Ratings - A Little Idea
                          by James Judge

Yes folks, I have had an idea! Only a small one, but one that has
been working away in the back of my mind for a few issues now.

Some reviewers for SynTax include a rating system, nothing wrong
with that I hear you cry, well there isn't when you just look at
them and pay no attention to them at all.

I don't mean any offence to the people who do include ratings at
the end of their reviews but to the majority of the readers they
will not be all that helpful. All the readers can't know each
other and so they don't know their preferences, likes and
dislikes, what turns them on, what turns them off and what just
makes their skin crawl. Their ratings are something personal -
something that they feel is appropriate for that time of day and
could depend on a number of things that could have clouded that
decision.

Luckily I happen to know two or three people who include the
ratings in their reviews and so I know their preferences and
whether they tend to be influenced by one thing more than
another. Some people are not so (un)lucky, so they just have to
either second guess the reviewers by the ratings or just ignore
them.

True, getting an idea or not of whether the reviewer likes a game
usually entails reading through the review, but if that is a
great big multi-multi-multi-screen one that takes a good few
minutes to digest and may lack a definitive round-up at the end,
the reader may not want to plough through all of the words at
that particular moment - far easier to just skim to the bottom and
see that Aliens From Qwerty receive a 3/10 - not something to
invest in.

Now, how to alleviate this problem. I've been working on this for
a while now and I reckon that I've come up with something that
will please everyone - something that will complement the current
ratings, give the reader a more definitive idea of just what 3/10
is and if current reviewers want to add it to their reviews all
the better - it won't take up much space and the editor (who?)
won't have to worry about missing out the vital article on the
Jaguar news to include it.

What I propose is an all-encompassing SynTax rating that is on
either a scale of 1-10 or as a percentage form. Personally I'd
prefer a 1-10 system as I find it a little stupid thinking
whether the latest rubbish game deserves a 1% or 2% - it's rubbish
and 1% won't make any difference.

'Ah, but the reviewers already include an 'overall' mark at the
end of their points', cries a drivelling maniac who, upon closer
inspection, appears to be called BMK (pronounced "Bum-uk") and is
giving me a smarmy 'heh-heh, I've got you there, mate' look.

Well, again, they are just a personal view. What I put forward to
you, the readers of SynTax (and if the Editor (who? (sorry, done
that once too often)) is reading this, her), is a set of
guide-lines that give definitive view as to what the marks mean
and then the reviewer looks at these guide-lines, decides which
bracket their game should fit in and then, at the end of the
review/their personal ratings, put a "SynTax Score".

This will still allow the reviewers to give their own personal
ratings but it will also give the reader something which to refer
to which they know EXACTLY what it means.

Not only does it give the reviewer the ability to still include
his or her own ratings above this score, the versatility of this
thing (I say in my best patronising American car salesman voice)
allows the reviewer to convert it into a % score or, if so the
desire hits them, forget about it entirely! Now, that is what I
call versatile and with the stereo and sun-roof it is a snip at
just under œ30,000. And this is a brand new thing on the market,
folks, get your hands on it while it is still red hot and
throbbing, get it before some other sneaky person sneaks off with
it and puts it in a rival magazine, get it and use it to your
heart content. Only one previous owner - a vicar, had a very good
criminal record, his driving was a bit naff though (always the
wall's fault, though), and you can still get a mile a gallon out
of it. Yes, a bargain it isn't, but as you are the gullible
punter you'll definitely buy it.

Er, is that what you call rambling, or is that jaunting across the
countryside 'with a knapsack on my back, tra la la la laaaa!'.

Now, following are the guide-lines that I propose. If Sue (hahaha!
I bet you thought I'd do the 'who?' joke then. I've progressed.
What?) wants to add anything to it she can and if you out there
feels as if the guide-lines are sloppy or unfair - write in and
make a suggestion as to the way that it can be changed.

The proposed SYNTAX SCORES (SS for short) are as follows:-

0 - There shouldn't be many games that get this. This score shows
that in the first location the game was fatally bugged or it
crashed on loading. Then the disk split when you were trying to
remove it from the drive and your warranty on the computer was a
day out of date and so had to spend out on a brand new system.

1 - Dreadful. Something that you couldn't play due to a plethora
(been a while since I used that word) of bugs that led to the game
crashing or you not being able to complete it. The stuff that you
did see was terrible lacking in playtesting, originality and
anything a game needs to succeed. If the disk doesn't get eaten
by the drive it soon finds its way to the formatter's office.

2 - Yeuch. Still bug ridden but completable but who would want to?
œ2.50 is a vast over pricing (and yes, I'm talking of commercial
stuff here as well). It shows nothing innovative and is sheer
hell to play. The graphics are reminiscent of a screen of text,
the sound sounds like an electronic sizzle all the time, the
animation is a two frame affair (and that's in the opening
sequence) and the gameplay has taken a holiday to Pluto. The drive
won't eat the disk due to respect for the floppy, but the
formatter is still looking for new recruits.

3 - Something that is very, very poor. Playable but still bugged.
The gameplay may be lurking through the enshroudment of a poor
engine or implementation. There is something seriously wrong with
this game, but has at least one saving grace - whether it be a
good intro or good response times. The formatter has had its
fill with 1&2 scorers and the drive is no longer interested, but
the box with 'games to laugh pitifully at' is beckoning.

4 - Getting somewhere. If there had been more attention to
playtesting or programming the game may actually be average for
that particular genre. Is lacking in more than one department and
offers nothing new but still worth looking at it, just so you can
say 'seen it, played it, bought the T-Shirt and used the loo
roll'. The ominous box ('games to laugh at') is still beckoning,
but the game did come in a nice box - maybe you could display it
decoratively. Or maybe you could find a fool foolish enough to
buy it from you at a very large price (let's just hope they don't
read your review!).

5 - Average and nothing else. It's one of those games that will be
enjoyable to the hard-core players of the genre but to other
people it may just be a complete bore. There is nothing
disastrously wrong with it, but it offers nothing new to the
gaming world and it wouldn't have mattered if it wasn't released
at all. So methinks to chuck to the back of the disk box.

6 - Good gameplay but poor implementation or vice versa. Lacking
in a couple of things but still enjoyable for the odd hour or two.
If you happen to be rolling in it and are a fan of the genre
you'll definitely enjoy the game but it may not offer a huge
challenge or give as much enjoyment as other, better examples.
Something that will be stuck in the middle of the disk box/the box
collects only a little dust.

7 - A good game that most people will find enjoyable. The idea is
good, the gameplay is there and it lasted for a while. Something
that the genre will be proud of and even new players won't be
dissuaded by the game. It may only have one thing wrong with it -
poor graphics or an average control system - but it is definitely
worth a look. The box is big and colourful, the game is good and
so it resides quite near the computer. It has the privilege to
sneer at everyone beneath it in the SS system.

8 - Something to recommend to your friends. The game is good, the
graphics are top notch and you can find very little to reprimand
the game with. An improvement on all of the other games in its
class, but not 100% original. A game that builds something on it
forefathers and puts something positive into the gaming world. A
hefty pat on the back for the designers and the box is put
tantalising close to the computer to remind you that you haven't
got off level four and you've still got to complete the Unx
prophecy.

9 - Wow! Yes, yes, yes. More, more, more. I wanna see that intro
again. Think I'll replay that terribly hard level again just so I
can get the thrill of playing the game again. Wow, listen to that
sound. Oh HELP someone, what do you do with the funnily shaped
piece of rubber in the shower room? Now, what was Sue's number
again? These are all comments that should have been exclaimed at
least once while playing this God of a game. It has the utmost
privilege to dump its FATs all across the shiny exterior of games
below it and it has the ability to wipe any disk that dares to
challenge its superiority and fail! A game that you can find only
one or two 'if only's with (but there are always the follow ups)
and something that has you 'phoning into work saying that you have
come down with a chronic case of Lemmingitus, you mean flu. Great,
super, smashing.

10 - This mark will never be used until we can sit back, stop
producing games and say 'yes, this IS perfection'. There has
never (and will never) be a game that will truly deserve the
10/10 status, but I suppose we could make room for games that are
a completely original idea that would otherwise be a 9/10 (ie
Dungeon Master (how I hate to admit it), Elite, Lemmings, Space
Invaders). These games should have a public holiday assigned to
them.

11 - This is reserved for me and other AFIO members!

Hopefully you should find some use out of these guide-lines. Only
use them if you want to and if you don't, well, that's life I
suppose. Remember, though, that you can use them for all types of
games, not just multi-million pound productions. And also
remember that if there is a brilliant game that has maybe one or
two bugs that are rare or a couple of spelling mistakes don't
demote them straight to the 6 group. Take Obscure Naturalist. A
couple of slight spelling mistakes have been brought to my
attention, but I'd still rate this a near 9/10 game.

Happy rating everyone!

@~I also think it's worth taking the age of a game into account,
@~and its price.  These can affect your scoring and could be
@~pointed out ...  Sue







                              - o -