User Review Requests Archive Discussion!

You have shared your concerns about user reviews for years now and I wanted to make sure you all knew that these discussions have never been neglected. Staff do know about your user review functionality concerns, and your concerns about union overhaul you have been asking for since 2005. The community team (former staff and current) have continued to pioneer for changes for the past 4 years for both of these features, but it seems like other features have taken higher priority.

In appreciation of your continued efforts in sharing your feedback to many of our community features, I'd like to share your discussions about user reviews over the years to prove that we have been listenng, and we DO care.

Please check out the links I have gathered by doing a keyword search of "user review" or "player review" in this forum. Share if you only read reviews here as well in your feedback. We want those reading the reviews to have a good time as much as we'd like those who write the reviews!

Some links below have feedback related to a post in the thread rather than what the author posted in the discussion. So, let's get started on your ever growing ideas for user reviews, which might I add blow my socks off!. All of these ideas would probably cause me to write my first review on the site!

- Sort User Reviews [most recent/username/recommended reviews/user review scores/users with top 100 or top 500 emblem/ if the review badges get added, sort by badge] #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9 | #10| #11 | #12 | #13

- Add User Review medals similar to GameSpot's review medals and demerits (review emblems) #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9 | #10 | #11 | #12 | #13 | #14 | #15 | #16

- Allow users feature images from their image galleries or gamespace #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7

- Enable HTML/wysiwyg editor#1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7

- Feedback field to share with review writer (maybe this is not something for the public eye, but it can be reported if it's abusive?) #1 | #2 | #3| #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9 | #10 | #11 | #12

- Disallow users to review or rate a game if it's not in their tracked, recent played, or game collection#1 Ask the Mods discussion | #2

- Add a video to review#1

- Difficulty Options#1 | #2

- Post reviews about hardware or accessories?#1

- Display how many users agreed and disagree with review on the gamespace user reviews page#1

- Increase 100 minimum word requirement #1 | #2 | #3| #4 | #5 | #6

- More Classifications by adding a negative and positive drop down list #1 | #2

- Change "rate this review" to "was this review helpful"#1

- Disallow users to review one specific game across all consoles (text shouldn't be exactly the same due to the console or PC/Mac having different capabilities and controls

- Remove negative (thumbs down) as an option for readers of user reviews#1 | #2 | #3

- Add Track Author button to user reviews (place away from the report abuse button to avoid any mistakes) #1

- Add an area for featured (top reviewers emblem writers? (might be resolved if there is a sort by option) #1

- Allow readers to know more about the writer on the user review page (user level, how many written reviews, etc) #1

- Save a draft#1

- Add perks for top reviewers#1| #2

- Limit review writing to those who are higher level?#1

- Allow a way to import notepad/word documents to post a user review#1

- Add more report abuse violation options (plot spoiler and plagerism with a field to paste the original content's url). #1

I can't promise any of these changes will happen, but your interest and feedback on these former ideas will help a great deal.

UPDATE 1/10 at 10am PT: Added some more disccusions. If you read through the original discussion threads I linked to over the weekend check my latest post about the edits.

This is just what I wanted from the site for a long time Jody! Thanks for bringing us up to speed too! This will definitely motivate me to write more reviews. Good stuff!

As for the suggestions;

1. The sort-user-review implementation would be a very welcomed addition. Might I suggest it would also be invoked on the user's profile too so they can sort their own personal reviews by alphabetical order, platform, score and so on? I would most definitely appreciate the latter too as I like to take pride in the hobby and all my work.
2. I also completely reinforce the feedback implementation. It would be a really mature and intellectual way to discuss thoughts on a game!
3. Additionally, I feel the word limit on reviews should be vastly improved. While I wouldn't want to warn off reviewers, people who spam poor reviews out or just give out dull plot summaries shouldn't be able to review on the site. For a decent review, 300 words seems more than reasonable enough.
4. The other thing I agree on is the positive/negative drop down list. That would be a really enjoyable way to condense your thoughts after writing a lengthy review which would therefore appeal to both audiences.

Otherwise, everything else I agree on or have no argument with. Thanks Jody!

I think the mentioned overhauls are a pretty good list of ideas, especially the searching by username and popularity. I approve of pictures, increasing the minimum word count, having a private, author only feedback box (or even just an easy way to PM them), and being able to use HTML.

My own ideas, which I haven't shared before:

-Eliminate the "down thumb" concept for "was this review helpful" entirely. This promotes the good reviews, rather than punishing the bad ones. Besides, the private feedback idea would possibly allow readers to voice their suggestions on making reviews better, at least in theory.

-That extra tag line has seemed unecessary to me since Gamespot's official reviews dropped it. I'm referring to the "dissapointing" or "check your bargain bin" tag lines. It has always seemed limited and I never usually use more than a handful of them anyway, because a lot of them are too specific. I'd like to see the emblem idea replace those, granted the emblems are varied enough and have allowance for user input and suggestion.

-Allow reviews to be posted sans score. It's just a random idea of mine - sometimes games have such a garbled opinion in my brain that I can't make up my mind, even if the review itself manages to convey what I'm trying to say. If nobody else thinks its necessary then I'll drop the idea, but I'd like to throw it out there.

I approve of a minor overhaul of reviews and I'm looking forward to the discussion.

Agreed with the above posts on several behalfs.

The feedback option will greatly benefit newbies and/or motivate the players to write more.

The tagline drop-down is also agreeably a redundancy, since you have to make up another one anyway in the catchphrase field, albeit a bit longer.

HTML will also be greatly appreciated - sometimes when I want to make quick corrections or spellchecks, I grow tired of scrolling through the tiny box.

I'd also like to throw in an idea for additional ratings on differing criteria for a game, like story, presentation, gameplay, etc. It's probably a pain to implement, but it'd would make for a nice round-up along with the final catchphrase and difficulty/score.

I don't find implementing images necessary, since the whole thing will definitely be optional and impractical due to some reviews being large as they are and official screenshots resting a few clicks away.

Definitely limit the minimum wordcount, I'm tired of expecting formulated opinions and finding half-paragraph rants.

The "Thumb Down" elimination sounds like a really good idea - not just because spamming given feature has become an unpleasant trend lately. It's like facebook - you either enjoyed the review enough to read through all of it, or didn't, and moved along. Supported.

Disallowing a user to review an untracked game seems silly, since if they lack the decency to play before reviewing, they'll definitely not hesitate to falsely track.

That's about all I can think of right now, but I might pop back in and join the discussion. Thanks for the thread Jody, this was definitely needed.

This is a great thread idea. I definitely agree with not letting a review be posted if you don't have it in your GS Game Collection.

Additionally, place a safeguard on the platform, e.g., if a member has a game on the 360 they can't post a review on the PC by accident.

Definitely increase the word count - nothing irritates me more than to see a one-paragraph "review", it defeats the purpose of writing one.

Jody, please consider setting a time limit on a review of a new game, as I don't believe it's right for a person to post a review on the day of release. Invariably, they post that they have perhaps 10 hours of gameplay, not to mention they haven't finished it.

I would suggest not allowing any player reviews until a week after release. After all, Gamespot editors set the example - they finish a game before they write their reviews, so I think members should be held to the same standard.

I've actually thought about this for a while now, and I was thinking that if it were possible for us to add screenshots or gameplay videos to our player reviews (so long as they meet the guidelines). I love writing reviews here at GameSpot, and I think pictures would give them a little more oomph and flair. And, of course, have a feature where you can add some flavor text underneath them -- like what's done in the official GS reviews. Other than that, things are cool the way they currently stand. Keep up the good work!

This is a great thread idea. I definitely agree with not letting a review be posted if you don't have it in your GS Game Collection.

Additionally, place a safeguard on the platform, e.g., if a member has a game on the 360 they can't post a review on the PC by accident.

Definitely increase the word count - nothing irritates me more than to see a one-paragraph "review", it defeats the purpose of writing one.

Jody, please consider setting a time limit on a review of a new game, as I don't believe it's right for a person to post a review on the day of release. Invariably, they post that they have perhaps 10 hours of gameplay, not to mention they haven't finished it.

I would suggest not allowing any player reviews until a week after release. After all, Gamespot editors set the example - they finish a game before they write their reviews, so I think members should be held to the same standard.

topsemag55

My Dead Rising 2: Case West review just so happened to be the most recent reader review when GS put their review up on their gamer page. Since my score was lower than everyone else's (I was brutally honest), I got several thumbs down, and I'm quite annoyed by that. So, yeah, I would LOVE to hear the thumbs down thrown out. If someone doesn't agree, they don't have to be a jerk about it and thumb it down. Honestly, what does that do? I agree with LGTX about the disallowing of reviewing for games that don't have in their collection. Some people simply may not want to bother adding games to their collection and just want to review it. I would love to see a good/bad bullet list option. I don't think it's fair to disallow users to review one game across multiple consoles when GS does that itself. ;) I would also love to see comments so people can comment about the reviews. Lastly, leave the 100 word minimum where it's at. I know we would like to see everyone write more thought out reviews, but some people aren't as dedicated as others and may not want to write professional-style reviews. Raising the minimum may be a discouragement to users who want to write quick reviews. JustPlainLucas

I agree. Sometimes that's all it takes is 100 words because the game isn't that great, or its really good without much bad in it.

I have to agree with most that's been said in this thread. The "thumbs down" idea has always seemed stupid to me because it's easy for someone to see a score that they don't agree with, not read something someone has taken their time to write (given if it's a well written review, of course) and "thumb it down" to move on and do it again. It's almost as bad as when people spam thumb down people's comments in blogs, but that's a problem for another day in another thread.

I'm also for adding categoryscores to the reviews. Hell, I do it anyways with my newer reviews. Story, Gameplay, Graphics, Replay Value, Sounds (sound effects, background music, voice acting, etc.), and what have you. This goes hand-in-hand with review emblems, which I'm also for, as well as a pros and cons section, whichI add to my own reviews as well. The offical reviews do the same thing, they just call it "The Good" and "The Bad" in those reviews. You could make in optional, I know a few people who do it already on their reviews, but there are others that don't do it and don't care to do it.

Word limit is also another thing. I'll admit that back when I made my first review I didn't have a clue what I was doing and ended up making a one paragraph review. While I know I've done it before, I feel it's wrong to do.

Pictures in reviews would also be a nice feature. I post (or have posted)reviewsfor a number of unions on this site and I've always felt that after it gets a picture or two or three, it looks so much better.

If I can think of anything else, I'll be sure to post.

Extending the "disallow" idea if game is not in tracked/recent played etc ... How about linking this to Raptr tracking too, which keeps track of how many hours someone has played a particular game (not possible for all consoles, I know, but it would lend more credibility if a review had a time stamp by Raptr added to it) Just an idea, for those who may say "I played for 200 hours" and someone says "Bull!"

1. I really dont like the drop down menu with "the bottom line" for the games (these cooments are frequently not applicable and if you dont choose one, your review is left with these ugly empty quotes at the top.

2. I don't like the difficulty or time spent menus either, they add nothing to a review (what does it mean to have "just right" difficulty anyway) and because they are up at the top, they distract from the actual content of the review.

So, my feedback is to get rid of these menus or to make it a more aesthetic option to leave them blank.

-Salute

Excellent thread, Jody! Nice to see the reviews area getting some attention.

I think having options to sort the user reviews differently would be a good, if mostly minute addition. It's not a necessity, but it would certainly make scrounging through user reviews a lot easier.

Review emblems aren't a bad idea, as they would be more informative than what our current system allows. A couple bullet point lists for the good and bad aspects, similar to what the editorial reviews have, should take a higher priority, though, I think. Emblems are great, but the latter would allow for a more personal touch. Getting either one (or both, even) would be a huge benefit, though.

Allowing images and videos to added to our works is good inclusion, if only to aid our illustrative prowess when discussing visuals. Pictures are worth a thousand words, after all. Also, allowing the WYSIWYG editor to be enabled is a must. I can't count how many times I wish I could italicize a certain word or line of text in my work to add some much needed emphasis, whether it be for humor or to stress certain points. This needs to happen.

An improved feedback system is worth exploring, definitely. The current thumbs-up/thumbs-down system isn't as effective as it should. Removal of the thumbs-down option along with the field to share constructive criticisms with the review author would drastically make the system more reliable. Although there would definitely need to be a way to report sent feedback, lest we want users running amok with trollish remarks and the like.

More difficulty options would be nice, certainly, but the classifications are in more urgent need of additions. Though, frankly, I agree with Aberinkulas in that they're largely unnecessary. I find that they often don't match up with the review text, which has lead to many hard decisions in regards to which one I need to associate with any given work. An increased catalog of options would partially remedy that, sure, but in the long run I think they're better off being dropped in favor of other, superior options.

Increasing the minimum word requirement is worth considering. Upping it to, say, around 200 words would be best I believe, as that way there still isn't too much effort involved for the less serious review writers out there, but still enough required that they don't end up being completely unhelpful, uninformative works that only drown out the quality reviews.

Lastly, I disagree on disallowing users to review a game because it isn't listed on our collections or what have you. I can see the benefits of the system, but for people like me who resort to rental services like GameFly for getting new games to play and possibly review, such a system only serves to harm more than it does help. I'd hate to be locked out of reviewing games for something so minute, and I'm sure others feel the same.

I'm also for adding categoryscores to the reviews. Hell, I do it anyways with my newer reviews. Story, Gameplay, Graphics, Replay Value, Sounds (sound effects, background music, voice acting, etc.), and what have you.

kjhg53

GameSpot used to allow users to score categories like that, but that was ushered out when the current rating system came into effect in mid 2007. Bringing that back would only serve to make the scoring systems used seem inconsistent. Better that we all play by the same rules in that regard, I think.

GameSpot used to allow users to score categories like that, but that was ushered out when the current rating system came into effect in mid 2007. Bringing that back would only serve to make the scoring systems used seem inconsistent. Better that we all play by the same rules in that regard, I think.

c_rake

Jody all your propositions are very interesting and I think these would really help the site to be even better. Personally generally I'm happy with the reviews as they are now, though somes changes, like the feedback addition are welcomed. In my opinion the only thing that surely must change is the number of people-moderators who examine the integrity and the quality of the reviews. If more people from GS were assigned to watch the content of the reviews, then automatically the reviews' level would rise and no extra measures would be needed.

Also I'm really tired of seeing reviews and ratings of 1.0, or 10 only. I can't think of any way to control this, afterall someone might actually think that a game is worth of a 1.0 , as long as they can documentate their opinion.

I basically agree with everything said above, except for the point that you actually have to own a game or add to your now playing list. I barely use this feature and at one point I completed a game that I didn't have myself. That game was Resident Evil 5 and I played it in coop with a friend until the end. It was his copy of the game but I was able to share my thoughts as we both finished it.

What I also find annoying that one time all my reviews got a thumbs down on one day, maybe because someone didn't like what I thought about one particular game. That really bothered me. Thus I agree with leaving the thumbs down feature completely out. My solution for that would be something like a rating based on how many users clicked on your review to read it. At least it would show that people are attracted by your headline. I don't know if that's good with the other reviewers here.

Frankly, I read many user reviews of games I plan to purchase, so that it's quite annoying that most of them are just 100 words to match that criteria and barely say something substantial about the game. It just doesn't seem fair that some reviewers put so much effort in their review and write almost 4 pages and get thumbs down, while others get inexplicable thumbs up for a review that is a few sentences...Anyways, I agree with everything that has been said here.

Edit: Oh and by the way, I highly approve of implementing pictures. That gives user reviewers more room for creativity I think, a point many reviews lack of...as long as no one posts a picture of a final boss.

That gives user reviewers more room for creativity I think, a point many reviews lack of...as long as no one posts a picture of a final boss.

mattsn22

[QUOTE="mattsn22"]That gives user reviewers more room for creativity I think, a point many reviews lack of...as long as no one posts a picture of a final boss.

LGTX

Yep, exactly, that's why I'm against it. Since it WILL be optional, only devoted writers and outright trolls will bother, and quite honestly when you can just navigate away to the screenshots section in just a few clicks, what need is there to show them off individually? Screenshot-rich and broad reviews are just fine from the GS editorial staff, I think users should focus more on the pure writing aspect than, I dunno, stylizing the texts. Don't get me wrong, I understand the need to break up the review, make it easier for the eyes and all that, but I really can't see much practical use from in-review pics unless they're captioned with additional info, which is, well, impractical in its own way.

I'd like to see a return of a game scoring system that didn't force us to score games in .5 and didn't automatically round up/down game scores.If I want to give a game a score of 9.4,it gets rounded up to 9.5 and if I want to give a game a score of 9.2,it gets rounded down to 9.0,and a difference of .2 ends up being a difference of .5

ZanarkandTidus

All those suggestions are great and allow for links to someone's video review if they made one as well. Perhaps also a ranking system of the user review with the highest ratings to the lowest ratings so users don't have to waste time reading poorly spelled reviews that are more or less just fanboy ranting with little to no description of the game.

What I'd like to see is the return of the individual aspect scoring. eg: Graphics 9/10, Sound 6/10, Gameplay 7/10. Just don't make the final score come from an average of those numbers. I think you should be able to choose your own score for the final mark. I remember back in the day, I found it a tad irritable getting a final score which I didn't exactly agree with because of how the average number came out.

I wouldn't mind seeing the .1 scoring return as well(eg: 9.1, 8.4, 4.9), but I'm not too fussed about that.

I tried to respond to all ideas as accurately as possible. I hope this helps:

Sort User Reviews - It wouldn't really bother me if it stayed like it was, but I think the best idea would be to have one default sorting method (for example date or Top 100/500/1000 status), but implement a feature that allows users to sort the reviews of a certain game by their own standards (by score, recommended, etc.). I'm kind of against sorting them by recommendations or status by default, though, as it would deny beginning contributors their 15 minutes of fame in favour of established reviewers.

Review emblems - Call me dumb, but I don't really know what this means...

Allow user images in reviews - I am heavily in favour of this, as long as it's implemented well. The last thing I want is those random HTML errors to enter the review submission form as well.

Enable HTML editor - I don't really care myself, but if some users are in need of this, why not? Again, this shouldn't cause the random HTML errors to occur in the review submission form.

Feedback field - Yes, please. It's always nice to get someone thumb up your review, but you never know if they did it because they liked your review, or just because they disagreed with the score. Allowing users to 'reply' to your review would solve this, and it would help the reviewer knowing what to look out for in his next review. Maybe you can only allow users of a certain level (for example, 5 and higher) to reply. The last thing we want is some troll registering just to say someone's review sucks because of a low score.

Disallow users to review or rate a game if it's not in their tracked, recently played or game collection - Yes and no. For reviews, I am in favour of this idea. It's natural to assume the reviewer owns or has at least recently played a game before he reviews it. As for ratings: it's tempting, as it would put an end to most of the trollish downvoting, but in the end I'm against, because it would prevent users from rating games they might have played a few years back, and are not in their collection anymore.

Add a video to review - I don't think this is necessary, really. Users can just upload gameplay videos in the user video section, and/or post it on their blog. I rarely see reviews that have videos in them, and in the case that there is a video, I rarely watch it anyway. Could just be me, though.

Difficulty options - I remember there being a difficulty option in the past that was named 'mixed' or something. I say bring that back, and keep 'just right', or perhaps rename the latter 'medium'. Adding 'mixed' is quite important, because a lot of video games have an inconsistent difficulty throughout the game, or allow for various difficulty settings.

Post reviews about hardware or accessoires - Personally, I don't see why people can't just post this on their blogs. It would be hard, seeing as, for as far as I can remember, Gamespot doesn't have separate pages for hardware like they do for games.

Display how many users agreed and disagreed with a review on the gamespace user reviews page - Sure, I don't see why not. Then again, it doesn't really bother me the way it is now.

Increase 100 minimum word requirement - Oh, please do. I think 400 should be about right for a word minimum. There are still too many reviews that barely pass the 100 word limit, and are basically useless. Raising the bar would discourage users to post reviews that aren't really reviews, as they lack key information about the game and are basically just a short text blurp with their personal opinion of a certain game.

More cIassifications - Heavily in favour of adding the 'The Good' and 'The Bad' game emblems for user reviews. I'd also like to see more 'summary words', as the current ones are getting old, and it's getting increasingly difficult for me to not use the same few terms over and over. (I'm refering to the 'Masterpiece', 'Amazing', 'Boring' and 'Total Letdown' kind of summaries that go above the review.)

Change "rate this review" to "was this review helpful" - I guess it doesn't really matter, but "was this review helpful" seems a bit more confined, as it only seems to focus on the people that read reviews to gather information about a game they might buy. People can also read reviews because they just like the writing styIe of a certain user, or out of curiosity of what other people think about a certain game. In the latter context 'helpful' seems a tad bit more out of place than a simple thumb up.

Disallow users to review one specific game across all consoles - Isn't that what a lot of gaming websites do as well? :P Anyway, I'm a bit on the fence on this, as some games can be near identical on two platforms, while another title can be entirely different if it's played on a different platform. I'm inclined to say "yes" to this idea, seeing as I think you shouldn't post a review for a game on a platform you haven't played it on, but on the other hand, prohibiting it altogether seems a bit harsh. For now, I'll say 'no', and instead encourage users to indicate which platform they played it on, if they're going to post this so-called 'multiplatform review'.

Lots of great ideas here, people! @Draugen The review emblems are "The Good" and "The Bad" game emblems you mention in your reply for more classifications. That is, if you're referring to the emblems on official GS reviews such as "Oh Snap!" "Undeniable Charm," "Outstanding Gameplay," etc.

For sorting reviews, I think we should keep it as is so that every review will be on the first page at some time, but maybe include an icon next to the usernames of those with top reviewer emblems.

The review emblems would definitely be a cool feature.

The feedback field is something that is needed very badly, along with the elimination of the thumbs down option.

Being able to add images would be a good thing, but I don't see it as totally necessary.

We shouldn't disallow users to review a game that isn't in their owned/tracked game lists as for the reasons already stated: some people don't update those lists, others rent or borrow games, and trolls could just falsely track any game they want to review.

I've already voiced my opinion about the Difficulty Options in my thread and how "Just Right" should be changed to "Medium."

I think the minimum word requirement should be increased to 250-300. Short reviews can still be good, but spam 100-word reviews repeating the word "really" 100 times is just awful.

I've been reading and keeping up with everything people have said and there's one point:

Trying to limit users to own games, tie in other services or "tracking" users' playtime seems altogether needlessly complicated. Sometimes I use the collection option, but being forced to use it so I can review games would just make me forget the whole thing. I trade in and give away my games constantly, and it changes forever (but I still have opinions on games I traded away five minutes ago!). Especially something like Raptr, which is even worse on that front.

I just don't think it's fair to force reviewers to use, for some people, what is an unecessary service. You're always going to have people game the system. Let's not make the bar to entry so high that nobody can get in.

I was using Gamespot's reviews system when they used to Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, Value and Tilt sliders and those also seemed fairly unnecessary. Sometimes I don't even talk about all of those topics in my review if the topic isn't important to the game. Game reviews are so subjective - some games have graphics as really important while in other games the gameplay is the only thing that matters. The review should communicate this information without added scores.

I'm, overall, a fan of making things less complicated, not more. Good reviews are good reviews. Glitzing them up or limiting the way they are posted won't change that.

Cool, I see most of our buddies have responded already and I see a lot fo good ideas, most of which I can certainly adhere to. I'll just throw my two cents in the mix, to give you an additional voice primarily.

Sort User Reviews - I think sorting should be approached with caution, like many other instances. For one, I'd like to think of beginner reviews or people 'under the radar' that do not yet hold a following. By sorting these out by recommendation or such, you'll filter out a gross part of these people and that limits the amount of fresh talent to rise up and get noticed and I'd hate that to happen.

Perhaps we can borrow from our sister site GameFaqs and sort reviews simply by their length. That way, a user can choose how much he'd like to read up on a certain game and how much content he needs explained. Let's say 200/500/800/1000/1500+ Although, generally, I dislike reviews that take more than 1500 words to get their point across, but to each their own and that's just a rough sketch.

I think even sorting it by a 'cream of the crop' manner will alsdo ultimately be harmful towards fresh talent, as everyone wants to read the best. I think most people can quickly scan a review on its quality by themselves.

What I would suggest is perhaps just put the small top reviewer icon to those who own it, next to their reviews. That doesn't necessarily stand for optimum quality on each review, is still hideable in the mix of other reviews and doesn't mention anything about length, while still giving recognition and a sense of safety for users willing to read up.

Review emblems - Neither yes nor no; just like a pro and cons section, those things actually put me OFF reading the actual review, as it gives you the basic round-up without the context and that's not always something good. I can see the benefits for it, but from a reader point of view, I could live without. Not against it though, I'd just use them less personally and wouldn't make them mandatory like some other sites, because it's annoying when facing a bland game with no forefront qualities NOR demerits...

Enable HTML editor - Dear lord yes! Please! I think that is the only thing where GS is still years behind the rest and limits a user's exposure, by not offering a WYSIWYG format for people to spruce up reviews with format, images, video's and whatnot. This is pretty straight forward, please allow this to happen. I don't think a server issue is at hand, but if you are afraid of this, then cap images at 500Kb or something, just so you don't have people destroying their own format, by using HD images that take ages to load. Also, this could allow us to implement our video reviews within.

Feedback field - Another field I feel we should implement asap. In particular, this will aid any more novice reviewer to rise up a lot faster by getting positive criticism, while still getting the ability to flag obvious trolls. Like said, it's nice to get a thumb up, but it's even nicer to be able to know what stuck and didn't stick to a reader's mind, as now we have to resort to outside measures to learn this.

Disallow users to review or rate a game if it's not in their tracked, recently played or game collection - Well, I think I can see a steady route between the two: Just adding to the 'now playing' section should suffice, no? Otherwise as c_rake said, people who have rented a game but know it to its fullest extent get left out. I'm not to fond of people who rent, but it's not really my call on this. I could live with having to add it to my collection first, as this aids the GS system.

Add a video to review - I think linking the two written/video could do wonders and I'm a strong supporter of this. Now I have to post a link in my video review and I can't even mention it in my written review, so the option of finally linking these two together would perhaps help more people step up.

Post reviews about hardware or accessoires - Bluh, they're not games, so I say no. We're a game site, correct? Let's stay that way and focus on games, not the machines that come on them, since I don't really think they're that open to discussion. If you have certain problems with its limitations, you can still apply that in a review; such as unresponsive motion control, no thumbstick etc.

Display how many users agreed and disagreed with a review on the gamespace user reviews page - I think taking the "Thumb Down" option is something that we need to implement fast. Like said, this will promote better reviews and not cripple bad ones, while not crippling good ones due to trolling... Everyone wins by simply having a way to rate up or not at all.

Another thing I was thinking for a while is to have a rating system I saw from another site, where you could give 1 to 5 and just display how many points a certain reviews has accumulated. So if a review has 17 point, there's either 3 people who loved it and one that didn't or 17 that hated it or anything in between. I'm on the fence about showing how many people voted though, since as people tend to count an average of them, that could give the wrong image. Merging the amount of thumbs with this rating should give a more accurate view. A score of 10 with no thumbs that is badly written, will probably mean many people dislike it. A score of ten and 5 thumbs can probably mean it's still a good review.

Increase 100 minimum word requirement - Yes, although I think 200 words is more than sufficient. Some people who aren't as fluent with words as some of us still deserve to have their say in a game and can usually do so in a very brief way. That's what the word sort option would come handy for those who don't want to read short reviews. 100 words is too little though. I've seen too many 'reviews' that simply say 'best gaem evahr!' and that's not really an opinion.

Disallow users to review one specific game across all consoles - What if you're a collector and actually own them all? Do you need to send proof? I don't know. On one hand, I can really see why this is useful, but let's say you own a DS version and a Wii version of a game. I'm pretty sure the two versions are vastly vastly different and picking one for review seems a bit like stumping people, rather than enabling them.

On the oldschool rating system return - While I absolutely hate the fact GS now forces you to half points, which is really unfair in some cases, I can see c_rake's point that bringing the older and better system back could cause some commotion. I'm all for taking on that risk however, as I thought the old system was a lot better. By not making the sections marked graphics/sound/etc mandatory, but only the final score, you can give all reviewers the choice of whether or not they want to elaborate on this.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Thanks for the PM invite, Jody.:)

This is a great thread idea. I definitely agree with not letting a review be posted if you don't have it in your GS Game Collection.

Additionally, place a safeguard on the platform, e.g., if a member has a game on the 360 they can't post a review on the PC by accident.

Definitely increase the word count - nothing irritates me more than to see a one-paragraph "review", it defeats the purpose of writing one.

Jody, please consider setting a time limit on a review of a new game, as I don't believe it's right for a person to post a review on the day of release. Invariably, they post that they have perhaps 10 hours of gameplay, not to mention they haven't finished it.

I would suggest not allowing any player reviews until a week after release. After all, Gamespot editors set the example - they finish a game before they write their reviews, so I think members should be held to the same standard.

Calvin079

The reason I mentioned that as a problem is for uber-games such as Dragon Age: Origins - which is 50 hours minimum.

People were posting reviews on the same day as release - posting 10 hours of gameplay, and even saying they didn't finish.:o:?

My take - no point to writing a review if you haven't experienced the entire game. You could pick up the game again post-review, and run headlong into a horrendous gamebreaking bug.

Lastly, I disagree on disallowing users to review a game because it isn't listed on our collections or what have you. I can see the benefits of the system, but for people like me who resort to rental services like GameFly for getting new games to play and possibly review, such a system only serves to harm more than it does help. I'd hate to be locked out of reviewing games for something so minute, and I'm sure others feel the same.c_rake

Hmm I didn't consider rental games, as I still have every game I've reviewed on my hard drive.:P

I forgot that not everyone has a terabyte drive.:)

To those who are suggesting a return to the old system: I disagree. Scoring those individual items is superfluous and not at all germane to the review text. You're free to score that if you want in the text of your works, but to re-enable that as a necessary part of the reviewing process would only make scoring more needlessly complex. Trying to find a number that matches the text and general tone of the writing is hard enough already; adding more to work with would only intensify that, as then you've got to make sure that all the other scores match up as well. Little much for what should be a simple once-over your work to discern which number should be assigned to your work.

Besides, with so many other shorthand options being proposed, do we really need another one, especially since it no doubt wouldn't be a optional inclusion? I think not. Simplification of the process, while offering additional options for those who want to provide more info, should be how we proceed with this rather than trying to needlessly complicate matters.

Also, this might not be directly related to user reviews, but PLEASE look into resolving the random HTML errors. I tried for about 15 minutes to repost my review of Zeno Clash on a Union Board, and it wouldn't let me due to the pointless 'no valid tags were found' error.

To those who are suggesting a return to the old system: I disagree. Scoring those individual items is superfluous and not at all germane to the review text. You're free to score that if you want in the text of your works, but to re-enable that as a necessary part of the reviewing process would only make scoring more needlessly complex. Trying to find a number that matches the text and general tone of the writing is hard enough already; adding more to work with would only intensify that, as then you've got to make sure that all the other scores match up as well. Little much for what should be a simple once-over your work to discern which number should be assigned to your work.

Besides, with so many other shorthand options being proposed, do we really need another one, especially since it no doubt wouldn't be a optional inclusion? I think not. Simplification of the process, while offering additional options for those who want to provide more info, should be how we proceed with this rather than trying to needlessly complicate matters.

c_rake

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

To those who are suggesting a return to the old system: I disagree. Scoring those individual items is superfluous and not at all germane to the review text. You're free to score that if you want in the text of your works, but to re-enable that as a necessary part of the reviewing process would only make scoring more needlessly complex. Trying to find a number that matches the text and general tone of the writing is hard enough already; adding more to work with would only intensify that, as then you've got to make sure that all the other scores match up as well. Little much for what should be a simple once-over your work to discern which number should be assigned to your work.

Besides, with so many other shorthand options being proposed, do we really need another one, especially since it no doubt wouldn't be a optional inclusion? I think not. Simplification of the process, while offering additional options for those who want to provide more info, should be how we proceed with this rather than trying to needlessly complicate matters.

mattsn22

If it was up to me, I'd get rid of the .1/.5 increments simplify it with a 1-5 star system or something. You don't need that many reasons to justify that a particular game is worth purchasing or not because of the score it's given. Seriously, is 9.6 any better than 9.5? Or 9.4? You'd end up with a lot of 8.8's, 6.8's, and everything else in between. It seems pointless to me that "this game is slightly better than this because the score is .1 times better than the other one."

I would like to see these changes:

-Be able to add images: I think it would be really neat. Visual aids often help, both to get a point across and to provide a break from the wall of text.

-Be able to use bold, italics, etc.: I think an actual review editor like the one that is used with forum posts would be awesome. I like to be grammatically correct and would like to be able to put titles of games in italics. Even if you do it first on word then copy paste it does not keep it italicized.

-Change rate this review to "Was this review helpful?": Self explanatory, because we reviewers strive to write detailed and helpful reviews about the game.

[QUOTE="mattsn22"][QUOTE="c_rake"]

To those who are suggesting a return to the old system: I disagree. Scoring those individual items is superfluous and not at all germane to the review text. You're free to score that if you want in the text of your works, but to re-enable that as a necessary part of the reviewing process would only make scoring more needlessly complex. Trying to find a number that matches the text and general tone of the writing is hard enough already; adding more to work with would only intensify that, as then you've got to make sure that all the other scores match up as well. Little much for what should be a simple once-over your work to discern which number should be assigned to your work.

Besides, with so many other shorthand options being proposed, do we really need another one, especially since it no doubt wouldn't be a optional inclusion? I think not. Simplification of the process, while offering additional options for those who want to provide more info, should be how we proceed with this rather than trying to needlessly complicate matters.

asian_pride69

If it was up to me, I'd get rid of the .1/.5 increments simplify it with a 1-5 star system or something. You don't need that many reasons to justify that a particular game is worth purchasing or not because of the score it's given. Seriously, is 9.6 any better than 9.5? Or 9.4? You'd end up with a lot of 8.8's, 6.8's, and everything else in between. It seems pointless to me that "this game is slightly better than this because the score is .1 times better than the other one."

I disagree with the above smiley face thing. I know they aren't professional reviews but I'd like to keep it as a professional, mature type of thing.

I don't mind the thumbs system for reviews, actually, they tend to help weed out which reviews are worth reading and which ones you may not agree with. I have faith that the GS community can differentiate between a good and a bad review. However, I do agree, the change to "Was this review helpful?" is a good idea.

One suggestion I do want to add is that, not sure if anyone suggested this before, the ability to add a few good and bad points as part of review formatting options. Official reviews can add good and bad at the beginning of the review, and emblems to signify the game's best aspects. While I think the descriptive emblems should be reserved for GS, we users should be allowed to pick from a palette of options for a few good and bad points, with a maximum of maybe 3 or so for each side.

[QUOTE="asian_pride69"]

[QUOTE="mattsn22"] I think so, too. Basically giving your review a number does cause more problems than it solves. What about smileys that indicate a certain mood? Happy face - great game. Unhappy face - bad game. In the end they match the tone of a review more than a number.J-man45

If it was up to me, I'd get rid of the .1/.5 increments simplify it with a 1-5 star system or something. You don't need that many reasons to justify that a particular game is worth purchasing or not because of the score it's given. Seriously, is 9.6 any better than 9.5? Or 9.4? You'd end up with a lot of 8.8's, 6.8's, and everything else in between. It seems pointless to me that "this game is slightly better than this because the score is .1 times better than the other one."

I disagree with the above smiley face thing. I know they aren't professional reviews but I'd like to keep it as a professional, mature type of thing.

Cool thread! Thanks for making an effort to listen to the community. I'll highlight my input in pink to make it easier to see.

-Sort User Reviews-This'll be very helpful because I hate having to sift through pages and pages of junk to see the good stuff.

- Add User Review medals similar to GameSpot's review medals and demerits-I'd love for this to happen. Of all the changes being proposed, this one should be given first priority.

- Allow users feature images- Not necessary because it chops up the flow of the review.

- Feedback-As long as the feedback you recieve is reportable, it's a decent idea (if a bit unnecessary). If you allow this, it's only fair to moderate falsely reported feedback as well.

- Disallow users to review or rate a game if it's not in their tracked, recent played, or game collection-That's a counterproductive idea because it assumes that everyone knows how [or cares enough] to add games to their tracked, recently played and game collection lists.

- Add a video to review-If this can be added without slowing down the load times to a crawl, go for it. I just think it defeats the purpose of writing a text review if you're posting a video review of the same game.

- Difficulty Options-Sure, why not? I've never had a problem deciding what category a game's difficulty falls under, but if others have an issue with it, I have no objection with adding this idea.

- Post reviews about hardware or accessories?I don't think this is necessary for consoles, but I can see this being useful for reviewing video cards and other PC parts.

- Increase 100 minimum word requirement-Good idea. There are too many "reviews" out there that are nothing more than rants about how good/bad a game is. Reviews are more than rants because they back up points with facts.

- More ****fications by adding a negative and positive drop down list- I don't think this was even an issue, so I don't care what's done with this idea.

- Change "rate this review" to "was this review helpful"- Good idea. I prefer to know whether or not someone found my review helpful.

- Disallow users to review one specific game across all consoles-I support this idea because it prevents fanboys from down-rating games that are made by developers that they hate.