Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
35 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Sedition Wars: Battle for Alabaster» Forums » General

Subject: What's with all the 10 ratings? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Stuart Holttum
United Kingdom
Southend on Sea
Essex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just glanced at the ratings given to this game - there's 9 10s been given. Now I wouldn't have any objection to that, except....

Only 4 of the 9 actually OWN the game.

And ALL of the ratings were given out long before the game was actually shipped - in some cases 6 months before.

4 of the ratings are based "on quality of miniatures" only.

And - bizarrest of all - one rating given while the game was on Kickstarter, commenting "can't wait to try it"!?!?!?

Maybe this is a common thing to happen, I don't know. But I just can't grasp how someone could rate a game they have never seen the rules for, never played, never even held.

I really, honestly, don't get it. Frankly, it makes me distrust any overall rating for any game, if people are so keen to dish out 10s without playing the damn thing!

Grumble grumble grump.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
foksieloy
Croatia
flag msg tools
You need kulen.
badge
How can you have any pudding?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It happens everywhere. Thats why number is meaningless. Verbose descriptions are what you should be looking for.

Good example was the first black knight movie, it had ~10.0 on imdb few months before it came out.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mickey
Singapore
flag msg tools
Twilight struggling to find time to play
badge
Twilight struggling to find time to play
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
being the devil's advocate here:
1. Not owning the game does not prevent from rating, one might have played another's set
2. Rating a game before it is available is possible for playtesters
3. trusting a rating system before some minimum statistically acceptable number of voters have voted, doesn't make sense.
4. Nothing wrong from judging a game purely on quality of the miniatures, everyone have different opinions on what makes the game special for them, and the criteria is "outstanding, Always want to play and expect it will never change", not "outstanding gameplay", or "outstanding mechanics" ...
14 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
Bielefeld
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
All the game ratings at BGG are highly subjective - not objective nor given according to a commonly agreed grading system. The only balancing factor is the sheer amount of given ratings, so at the end it averages out any irrational high or low ratings.

Most games with a significant number of ratings tend to land between 7.0 and 8.0 This seems the grade for a solid/ok game. If its higher, then its mostly a very good game, if its lower its usually mediocre.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michele Esmanech
Italy
Milano
Milano
flag msg tools
designer
Dystopian:the manhunt: a worker placement game of investigation, murder and mystery, set in the futuristic megapolis of DYSTOPIA
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Heishiro1976 wrote:
being the devil's advocate here:
1. Not owning the game does not prevent from rating, one might have played another's set
2. Rating a game before it is available is possible for playtesters
3. trusting a rating system before some minimum statistically acceptable number of voters have voted, doesn't make sense.
4. Nothing wrong from judging a game purely on quality of the miniatures, everyone have different opinions on what makes the game special for them, and the criteria is "outstanding, Always want to play and expect it will never change", not "outstanding gameplay", or "outstanding mechanics" ...


This is all true and correct.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jake Staines
United Kingdom
Grantham
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Additionally, there are often a load of people who go around rating games as '1' or - if they're feeling generous - '2', often also without owning a copy, sometimes before the game is released, etc.... often it seems to be because they're sick of hearing about a particular game, because they're sure it's overhyped, because they didn't like the elevator pitch or because they have some grudge or other bad experience. Most of the time, by the point that a game's been rated enough times to be meaningful, the 9/10s and the 1/2s more or less balance each other out.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua R
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
GO TO JAPAN!
badge
Artist: Shohei Otomo
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shelfwear wrote:
All the game ratings at BGG are highly subjective - not objective nor given according to a commonly agreed grading system. The only balancing factor is the sheer amount of given ratings, so at the end it averages out any irrational high or low ratings.


Yeah I don't trust a rating with less than several hundred - preferably a couple thousand - votes. Anything less can be skewed by people who, for example, really want to believe the $300 they dropped on KS was well spent.

With less than 50 votes for SW, we have a long way to go to see how it really stacks up against similar titles.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G G
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Given how recently SW was released, it's possible they haven't updated their collections?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keegan Fink
United States
Havertown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"cult of the new"
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Stangier
Germany
Offenbach
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am not saying you are wrong, but you might want to take a look at the bottom ratings too.

Two "1" ratings from people from people who have not tried the game, another "1" because someone got damaged boards (which CMON will replace if you let them know) and a "5" that is not for Sedition Wars at all, but for Guilds of Cadwallon!? (Seriously, WTH?)

The rating craziness clearly goes both ways.


Personally I distrust ratings here on BGG to be actual usefull to determine the "quality" of a game unless there are at least a couple of hundreds. Even then I will look through the comments to weed out the clearly strange ratings.

What helps me is looking at the ratings of people that like the same games that I do. That has worked out much better to help me deceide what games could interest me than the general ratings.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Stangier
Germany
Offenbach
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gstealer wrote:
Plus most of the 10's are for the miniatures, which are pretty awesome.
And that's exactly the problem.
BGG has no "component subrating", only a rating for the game as complete package.

Giving a game a rating base solely on one part of the components (that people had not seen when giving out those ratings btw) is certainly not how the game rating system is intended.

It's a bit like rating a book I have never seen or read because I like the artist doing the cover.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G G
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If the only reason you bought the book was for the illustrations, and many others might do the same, then why is it unfair to rate your purchase entirely on the quality of the illustrations?

I mean, it's like you're arguing that we must consider the articles when we rate Playboy magazine...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken K
United States
Louisville
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Quote:
Two "1" ratings from people from people who have not tried the game, another "1" because someone got damaged boards (which CMON will replace if you let them know) and a "5" that is not for Sedition Wars at all, but for Guilds of Cadwallon!? (Seriously, WTH?)


And the "damaged boards" guy appears to be a sock-puppet account used just to knock games, particularly Kick-starter. He also ranks Zombicide a "1."

I was tempted to rate SW a "10" just to balance this stupidity, but then, hey, I'd just be a part of it. I'll play it first.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart Holttum
United Kingdom
Southend on Sea
Essex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bewulf wrote:
I am not saying you are wrong, but you might want to take a look at the bottom ratings too.


Oh yeah - I know that it works both ways, but there seemed to be more 10s than 1s so that's what I went with!

GrauGeist wrote:
If the only reason you bought the book was for the illustrations, and many others might do the same, then why is it unfair to rate your purchase entirely on the quality of the illustrations?


Up to a point....but it depends I think how much of the book is illustrations.

Also, the trouble is that once you start down the "marks for just one part" route, where does it stop? A mark just for the board? Just for the theme?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mickey
Singapore
flag msg tools
Twilight struggling to find time to play
badge
Twilight struggling to find time to play
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Stu Holttum wrote:

Also, the trouble is that once you start down the "marks for just one part" route, where does it stop? A mark just for the board? Just for the theme?


Since some people would only rate 1 because the artwork is ugly, or because it is a "trading in the mediterranean sea" theme, or because it has boobies, others should be able to rate 10 for the same reasons.
Should BGG become a thought police? It's only games for Christ sake's.

For the sake of argument, why not cancelling all ratings done by people who own less than 100 games or who have played less than 500 different games, surely those people are not qualified enough to properly rate a game ...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart Holttum
United Kingdom
Southend on Sea
Essex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Heishiro1976 wrote:
Since some people would only rate 1 because the artwork is ugly, or because it is a "trading in the mediterranean sea" theme, or because it has boobies, others should be able to rate 10 for the same reasons.
Should BGG become a thought police? It's only games for Christ sake's.


Oh indeedy - but rating any whole on just one aspect makes the rating system pointless. Example: we should rate Peter Shilton's skills as a footballer as a zero out of ten because he never scored any goals!

I've got no problems with someone giving a game a ten (or a 1) if they feel that the entirety of the game deserves it. My issue is with the people who feel that some aspects of the game are bad, but nevertheless give it a maximum positive rating (or vice versa).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mickey
Singapore
flag msg tools
Twilight struggling to find time to play
badge
Twilight struggling to find time to play
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Stu Holttum wrote:
My issue is with the people who feel that some aspects of the game are bad, but nevertheless give it a maximum positive rating (or vice versa).


1. what makes you think these people feel some aspects of the game are bad?
2. I think Arkham horror is too long and fiddly, but , man... I love it, I rated it 10.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Takacs
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I also see people rate one game very low because it competes with a game they love. Can't like more than one game?

Some games have shill ratings as well, and sometimes it is easy to tell (especially when the description looks like it was taken straight from the ad copy!).

I noticed that kickstarter games often have early ratings which appear higher than normal. After hearing the other day that two people who gave a negative rating to a kickstarter game were contacted by the designer and asked to remove their ratings, maybe that is part of the reason. I bet the designer did not ask people to remove their "10" ratings.

Finally, it irks me when the designer and publisher give a game a 9 or 10 to beef up the ratings, especially when there are not many ratings for the game yet.

All in all, use the ratings as a tool, but don't get so caught up in the actual numbers, as the system does have its flaws.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart Holttum
United Kingdom
Southend on Sea
Essex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Heishiro1976 wrote:
Stu Holttum wrote:
My issue is with the people who feel that some aspects of the game are bad, but nevertheless give it a maximum positive rating (or vice versa).


1. what makes you think these people feel some aspects of the game are bad?


4 of the first 5 "10" ratings say "for the quality of the components". In other words, NOT for the rules, or the atmosphere, or the box construction....in their own words, the 10 is for one aspect of the game, not the whole. The implication, surely, is that they didn't feel (or didn't know, which may be worse!) that other parts of the game weren't as good.

A 10/10 for the whole thing would gather a comment such as "every part of this game is fantastic!!!", rather than "10 given for the figures".

Final point....although there is of course no obligation on them to do so, NONE of the "10" posters for Sedition Wars have popped into this thread to comment. I'd have expected someone who loves a game so much they rated it a "10" to be subscribed to the forum for it....
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Stangier
Germany
Offenbach
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Heishiro1976 wrote:
Should BGG become a thought police?

No, ratings on BGG are and should be subjective. But that does not mean people can not have an oppinion on how they feel ratings should be done and that some way to rate a game are more accepted than others.

GrauGeist wrote:
If the only reason you bought the book was for the illustrations, and many others might do the same, then why is it unfair to rate your purchase entirely on the quality of the illustrations?

Again: Assumed quality as the people who rated the game a 10 for the miniatures had never seen the actual miniatures included with the game at the time of their rating.
I (that's me personally) have no problem with people rating something a 10 because of a single aspect if they are getting enough out of that single aspect to make the overall experience a 10 for them. But I do have a problem with people rating things they have not even tried or seen.
Why not start with a comment (without a rating) like "I think the miniatures will be awesome!" which is then replaced by rating "The miniatures are awesome! = 10" once people have actually seen the stuff they are talking about?

GrauGeist wrote:
I mean, it's like you're arguing that we must consider the articles when we rate Playboy magazine...

I had to do that in school. I do not plan to repeat the experience.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Takacs
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, if you follow the BoardGameGeek rating system as it is written, a "10" game is one that is "Outstanding. Always want to play and expect that will never change." Technically, you cannot rate a game a "10" without a desire to play it all of the time. I guess if some people always want to play a game because the miniatures are cool, that would count. However, rating it a "10" because you think you might like it . . .
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G G
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Professor Plum wrote:
I was tempted to rate SW a "10" just to balance this stupidity, but then, hey, I'd just be a part of it. I'll play it first.


I played it and have given the game a "10", because I felt that it currently deserves a 10. At some point, I'll revise it to a 7 or 8, but not until this whole 10/1 nonsense works itself out.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart Holttum
United Kingdom
Southend on Sea
Essex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gstealer wrote:
Stu Holttum wrote:

4 of the first 5 "10" ratings say "for the quality of the components".


Problem is they don't say anything else. It doesn't mean they don't like the rules. So I don't think you can automatically say it is not because of the rules, atmosphere, box construction, etc.


Its a reasonable inference. If I say I like something "because of X", that implies that "X" is the factor I am rating. Factors Y and Z, by definition, would not be as good, otherwise I'd say it.

Doesn't mean that Y and Z rate a zero - that may be 8s, or 5s, or whatever. But my point is that if they ALL were 10s, then I'd be likely to say so....especially having taking the time to go in and rate a game and leave a comment.

Sadly - as I've noted - those people who were so enthused by the minis that they had to give out a "10" for them, are not engaging in this thread....which I think further supports my case. If they thought the game WAS a 10 across the board, then they'd be likely to subscribe and see this thread. Someone who got the game JUST for the minis - and had no interest in the game - would be less likely to bother subscribing.

Neither are conclusive, I grant. But I think its a reasonable argument, given the two things, that the people who gave it "10 for the minis" do NOT think the overall game is worthy of a 10.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart Holttum
United Kingdom
Southend on Sea
Essex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GrauGeist wrote:
Professor Plum wrote:
I was tempted to rate SW a "10" just to balance this stupidity, but then, hey, I'd just be a part of it. I'll play it first.


I played it and have given the game a "10", because I felt that it currently deserves a 10. At some point, I'll revise it to a 7 or 8, but not until this whole 10/1 nonsense works itself out.


I don't understand - your opinion of the game will chage because of our discussion of the ranking system? Why would you revise it to a 7 or 8 if you think it deserves a 10? Seriously, I don't get it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lester Festertester
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dropped my rating from 10 to 1 just on ta whim. Rating system = meaningless !!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.