classic reviews

LinksOcarina said:
What about restricting it to only a handful of people who have

A) actually played the systems before.

B) write decent reviews.
That's pretty unreasonable. For one, like mC pointed out, how do you determine whether or not they've actually played the system before. Secondly, isn't the whole point of user reviews to allow all of the users to voice their opinions on games? Seems unfair to only allow certain users to review games. And finally, how would we even deem reviews to be decent or good?
 
I guess the first one is kind of silly, you can't determine it.

For example, I played only three games on atari before, I don't know how other games are on the system.

As for the second, if they don't write a small wall of text, or constant "this game sux or roxxors" or whatever, then I consider it a good review.

They don't have to be masterpieces obviously, they just need to be readable.
 
Heck, just hook up the thing to a Word processor and have it check for grammar and spelling mistakes. More than 10% mistakes and you're out. :p
 
This shouldn't be this complicated.

Duke claims there's some sort of user-controlled-quality-regulation system in the works. My guess, it'll be a rating system that drops low rated crap out of sight and keeps higher rated stuff relevant, possibly with some sort of abuse reporting functions as well. That's just speculation, though!

Back to the point. Reviews are restricted to things that GR has added to their database for one reason or another, so this shouldn't be any different. The only change necessary is the addition of a section for "DLC," or "retro-rereleases," or something cooler I haven't even thought of yet. That would keep the reviews applicable to currently available products on currently viable consoles (Wii Virtual Console, PSN, XBLA).

Doesn't that sound lovely?
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
16,731
Messages
270,928
Members
97,760
Latest member
flintinsects
Top