They don't seem to give you any xp. So I was asking what is the use for reviews, besides just helping the author and the community.
It'll give you a chance to leave your words to the creator, and those watching. Besides that, it helps the community be much more articulate with their voice by just having reviews here.
Some... aren't so articulate. That why we got whistles and review mods here to keep things in check. Just think of it as a way to bring communities together... like the YouTube comment section.
You give feedback to the artist. Most of them appreciate that.
Teacher, goth, communist, cynic, alcoholic, master swordsman, king of shitpoasts.
It's better to die together than to live alone.
Sig by Decky
At 6/14/18 04:42 PM, ArtemTorubarov wrote: ...besides just helping the author and the community.
That's the thing though. :) What more incentive do you need? It's an opportunity to both speak out, help out, and if you're looking for a competitive bonus: https://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/336255/163#bbspost26182483_post_text
Like everyone else has said, that is the point. It helps the community and the creator, lets you voice your own opinion, and besides, people who make legit good reviews will probably be more respected by the people looking through their account usually. Not everyone has to do it competitively or with some amazing goal in mind, it can just be something to voice your opinion.
I must've looked pretty selfish when I asked for another use, when speaking with the community is all you need. But that is the main incentive I have when I review games.
I think I appreciate what you mean - you get rewarded for voting, so it makes sense for reviews to do the same.
My concern is that if there was an incentive for people to write reviews, more people would be inclined to get their allowance by just writing something short-and-worthless in the review space (e.g. “neat!”, “well done”). I think most people would like to know what people like or whether the reviewer is giving a genuine response.
As an idea, the point value rewarded for the review can be tied into the number of characters in the review. Reviews like “Yeaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!”can either be coded not to reward points (letter-space ratio not met) or flagged by the community as useless.
I can see the problem that would happen if that were to occur. And this would attract stat whores. So leaving voting without rewards will cause people who actually care to vote.
Thank you guys
At 6/15/18 07:23 PM, ArtemTorubarov wrote: So leaving voting without rewards will cause people who actually care to vote.
Fair point. XD All stat-based systems are abused to some extent, I guess, though it does work out alright with the votes. Review-based rewards might require more moderation but would definitely be cool too... in a way I feel like the lack of incentive makes it an all the more accomplishing task though. Not everyone has the commitment to do something for noble purposes only... though that Top Reviewers list really is pretty fun.
At 6/15/18 05:35 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:
How about rewarding the authors of reviews that the community actually deems helpful?
@TomFulp Also interested in what the big boss might say to that.
Teacher, goth, communist, cynic, alcoholic, master swordsman, king of shitpoasts.
It's better to die together than to live alone.
Sig by Decky
At 6/16/18 05:55 AM, DamnedByFate wrote:At 6/15/18 05:35 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:How about rewarding the authors of reviews that the community actually deems helpful?
Yeah, I like that idea.
At 6/16/18 05:55 AM, DamnedByFate wrote:At 6/15/18 05:35 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:How about rewarding the authors of reviews that the community actually deems helpful?
@TomFulp Also interested in what the big boss might say to that.
Would be cool to have some sort of incentive like that. The reviews are actually switching to emote reactions instead of "+" and "-" buttons in the next update, we'll see how that goes for starters.
At 6/16/18 08:15 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:At 6/16/18 05:55 AM, DamnedByFate wrote:Yeah, I like that idea.At 6/15/18 05:35 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:How about rewarding the authors of reviews that the community actually deems helpful?
Problem is that'll still be gamed.
Already, as-is, you'll have people who willy-nilly vote up useless reviews or vote down useful ones. Plus the fact some people get mad if their review was voted down and down-vote contradicting reviews or they get mad because they suck at a game and so downvote any actually useful reviews from people who got further in the game than they did.
And also a lot of times the content authors themselves downvote any reviews which aren't just complete praise for their work, even if it's legitimate constructive criticism. Plus the fact some people abuse this with alt accounts the same way they abuse the voting with alt accounts, in particular a certain extremely unpopular game author who has near universal negative reviews and low scores in the reviews (0 to 2 stars), yet ridiculously high (typically 4 stars or more) ratings overall and it's clear such person gamed the system.
All of the above happens as-is. Do we really need to add incentive for people to further game the system?
Well i would say that supporting the creator and giving feedback about the game is the main reason.
At 6/15/18 05:35 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: I think I appreciate what you mean - you get rewarded for voting, so it makes sense for reviews to do the same.
But for statwhores, having high review numbers is in itself it's own reward, and they're the only group who really cares too much about being rewarded for giving an author some feedback.
"Till one day, that lion gets up and tears the shit out of everybody."
At 6/20/18 05:54 AM, Radaketor wrote:At 6/15/18 05:35 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: I think I appreciate what you mean - you get rewarded for voting, so it makes sense for reviews to do the same.But for statwhores, having high review numbers is in itself it's own reward, and they're the only group who really cares too much about being rewarded for giving an author some feedback.
Not true. As I mentioned in this thread, some people game the system. As I've recently made a thread in general even pointing out that some people will "review" their own games with other accounts of theirs.
The purpose of doing things like that isn't statwhoring, but rather to artificially inflate the perceived "value" of a game so that people will "see" that it "must be good" and due to bandwagon effect, it might actually work to some extent. Obviously you would have to be stupid to fall for this, but there are plenty of stupid people.
And they may have financial reason for doing this if they get ad revenue off their games or the games otherwise link to some commercial product of theirs, for example a for-pay full version of the same game.
It's the same reason people will spend money to "SEO" their sites. In that case they wish to trick the search engines into thinking their sites are more relevant than they actually are. In the case of gaming the review system, they wish to trick people into thinking their games are of higher "quality" than they actually are.
Have the value be depended on the users instead of a bot. Like the users find this review helpful thing make it reward you.
