Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
8:38 pm
Site Contributor
Site Contributor
August 24, 2012
Offline
It’s hard to believe that come this fall, I will have been writing reviews for SNES Hub for three years. Wow! It’s certainly been a fun ride.
During that time I’ve learned a lot about deciphering what it takes for a SNES game to be considered quality. I still have a lot to learn (exciting!), but I’ve come a long way.
As I turn back the clock, some of my original review ratings seem inflated. Here are some prime examples of games that really ought to have a star knocked off them from my original rating.
NFL Quarterback Club: (from 4 to 3 stars)
Capcom MVP Football: (from 4 to 3 stars)
Tecmo Super Bowl: (from 5 to 4 stars)
NCAA Basketball Review: (from 4 to 3 stars)
Could we, or should we, consider re-rating a game we reviewed? Although original opinions of a game are valid, there is such a thing as a writer changing his/her mind.
9:05 pm
Administrator
February 11, 2012
Offline
I think to keep the integrity of the reviews, the ratings should not be changed. Sure, as time passes we grow. Our writing becomes better, objectivity becomes more fine-tuned, our outlook on what makes a quality game can differ from what it used to be.
But if we change the ratings when we felt like it, I think it would diminish the quality of the reviews. I also feel the rating rubric that is on the submissions page is straightforward enough that over-scoring or under-scoring should rarely happen.
Instead, if you want, we can add a ‘in retrospect’ addendum to reviews you feel the rating is inflated. These would go at the bottom of the review where you briefly explain why the game in question should have its score lowered or risen.
What do you think?
10:05 pm
Site Contributor
July 21, 2013
Offline
I believe editing ratings over time might in fact increase a review’s quality, not diminish it. As time passes we play more and more different games so we can compare a game that had been reviewed with a larger pool of similar games, hence giving it a more accurate rating.
5:54 am
Administrator
February 11, 2012
Offline
The ratings wouldn’t be worth much if we could change them anytime we wanted was my point. At the time of the review, the writer felt a certain way about the game and scored it accordingly.
That’s why I suggested a ‘in retrospect’ addendum if impressions have changed over time.
On the other hand, if an author is willing to edit his review to reflect a different rating, then I’m ok with that.
10:28 am
Site Contributor
July 21, 2013
Offline
Your point does make sense!
10:11 pm
Site Contributor
Site Contributor
August 24, 2012
Offline
I think both of Masa’s suggestions make sense, although I’m not sure which one would be better for the site: 1) rewriting a review with edits which make an argument for a different rating, 2) adding an ‘in retrospect’ addendum to reviews in which our opinion of the game have changed drastically.
There is one benefit that would be lost from altering the rating of a game that appears to be over- or under-scored. It potentially smothers the interest of another reviewer whose opinions differed enough that they wanted to write a 2nd opinion.
So I guess, in the end, it makes the most sense to me for additional or differing opinions of a review to come from another reviewer altogether.
1 Guest(s)
