rates something "good to poop on" it doesn't literally mean they plan to eat a curry, wait a while and then go to town on their computer screen (in most cases) and calling something "slightly less fun than homework" seriously underestimates how fun practical Chemistry assignments resulting in small explosions and burnt cats really can be.

People are rating with the number not the comment in the same way when Kiel goes :P it doesn't mean he's sitting staring at the computer screen with his tongue hanging out (probably). You shouldn't take things personally, especially if you're going to write, and the exchange between author and critic should be equally respectful: if the author hasn't made much effort with his story the critic is more likely to make an unkind or funny comment but if the author has tried, even if the story is not very good but is still an honest effort, then they deserve constructive criticism and advice while if the author has delivered a high quality story game they deserve (and will probably get) a lot of praise.

Incidentally a story doesn't have to be long to be good (like Snow for instance which gets the maximum effect out of the fewest possible words) but it does help, a 6/8 or 7/8 story is looking at 100 or 200 pages minimum and probably more but if someone can write Hamlet in 60 pages that'd be impressive but most story games are long because a quality story is better when there is more of it, otherwise even if your story has the best writing in the world less than 50 pages for a CYOA is not giving us enough of it.

The "participant trophy' attitude won't earn you any respect. You can, as many people have throughout the course of human history, try very hard at something and put a great deal of effort into it - yet still fail. The people who truly want to improve and succeed, collect themselves and strive to figure out what went wrong and how that can be corrected.

Stephen King, Emily Dickinson, Harrison Ford, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Tom Landry, J.K. Rowling, Elvis, Winston Churchill, Einstein

All of those people failed or had a significant lack of success at something important early in their lives or careers. What did they do?

The answer to your question, 'why should a writer try again?' is very simple. Because it's all a writer knows how to do. A writer loves to write, and write he or she does. Not everyone can be a great writer, true. But all bad writers can work hard enough to become good writers. And many writers who are 'merely' good have gone on to have significant success.

The last thing anyone in this community wants to do (trolls aren't even people, so they don't count) is to discourage someone from writing completely. Poor writing is perfectly fine, so long as the writer is making efforts to improve. Because sharing stories and becoming better writers is the point. But effort alone is not grounds for a 'good' rating. There is no reason to allow the ratings to affect your resolve so fiercely if you truly enjoy writing.

"Some of the longer games here aren't as good as they are made out to be"

Which stories are you talking about here?

 

Probably mine, I'm pretty terrible. Lol.

U suck

People will give bad rating's. People who let that get under their skin shouldn't be writing, and effort doesn't mean a jawdroppingly awesome thing, it means you tried, and if it is still not good you will get bad ratings. That, my friend, is life.

This whole thing was a great learning experience for me. I learned some things, and I hope you have too. Please refrain from trying to further object to my opinions. I was basically trying to say there shouldn't be descriptions. I did not want this to be about me. That is all.

I get what you're saying about the descriptions. They are weird. But I think most people ignore them for the most part. Sure, the first few stories you rate, you really notice them. But I know that I, at least, really don't see them any more because I'm rating the story on a scale of 1-8. And as someone else mentioned, it was an attempt at humor and I think it's better than just saying "Rate this story on a scale of 1 to 8" (Why 8? I have no idea. Maybe because its a power of two?).

That said, realize also that ratings are very, very, very subjective. There are certainly people who read stories here that will never give any story a rating of 8. There are others who will likely never give any story a rating of 1. There are some readers that have very specific criteria that they use almost like a checklist (gee, that story had 3 words spelled wrong and 2 grammar errors, that's no more than a two).

And I know this is way beyond what your purpose was in this post, but as also mentioned, you really need to be able to take the hits. No matter how good your story is, there is ALWAYS going to be someone who hates it. ALWAYS. Be prepared for that, enjoy the writing, and enjoy the good comments when you can get them!

@Beardon87  Okay, you've repeatedly said that you weren't talking about your games.  Which ones are you talking about?  You say it bugs you when people see a short game and decide it is awful.  Could you give me an example of a game that you think has been unfairly rated low just because it's short?

As far as the rating system goes, the verbal descriptions are not meant to be interpreted literally.  No one should be taking a story's rating as people actually saying they find it less fun than homework.  

 

Yeah, that bugged me. I asked in my very first comment for an example, and he's refused to give one throughout this entire conversation ... excuses or justification or denial about his own work, yes, but no examples of the alleged injustice, hence my skepticism.

I think he was talking about his games, but also more generally just saying the descriptions aren't very constructive.

Which is true, but they were never meant to be constructive. If you're taking the descriptions more seriously than the numerical rating you're doing it wrong.

No one actually takes the obvious joke descriptions of the ratings seriously, Beardon says, in his very first post, before going on to explain that they should be changed because he's taking them very seriously.

Had more to write here because I get pretty annoyed to see someone making declarations about what readers should do, and what they are doing instead, along with what they're thinking and how very wrong they are, and I was seeing a whooole lot of that here, these thoughts and assumptions being projected onto me.

But Kiel's already covered the major points and I'm sleepy so meh.

 

I'm just annoyed by the number of times you repeat the phrase, and I quote: "I don't want this to be about me". Of course it will be about you. You deliver criticism to a system most of us are perfectly happy with, and it's your every right to have an opinion or stir things up, but you have to support it with facts. Like most have said, link is to the short stories that have been rated wrongly because of their length. Link us to proof, me included, and we will judge it accordingly. Then I may end up with a different opinion than someone else, but that's perfectly fine.

..you're not. I wouldn't have a clue why. I don't even know why you don't respond to that even while it's been said at least something like five times. But if you're not going to give us anything, then it will be about you.

If you can't direct us to the cases you're talking about, it's going to be about you.
There are plenty of people who are willing to help and give advice to you personally, and if you don't want that, you'll have to make it about someone else yourself.

There are trolls on the site who will simply rate a game badly for no reason, or simply because they didn't like it as much they drop the rating by several points. These people annoy me no end and roughly every 6 months I forget how the rating system works and bring it up as an issue before I am lovingly reminded by 3J that the system ignores outliers and so a fair average rating comes forth in the end ignoring the trolls. 

For me this means my games perpetually fall slightly short of a 7 and will most likely forever be a 6, and this is a pretty fair rating, I know several things I want to change and one is still only half finished. It also means that for the games that end up rated a 2 or 3, MOST of the readers have rated it that. A single troll or two rating it low for no reason will be ignored by the system and it will receive an average rating based on the majority of people's rating.

I do agree that the descriptions for each number are a bit silly, being made up of jokes and references that many  people might not get, this has led to several threads discussing how we should rate games and what different numbers mean to each of us in an attempt to standardize some of the varying ratings.

An example of this is that for me a rating of 8 will only be given to 3 maybe 4 stories on the site, and I'd be willing to pay money for them as they are just that dam good. 7 for me means it is amongst the top games on the site, I had to have good writing, grammar, syntax, story engagement, char development and plot to name a few requirements to give a game a 7. A 6 fall just short of this, missing maybe just 1 or two of the components needed for a 7. A 5 is an enjoyable game with several issues that need fixed (but if they are fixed I'll come back and re-rate it). A 4 is a good try with the basics of a story in place but one that needs a lot of work in several areas,usually these are in the plot, grammar and char development areas. A 3 for me is someone who clearly tried to do somthing but sadly this time failed, these are cases where I can see the author honestly tried but there are so many problems with it that is becomes much more of a chore to read it due to my eye constantly being drawn to issues rather than what there is of a game. 2 means... Well if I rate a two then it means the author didn't really try, they might have had a good idea but they clearly didn't put it the effort of even trying to expand a plot, chars or make the sentences read correctly. 1 is reserved for troll games I think need deleted immediately.

That is the system I use so I mostly ignore the descriptions given for each number apart for occasionally to laugh as I remember the joke or reference. I also know that many others have a similar system for rating games. As for the issue of very short games getting bad ratings, this is usually because they fail to meet so many standards, short games that manage to develop chariicters, plot points and storylines would get a great rating for me as I love the short story genre, the issue comes with the majority of short length story's on here. The generally are very linear with little to no plot or char development. Some that I personally rated a 2 jumped in by telling you your entire char and background in 1 paragraph before having two lines on each page to progress the story, every page being a choice between the 'right' answer and 'insta-death' then end with a 3 line description. That is why they get a low rating.