Finally, I'm not really sure we need a "games I've finished" stack in addition to "games I've played". Thoughts?
I am already using "Games I've Finished," but I might also use that one because there are games I have played without completing. I say keep both.
Yup definitely keep both. I don't finish every game I play. There are also many games that you can't finish eg. competitive online multiplayer gaming etc.
Agreed. Given that others have already started using the new "stacks" system (which I've avoided pending changes) keeping the completed games stack is fine. I'm probably in a real minority as I don't rate/review games until I've completed the SP campaign (if it has one) and the credits roll.
Good to read that the users' comments are being taken on board by the GS staff/programmers so I will await the revised version before adding/moving my games between stacks.
I'd want to see a rating column in my collection stack, as having that column on the old site allowed me to see which games I had in my collection that I hadn't yet rated, and could compare directly from there with the GS review score.
Maybe it should be a column that's available in every stack regardless?
As one who used the old system I agree with this and most comments above. The adding of game icons/covers improves the look but it's the (sortable) data we wish to capture/reflect that is important.
I believe we do not just record the title played and ranked but also the platform on which it was played/ranked. The proposed new "stack" should be sortable by title, platform, rating, date (meaning year) of release, etc as was the previous "owned games" list. It is likely I would only use this one "stack" as it should combine all the useful information (to us gamers/users) in one place.
Anyway it's good to see that the message(s) about "stacks" is getting through and being followed up.
Finally, I'm not really sure we need a "games I've finished" stack in addition to "games I've played". Thoughts?
As far as I can tell the new GS shows reviews sorted by: (1) the number of thumbs up thumbs, and then (2) the number of thumbs up over total thumbs up and down (ie % of thumbs up).
Personally I see more merit in having the games ranked chronologically (newest to oldest) to see how views on games change and also as an "incentive" to write a review in the first place.
Ranking/sorting reviews by the thumbs up/down system punishes those who have elicited no thumbs up by putting them at the end of the queue so recent reviews can end up at the bottom, irrespective of their merit. This means that, if like many you read the reviews closest to the top of the review list the ones with no thumbs up at the bottom are likely never to be seen or get any thumbs up and stay there.
Hardly a motivation to write a review if it disappears to the bottom of the well at the get go. Think about it.
The only thing I do on GS since they changed the site and destroyed my collection page is to come here and see what's new in the bugs forum.
I'm not sure why I am doing this really. I expect they are invested in their changes and feel they are great and that some of us just don't get it, etc. Denial is a very powerful thing. The only thing that will really generate a response is revenue loss. Maybe. So, I guess we'll see what happens here. Maybe most people think this is all just fine and maybe they don't.
Likewise ... I haven't visited (and indeed posted to) the forums so much before and for the same reason ... wanting to know when the old and reliable features will be incorporated into the "new" GS.
I'm afraid I'm one of those who fall into the "just don't get it" category. "Stacks" ... seriously?
I have saved these as htm files for the moment so I can "re-create" myself here at GS if required ...
Well having a bit of time this weekend, I've had a crack at updating the "About Me" blurb using the archived webpages (found as in #3 above) as a guide ... it still doesn't look quite right but it'll do in the interim.
Overall a minor irritant I guess and not as important as getting the owned/ranked games data restored and replacing (or at least augmenting) the new "stacks" system so it's not just a "list" of box covers undifferentiated by platform or ranking/scores.
@s_h_a_d_o: Thanks, I know the link is there but the text outlining myself and my interest in gaming, etc is no longer available and also my blog header image and blurb went as well.
That said I overnight was able to find some of the old GS pages (including Fuse) using Google and opening the cached versions of the pages ... you can still see how great the old GS looked (though these may soon be overwritten depending on how often the pages are sampled). I have saved these as htm files for the moment so I can "re-create" myself here at GS if required ... interestingly comments are still showing up on the (individual) archived blogs too!
@derek3143: Agreed. If true then this is indeed a bad thing as there can be wide margins between the rating of a game on the different platforms.
Games designed initially for console and then ported to PC often have issues, whether it's the keyboard configuration or what is provided in the base game, among other aspects. Two examples Scarface: The World is Yours is a great game, but the PC controls are unchangeable/awkward and hence not ideal whereas on PS2 its more logical, Nightfire on PS2 had car driving/chase missions but not on PC ... COD World at War on PC has all three zombie missions out of the box the PS3 version only one is included and the others are $DLCs.
So, if for no other reason than the content of a particular title is not constant across all platforms, I think average ratings should be on a platform by platform basis basis as before.
Seems to me the new review "order" is now sorted by: (1) the number of thumbs up thumbs, and then (2) the number of thumbs up over total thumbs up and down (ie % of thumbs up).
Personally I see more merit in having the games ranked chronologically (newest to oldest) to see how views on games change with time.
Also the thumbs up/down system punishes those who have elicited no thumbs up by putting them at the end of the queue so recent reviews can end up at the bottom, irrespective of their merit. This means that, if like many you read the reviews closest to the top of the list the ones with no thumbs up at the bottom are likely never to get any thumbs up and stay there.
Hardly a motivation to write a review if it disappears to the bottom of the well at the get go. Think about it.
True. Indeed I have, mainly as a result of how GS looks on IE8, finally bitten the bullet and changed completely to Firefox, which I used as my 2nd tier browser until now.
That said, IE8 (and XP, according to a number of tech websites) will not be supported beyond April 2014 in any event so it's probably time to consider changing your preferred browser in the next 3-6 months anyway. A large number of other websites no longer work well with IE8 or vice versa.
@H4num4n: Had the same issue but found solution on another forum.
Basically go to Images tag under your profile select "Edit Tags" (don't ask, didn't make sense to me either) and click on the image you wish to "edit" then when the pop-up appears click the "Remove" button to delete the unwanted image(s). Not exactly intuitive but it seems to be the only way at present.
THAT SAID, the images (including deleted ones) will still appear in the "Feed" archive ... go figure.
Like you I'm having a lot of "fun" with the new GS ... not!
Log in to comment