PDA

View Full Version : TOP 100 Chart



Kamshaft
12-05-2002, 06:51 AM
Small poll to help us gauge if our Top 100 Chart is truly accurate!

SkoalMint
12-05-2002, 07:36 AM
While I think having a top 100 is a good idea, I don't find it to be very accurate when a game like Soccer Slam (4 reviews averaging 4.500) is rated slightly higher than HTR (161 reviews averaging 4.488). I recommend that you consider raising the minimum number of reviews before a game can be included in the top 100.

Just my thoughts. :)

No Fear 23
12-05-2002, 04:13 PM
i'd say its very accurate. i just look at the reviews from the ppl i know and if they say the game is great, i may get it if i am interested in it. its just what i feel. but for all the games i have, they are in the top 20 :)

i belive u just gotta know some good members here that u can trust them on their reviews.

EHWfedPres
12-05-2002, 06:22 PM
I think alot of games are overrated...like Timesplitters 2, Amped, Project Gotham, FIFA Soccer, Rallisport, etc. At least some good games are ranked high like Quantum Redshift and Deathrow.

Cloud Strife
12-05-2002, 06:37 PM
I do think some games have too high of a rating but it is pretty good. Still doesn't pursue wheter I buy a game or not.

Liquid Gears
12-05-2002, 08:56 PM
I said no. There are a ton of games on that list that should be brought closer to first. For sure "NO".

SPARTAN VI
12-05-2002, 11:20 PM
Pretty accurate, the best XBOX games are way up there.

evil xbox king
12-06-2002, 01:37 AM
No, in some cases it isn't accurate. I have seen occasions when somebody 'reviewed' a game and gave it a 1 just so games that are rated higher than their favourite is brought down. I saw it happen with "The Thing" when a person rated it a one, repeatedly saying that 'it wasn't as good as Halo and should not be above Halo in the XBA ratings list'. Eventually, The Thing was brought down, and Halo resides above every other Xbox game (Splinter Cell not withstanding). I still find it a small shame that only one game has been better than a launch title, even though Halo is such a kick-ass game.

SaintHax
12-06-2002, 11:00 AM
The ratings seem close, but people don't rate the games fairly. As some one else pointed out, FanBoys will rate a game a 1 (e.g. Soul Caliber's excitement ratings) b/c they like another game better and want to see "their game" win. Also, people are stupid: one guy rated Halo the default 2.5 for everything, but all he had to say was "Buy it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-- that sounds like a game he'd want to rate 4+ to me. Then you have the 20+ ratings versus the amped 6+ hour ratings.

Splinter Cell has so many annoyances it's not funny-- it's still a fun game, but hardly worth a 5 (it's a 4 in my book); however, it's loaded w/ fluff so people will initially rate it higher until they realize that Sam is a wuss who can only grapple from behind and can't shoot for crap. Plus other BS that causes me to reload more than should be needed.

SaintHax
12-06-2002, 11:02 AM
I forgot: then there are the idiots who rate a game a 1 b/c "I don't like sport games", or "I don't want another FPS". If you don't like the genre, then don't rate the game. DUH!

Crazy Joe
12-06-2002, 11:43 AM
this statement kind of confused me:

A minimum of two(4) reviews are required to enter charts.


so is it a minimum of 2 or 4 reviews?


anyway, the list looks pretty fair, there are no horrible games that i could see in it.

Kamshaft
12-06-2002, 04:53 PM
ok, i'd like to get a few ideas/suggestion on what we could to make more accurate. We'll aim to please. (-: Keep the feedback comin'

thatroger
12-06-2002, 06:17 PM
There is one big problem with the current system. The reason that some games are ranked so high is that only the people who like them take the time to write the reviews on them (for the majority). I would like to see two ratings. A "Official XboxAddict Score" and a "User Score" (or something like that). This way you have one biased opinion with some inciteful comments of course. And you also have a, hopefully, unbiased opinion on the part of the staff. The only problem I see with this is that the staff may not have the resources (time, money,etc) to review all the games.

xboxgamer142
12-07-2002, 04:01 AM
It's pretty accurate and more accurate than other sites. But the minimum number of reviews for the TOP 100 Chart should be 10 or more. I hate it when Halo drops down to 4th or 5th place.

ShannonX
12-07-2002, 03:43 PM
minimum number of votes required: 20

OR

actual ranking based on a weighted number... those with more reviews have a higher weight than those with fewer reviews so if one game has 10 votes but each one is solid 5's all the way across, it wont be "top game" because its weighted score is a little less than the game with 200 votes but a 4.8 average.

thatroger
12-07-2002, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by XBOXMIKE

Reviewers ratein....realiable ,not so realiable, what?etc...



I like that idea if what you're saying is that other users get the chance rate certain reviewers creating a "Reviewing Rate".

I'll second Mike's idea.

shrew king
12-08-2002, 01:20 AM
i think bad reviews (not a reviewer giving a low score, but a reviewer who does not back up his ideas, or one who obviously isn't reviewing a game how it should be reviewed) should be deleted so the ones that are left can help someone who looks at reviews to buy a game.

also if there was a way to rank a reviewer on how good of reviews he gives, it would be helpful, then somehow incorporate that into the overall rating of the game, say a reviewer who doesnt give good reviews doesnt count as much for the overall rating of the game. if someone with a good review record gives the game a good rating, then it should count more towards the overall rating.

that was kinda hard to explain what i was thinking, so if your confused i can try and clear it up a little more.

oddworld20-3000
12-08-2002, 03:54 PM
The top ten list is accurate except for fifa soccor 2003 and MGS2 Substance needs to be way higher and Sega Soccor Slam Number #11.

Casper
12-10-2002, 02:47 PM
How about instead of a rating out of 5, why not 10? That way, you'll get a better average than having them all around 4.52 and stuff.

Also, a person should not be allowed to just give it all 1's to screw with it, that's just unprofessional.

RudedogX
12-10-2002, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by casper
Also, a person should not be allowed to just give it all 1's to screw with it, that's just unprofessional.
You do realize, you're talkin' about fanboys now right?:confused:

# 1 Stunner
12-10-2002, 05:47 PM
ya i feel its up to date but sum times people get carried away by giving sum games bad scores so the game they like the most stays up therrre...:rolleyes:

Casper
12-10-2002, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by rudedogX

You do realize, you're talkin' about fanboys now right?:confused:

That's true, but then again, that's why some sites use select Staff Writers just so it doesn't get as bad as it is...but that would change XBA completely I think. Bah, who knows :confused:

Dark Enemy
12-11-2002, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by casper
How about instead of a rating out of 5, why not 10? That way, you'll get a better average than having them all around 4.52 and stuff.

Also, a person should not be allowed to just give it all 1's to screw with it, that's just unprofessional.


Out of Ten is better cause everything can get averaged out. But out of 5 makes everything look good. And i agree with Shrew King, we should be able to rate the reviewer or the reviews get deleted if there bias

PapaSKooT
12-11-2002, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Shannon-XBA
actual ranking based on a weighted number... those with more reviews have a higher weight than those with fewer reviews so if one game has 10 votes but each one is solid 5's all the way across, it wont be "top game" because its weighted score is a little less than the game with 200 votes but a 4.8 average.

thats a good idea, but it may end up screwing over really new good games. ie, if a launch title has 200 voted, avg. 4.0, and a new game with 20 reviews has an avg of 4.2, but is weighted less, so it will be the same as the launch, that could be unfair.

Incubus
12-11-2002, 11:35 PM
One annoying thing I have been noticing is the tendancy of some reviews to be negative towards a game because the reviewer is a Halo fanboy and cant stand having that game be knocked off number one spot. for example look in the Splinter Cell reviews and look at Sivel's review..

Try to remain objective when posting reviews about games.

odpr
12-12-2002, 04:57 PM
I don't get it what is the prob ?

make it out of ten and write a formula that way so that a game that rated with more users will be higher, what I mean, is that if a user a good score on a game and he is the only one that gave it a score, and there is other game that one hundred people rated it, make a formula that will not allow a gamewith the pone review to be above..

if u need help page me :)

Kamshaft
12-13-2002, 08:15 AM
User feedback I love it! I've decided to increase the minimum review to ten. So, in order for a game to enter the top 100, it need a minimum of 10 reviews.

As time will tell and more games come out for the Xbox, we'll keep bumping it up! Thanks for the feedback guy....you make us who we are today.

wweomaniac
12-15-2002, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Stephen-XBA
User feedback I love it! I've decided to increase the minimum review to ten. So, in order for a game to enter the top 100, it need a minimum of 10 reviews.

As time will tell and more games come out for the Xbox, we'll keep bumping it up! Thanks for the feedback guy....you make us who we are today. ack... I was just gonna agree with this point.. but i guess its been done :0


I don't like the 3 digit decimals though. I'd prefer to see two.

Its more normal. Don't really see many review sites using 3 decimals. It also tends to be a bit harder to read.


BTW... I don't think UC should be so high for a game that isn't that good ;)

preetz16
12-17-2002, 08:58 PM
Do this:

1. Anything with less than 30 reviews--let the number of reviews weigh in the ranking. After 30 reviews the ranking average should be accurate enough (plus if you weigh all the reviews w/ no cap Halo will NEVER be upset from the top).

2. Change it to the 10 point scale. It's more accurate, hardly anyone else uses the 5.0 scale, and (except in very rare cases) you can't possible rate a mainstream game 1 in every category...but I don't know, there WAS a game entitled Kabuki Warriors...

3. Elect a mod to scan the reviews and delete the ones that don't give adequate warrents to their claims.

4. Throw out highs and lows. This solves problems in two ways:
a. First, you can automatically throw out low scores even if they give reasonable good warrents.
b. Secondly, you can throw out the reviews by fanboys and promoters that would be biased in a high rating way.
The good thing about throwing out highs/lows is that you'll still get good results. If a game is really good (or on the same token) really crappy, there will still be a lot of reviews that say exactly that. Thus, even if some of the 5.0s are not counted, at the same time 1.0s won't be either. Therefore, it is equally in a reviewer's interest to rate it high or low (and therteby canceling out the oppisite) or just rate it in the middle. But if a game is really good there will be many more people that will be voting on the pro side. Since this is the case, the throwing out of highs and lows minimizes the skew that results from some moron rating a game bad to meet a personal agenda. Doing this is desierable becasue, let's face it, a lot more people rate honestly than don't.

P-Rock
12-18-2002, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by preetz16
Do this:

1. Anything with less than 30 reviews--let the number of reviews weigh in the ranking. After 30 reviews the ranking average should be accurate enough (plus if you weigh all the reviews w/ no cap Halo will NEVER be upset from the top).

2. Change it to the 10 point scale. It's more accurate, hardly anyone else uses the 5.0 scale, and (except in very rare cases) you can't possible rate a mainstream game 1 in every category...but I don't know, there WAS a game entitled Kabuki Warriors...

3. Elect a mod to scan the reviews and delete the ones that don't give adequate warrents to their claims.

4. Throw out highs and lows. This solves problems in two ways:
a. First, you can automatically throw out low scores even if they give reasonable good warrents.
b. Secondly, you can throw out the reviews by fanboys and promoters that would be biased in a high rating way.
The good thing about throwing out highs/lows is that you'll still get good results. If a game is really good (or on the same token) really crappy, there will still be a lot of reviews that say exactly that. Thus, even if some of the 5.0s are not counted, at the same time 1.0s won't be either. Therefore, it is equally in a reviewer's interest to rate it high or low (and therteby canceling out the oppisite) or just rate it in the middle. But if a game is really good there will be many more people that will be voting on the pro side. Since this is the case, the throwing out of highs and lows minimizes the skew that results from some moron rating a game bad to meet a personal agenda. Doing this is desierable becasue, let's face it, a lot more people rate honestly than don't.

Peetz, nice f*cking sig. You know how to support.

wweomaniac
12-22-2002, 08:46 PM
I still think it should the scores should be reduced down to 2 decimal places. anyone agree?

Fred Gasman
12-29-2002, 01:05 AM
whateverhttp://www.xboxaddict.com/forums/images/icons/sleeping.gif

ShannonX
12-29-2002, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by preetz16
Do this:

1. Anything with less than 30 reviews--let the number of reviews weigh in the ranking. After 30 reviews the ranking average should be accurate enough (plus if you weigh all the reviews w/ no cap Halo will NEVER be upset from the top).



i like that one. Once the game has established itself, and its obviously not a fluke, the games could be scored on "actual" review scores.

Something liek this. Start at 70% and every additional review, the % increases. If i have 2 reviews, take 72% of the average score as the weighted score. And by the time you hit 30 reviews, your taking 100% of the average score... Something like that.

EHWfedPres
12-29-2002, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by wweomaniac
I still think it should the scores should be reduced down to 2 decimal places. anyone agree?

I think that the xbl bar in your sig needs to be cut down, nobody wants to scroll over to read your posts...

TheCovenant
12-30-2002, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by EHWfedPres


I think that the xbl bar in your sig needs to be cut down, nobody wants to scroll over to read your posts...

i hate scrolling past that "SLAYER" sig.

Xbox Owner
12-30-2002, 12:12 PM
I think it's pretty correct.:)

wweomaniac
12-30-2002, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by EHWfedPres


I think that the xbl bar in your sig needs to be cut down, nobody wants to scroll over to read your posts... Why would you have to scroll across if its 650? What kind of computer are you running? A 486?

Most people have screen sizes of 1024x768 and up. And I'm up.

TheCovenant
12-30-2002, 08:21 PM
does anyone notice that all the sigs are gone? all i see is the url codes.

EHWfedPres
01-03-2003, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by TheCovenant


i hate scrolling past that "SLAYER" sig.

Oh, well thats too bad...

actually, its not, i changed my sig for now...so lets all go listen to Angel of Death together and everything will be fine. :cool:

EHWfedPres
01-03-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by wweomaniac
Most people have screen sizes of 1024x768 and up. And I'm up.


Yeah, well im not most people, im me, and I run 800x600, which I was running all my life, and I like it.

OuFtb
01-04-2003, 06:45 PM
This is just somthing I seen and thought it was a little stupid, I went to the reviews of Nightfire, which is a great game, and looked at the first one, at top he said the game was excellent but he did not like it because it was James Bond so he gave it a 2, then gameplay he was fair gave it 5, I don't remiber the other scores, but he went on and poorly reviewed giving low scores because its James Bond, He did not like it cause of James Bond. I think people like this should not be able review games, it is his opion but if he didn't like James Bond why did he play it. I also think the scoring of the games is alittle bad I like 1-10 better than 1-5, you can give it a better review with 1-10.

The Art Of Dyin
01-05-2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by SaintHax
The ratings seem close, but people don't rate the games fairly. As some one else pointed out, FanBoys will rate a game a 1 (e.g. Soul Caliber's excitement ratings) b/c they like another game better and want to see "their game" win. Also, people are stupid: one guy rated Halo the default 2.5 for everything, but all he had to say was "Buy it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-- that sounds like a game he'd want to rate 4+ to me. Then you have the 20+ ratings versus the amped 6+ hour ratings.

Splinter Cell has so many annoyances it's not funny-- it's still a fun game, but hardly worth a 5 (it's a 4 in my book); however, it's loaded w/ fluff so people will initially rate it higher until they realize that Sam is a wuss who can only grapple from behind and can't shoot for crap. Plus other BS that causes me to reload more than should be needed.

Just because you suck at the game doesnt eman its a bad title go play your gamecube

Young_Fledgling
01-25-2003, 07:48 PM
ok i have not read previous posts because i am lazy

WHAT I THINK .... is that the top 100 is a great idea

but we definitely need to make it out of 10 or even 100.....

because out of 5 is just not very accurate.

SiGuy
01-27-2003, 02:55 PM
you're never gonna be able to tell how accurate this is because it's all based on opinions

Young_Fledgling
02-05-2003, 10:54 PM
i know it is opinion based..... but out of 5 is just not a wide enough range..... LIKE......

4.45 looks good eh???? OUT OF 5??!?!

but that is really only like 88 out of 100..... that just seems not as good for some reason......


I DUNNO IT JUST GIVES MORE RANGE WHEN OUT OF 100..... actually see more then .1 of a difference between games.