• Topic Closed
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Site Suggestions
  3. Revamp the user-reported game lengths system

User Info: The_Mighty_KELP

The_Mighty_KELP
2 months ago#1
Each game on this website has a "User Ratings" section. This section is divided into five categories: Ownership status, Rating, Difficulty, Length (of time spent with the game), and Completion status. These categories are tracked across users and averaged; when you click on the big "Games" button at the top of the site, it takes you to the GameFAQs Game Database, which has drop-down menus where you can change words in a sentence to find out information taken from these averages. I.E., "The Easiest 360 Action Games" will show which games users have given a low Difficulty rating to.

All this is well and good, and four out of the five categories are well-implemented. But the Length (of time spent with the game) category needs to be improved. Currently, the maximum amount of time you can say you spent with a game is "More than 80 hours." For most older, single-player games, this may be a very generous upper limit. But there are more and more multiplayer-only, living world, open-world, MMO, etc. games that one can spend thousands or tens of thousands of hours on. Case in point - the top 480 titles in the game database are tied for an average of 80+ hours. This is not helpful information.

Not only that, but the Length (of time spent with the game) could just as easily be inferred as "Length (of time it took to beat the game from start to finish once, and don't include the amount of time you took in your second or third playthrough)." Did Skyrim take you 300 hours to play one character and complete every available quest in the game, or is that the total amount of time you've spent playing it? These distinctions are important! If a game only takes 8 hours to beat, but you've spent 80 hours playing it, that means it's worth playing 10 times, right? I'd like to know that kind of thing.

So here is my suggestion:
  1. Split the Length category into two subsections: Completion time, and total time. These categories could be open to interpretation; maybe the former is the amount of time it took you to get a single character to max level in an MMO, or maybe it's the amount of time it took you to get every achievement in a single-player game. Maybe the former is just the time it took to beat the main questline of a game, and the latter includes all the time you spent completing sidequests. But by having the two separate sections, one would be able to compare them
  2. Do away with the time buttons entirely. Allow a user to manually input a number into both of the new subsections.
Additionally, maybe an option should be added to allow for the filtering out of extreme outlier scores - if a single player has played a game for 10,000 hours, but the 9 other people who have ever played it only took 1, that would obviously skew the average.
Link to the Actual GameFAQs Poll of the Day Board: https://tinyurl.com/actualpoll
Discuss the poll of the day! Topicality is enforced.

User Info: -hotdogturtle--

-hotdogturtle--
2 months ago#2
I remember several years ago, when this feature was first added, I sent a feedback ticket suggesting a similar thing about open ended games and how "time to beat" was a misleading metric. He said something to the effect of "we're only trying to gauge how long it takes to beat from beginning to end".

And of course that's entirely useless because most of the video games that I play don't have an "end" at all and can't be "beaten". So as a result I very rarely use this GameFAQs time rating feature because it does not apply me.

*sign* to fix this.
Hey man, LlamaGuy did encrypt the passwords.
With what? ROT-13? -CJayC

User Info: Eevee-Trainer

Eevee-Trainer
2 months ago#3
*sign*
My Social Server, Eevee's Mystery Dungeon: https://discord.gg/emd
My PMD Rescue Server: https://discord.gg/E57gMQq

User Info: Xeowulf

Xeowulf
1 month ago#4
*sign*
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." - Obi-Wan about the GameFAQs boards

User Info: Lightwarrior11

Lightwarrior11
3 weeks ago#5
*anti-sign*

Rating, Difficulty, Length, and Completion status are all fuzzy metrics.

How do you rate a game that was good for its time but aged poorly?
How difficult is a game w/ an overly-easy intro and an impossible end boss?
How long does it take to finish a game with optional sub-modules or with over half the content accessible only after seeing the end credits?
What's the difference between Beating a game and Conquering it?

I think an official guide to interpreting these metrics (maybe w/ pointers provided on a genre-to-genre basis) would be a lot more helpful than changing the system now and "breaking" all the accumulated data currently on the site...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd0T6SjHejw

User Info: The_Mighty_KELP

The_Mighty_KELP
3 weeks ago#6
Lightwarrior11 posted...
A bunch of stuff that doesn't relate to the suggestion
None of this has anything to do with this topic. Did you even read the first post? The only thing I wanted changing was the LENGTH category, to allow for people to be more specific in how long it took them to beat the game. This wouldn't break any accumulated data; people's currently-entered times would still be recorded. If 100 people said it take them 80 hours or longer to beat a game, then under the new system, it would default to just 80 hours. And people could come back to their time and input how long it actually took them.

I think an official guide to interpreting these metrics (maybe w/ pointers provided on a genre-to-genre basis) would be a lot more helpful
Buddy, you're making this way more complex than it needs to be. All this info is user-reported, so it should be taken with a spoonful of salt in the first place:
How do you rate a game that was good for its time but aged poorly?
You rate it however you want to rate it. Some people will have rated it 10 years ago, loved it, and never updated their ratings; some people will have played it for the first time yesterday and hated it. You can't instruct people on how to interpret those ratings, people have to come to their own conclusions.
How difficult is a game w/ an overly-easy intro and an impossible end boss?
You say it's as difficult as you want to say it is. People have different skill levels. What matters is the average.
What's the difference between Beating a game and Conquering it?
Whatever you want the difference to be. Some people think conquering a game is beating it and achieving 100% completion, some people think that that's just beating it and to really conquer it you have to also top the multiplayer leaderboards. The point is, it's subjective. And of all the metrics, this one means the least; I think it was just put in for users to keep track of their own collection.

Not that it's going to make any difference in the long run, since I doubt this will ever be implemented, but could you at least remove your anti-sign, since it was clearly based on your misunderstanding of the suggestion in the first place?
Link to the Actual GameFAQs Poll of the Day Board: https://tinyurl.com/actualpoll
Discuss the poll of the day! Topicality is enforced.

User Info: MorbidEngel

MorbidEngel
3 weeks ago#7
*sign*
I am a super sandwich!
http://www.last.fm/user/ToxicOrochi

User Info: Lightwarrior11

Lightwarrior11
3 weeks ago#8
The_Mighty_KELP posted...
Not that it's going to make any difference in the long run, since I doubt this will ever be implemented, but could you at least remove your anti-sign, since it was clearly based on your misunderstanding of the suggestion in the first place?

I didn't misunderstand anything. All 4 of the subjective measurements currently tracked on this site offer the same level of subjective granularity. 475 games showing 80+ hrs of gameplay out of a database with 48758 games* is very meaningful measurement. It means that less than 1% of all commercially-published games in history offer more than 80 hours of content, which means they are either so epic in scope that the main story mode takes that long to beat, or they are so elaborate & freeform in structure that the average player finds more than 80 hours worth of compelling fun within them. I don't need to know anything more than that, and if I did, I would just go to https://howlongtobeat.com/ , which has a complete system already in place for tracking that information.

*SOURCE: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/games/rankings?platform=0&genre=0&list_type=time&min_votes=2&view_type=0&dlc=0&rate_count=&page=9

The_Mighty_KELP posted...
This wouldn't break any accumulated data

Both of your numbered suggestions in the opening post break the current data. #1 changes the logic by which users evaluate what length to input, creating a logical disconnect between old data and new data. #2 outright removes the fuzzy logic that currently guides user input, and replaces it w/ a system that would accept junk data (e.g., trolls who claim something like Cory in the House took them 1000 hours to beat, which is exactly what would happen).

For the above reasons, I honestly think the current system is better than anything you suggested.

*ANTI-SIGN*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd0T6SjHejw
#9
(message deleted)

User Info: stahlbaum

stahlbaum
2 weeks ago#10
The_Mighty_KELP posted...
Great, so you're not one of the people that this would benefit. Next time you make a suggestion that won't benefit me, I'll be sure to come and complain.

People do not need to justify their anti signs, nor do they deserve to be antagonized because of it. You chose to reply to them after all.

From the sticky:

Users generally respond in three ways:

-Signing the petition - just like it sounds, these users agree with your suggestion and wish to add their name in support
-Anti-signing the petition - these users disagree with the idea, and are encouraged (but not required) to explain the reason(s) for their disagreement
-Conditionally signing the petition - these users like the idea in theory, but have suggestions of their own to improve upon it and would like to see them implemented if the petition were to pass

All of these opinions should be considered while gauging the general interest in your idea, as all are equally valid. Vehemently arguing against anyone who disagrees with your suggestion and discarding their opinion is a quick way to have your petition closed and removed from further consideration.
  1. Boards
  2. Site Suggestions
  3. Revamp the user-reported game lengths system
  • Topic Closed