It's been going on for years. Remember those shill Influencers who said Stormsunder was better than Wild Assent? Just as WA ended and the Stormsunder campaign started. Even though the first act was only finished a few weeks ago. Yeah, I remember. I remember very well.
First of all, the BGG forums are a cesspool. Second, there are so many things that people look to when they want to buy/try a new game that just looking at a rating is preposterous. I always check playthroughs from youtubers that I agree with in general, read rules, etc and sometimes I sell the game after a few disappointing plays. So, I have absolutely no sympathy for people who just look at some ratings and dive in.
As a tiny publisher, this general opinion of some people really hurts a lot: If a co-writer or playtester rates the game, other people step in and say "this is fake". Sometimes they counter it with a 1 rating. Not a problem for games like Cyberpunk with thousands of ratings, but a real problem if you only have 20, 50 or 100 ratings. Where is the line for a rating to be ok? Friends? Family? People who played the game on a convention? All people with a BGG account that played a game should be able to rate it - and that includes the designer or publisher themselves. In the end, these are just a few more ratings by maybe 20 people on top. This should not be a problem for a rating system. But when I see comments associated to a 1 like "Designer rated the game themselves" or "works with the designer and rates the game, avoid!" I really question what people creating these ratings think they will achieve. A rating should always be about the game, never about anything around that. And if a game designer plays their own game, why should they not rate it? I created many games, some I don't like as much as others. Even Designers and Publishers have favorites! ;)
A designer should not rate their own game because they will never be objective, so their opinion is not useful. Why would you submit a rating knowing is not fair? Only one reason, to manipulate positively the rating of the game. If you think that's legit, anyone rating the game 1 because of that should be legit too. To me, as an independent party who wants to know the real quality of the game, the designer rating and the hater one are equally useless and missleading.
@@tarao666yeah I would def. question or “take less seriously” a review made by the game creator . I mean how can the general public not expect some type of bias if the bloody board game creator is the one doing the review . That being said for me the reviews that are 1 or 10 with no comments are useless. The ratings that leave comments , detailed comments are the ones that I find more valuable.
@@tiredguy2753 While I mostly agree with that and always try to read or watch full detailed reviews (can't count the amount of times a negative review convinced me to buy a game and the other way around), and watch some playthroughts before buying a game, there's no denying that a game's BGG score influences the decision too. Luckily BGG has already a mechanism to dilute those extreme scorings but it's not perfect.
@@tiredguy2753 Yes, definitely understand that, and I also do not rate my own game. But especially for friends or family of the designer, it really is hard to "pursue" ratings. And I think it also should not be - as these are also people playing the game.
I don’t think you should be able to rate a game until it’s released. It seems like all the emotional ratings come before the game is even released, then it dies down when the game is actually released.
Not surprised at all. Video game companies have been doing this for years, and I don't see why board game companies wouldn't do it too. I think more need to move towards the Steam rating system, either thumbs up or thumbs down, and also show both historical results and current results, as things can change over time.
I am of the mind that BGG ratings are worthless and often manipulated by children. I have played enough games at this point to have a pretty good idea if I like a game or not. Meaningless measures like the BGG hotness or ratings are just something I don't care about.
Ratings of 1 and ratings of 10 are both as bad. They are not truly representing the product. It's just the person can't control their feelings and thus give an extreme rating which ends with a biased review.
Even without scam reviews there are so many reviews posted by people after just a play or two. Would be surprised if many people actually pay attention to the actual scores games have there.
I think this is a great point. I feel there a a vocal minority that actually puts some value in a BGG rating, but most people just play what they like or think they will like. For me, I couldn’t care less what a game’s rating is. I watch playthrough videos if I can, or maybe a preview video and if it looks interesting to me and my tastes, then I will buy/play it. Board games are no different than any other type of medium or entertainment and is extremely subjective. Just because someone doesn’t like a certain type of food doesn’t mean I will feel the same way. Or if people say a movie is bad, doesn’t mean I won’t like it, and 99.9% of the time I find value in the movie even if it wasn’t “the greatest movie ever made”. Why? Because it’s a movie I value it for what it is, not what I think it should be. Same for board games. Now that is not to say people who do value BGG ratings are wrong. If those ratings help them, then great. But don’t think that everyone who plays board games relies on the reviews of people they dont know. But this is just my two cents.
Liked the video thanks for the hard work, definitely BGG rating system needs improvement and they can work on the scaling system. What is a bit concerning is as consumers ratings should be a guide at best bur in reality is a suggestion. It bogles my mind how board gamers especially due to the increased price of experiencing recent board games that can cost well past 500 USD are permitting a number at a open website to decide on their "investment". If the game is not for you "feeling angry" that it rates high it does not mean that will suddenly make you love the game or make you feel better about owning an experience you will not like. In the end ratings are not objective and biases will affect them every time so hopefully consumers become responsible for their actions and only invest in those products that they want to experience and not those that "sell you due to hotness"
"Quantity has a Quality of its own" Are BGG ratings an important factor driving board games purchases, yes. Do a handful of publisher-associated raters significantly influence a BGG rating that is popular enough to meet its funding goals, no. Is there a significant problem with raters at large giving poorly grounded ratings meant to drive purchasing behaviors of crowdfunding games, probably so. I have seen designers give their own games a 10 rating, but be open about it, saying something to the effect, "I love this game, but I am the designer ;)", and I assume they are being honest. If it were discovered that hundreds of fake reviews were purchased from internet content manufacturers in Southeast Asia, I would consider this a significant issue. The sheer volume of intentionally biased reviews would differ greatly from a few self-interested ones, as it would substantially impact the BoardGameGeek (BGG) rating. I believe that unreleased games should not have an averaged BGG rating. Instead, users should be able to provide ratings in a comment format, but the averaged ratings should only be accepted after the game's official release. This approach would help eliminate a significant number of potentially illegitimate ratings from the outset, although the rating system would still have its flaws.
Finally someone talking about this hideous page managed by corrupted moderators. Got the first strike when dealing with a random multi account guy who was trash talking about Awaken Realms just because. Communicated with proofs about this guy using multiple accounts to give bad reviews about AR and they just said that it didn't seem to be the same guy. Then I had my account removed for no reason. Unfortunately, the site is so famous and serves as a database for board games. But reviews and forums are extremely toxic.
They are the definition of the danger of monopolies. More a business than an enthusiast site now and the mods are totalitarian cowards who silence debate to ensure their political ideology is both interjected into games and alone is heard. "Octavian" is one of the more infamous one. They have the notoriety with providing files that have content for boardgames and their infamous ratings. It gets worse.
I was a yearly supporter of the page for more than 5 years, but once they started banning users based on their opinions, I quit. It's a pity, it was a good website.
@@tarao666 Agreed and regrettably they are not the only ones. The recent controversy over the blasphemous Christian trappings-based post apocalyptic miniatures game on KS "Trench Crusade" is another example of mods that seek to impose an ideology of some kind. The devs used a far "liberal" group "28Mag" they have as friends (and at least one is a dev) to manage a joint official discord server then began banning anyone who had "bad vibes," possible Roman Catholics, asked questions regarding the setting and other cultures, asked for transparency as to why individuals were banned, or did not want current real world politics inserted into the universe. They tried to ban/Doxx harass posters on X if they could ID them. The usual character assassination tactic of calling others "fascists" (oh the irony,) puerile "chuds" insult has some connection to the other controversy regarding Warhammer 40 and Games Workshop behavior towards its customers when they gas lighted them. When there was an outcry the devs sided with 28Mag without even investigating. They realized the potential future damage and the server was closed. There are a few YT videos that chronicle the matter with screenshots and one has an interview with one of the devs yet he is being disingenuous as to the events and their role. From what I have heard there is a new official server without 28Mag, however it is not necessarily an improvement as to new mods / terms. At present it is likely to break the 40M level though not that many are supporting in comparison while the use of STLs, US shipping, no KS exclusives is a definite advantage. The devs have effectively cleaned up the matter from further public knowledge. What that means for the future as to their server and the game is unknown with some players speaking of un official servers and going miniature agnostic. I had considered examining it further at the outset, yet when all this was exposed I lost any interest to proceed further.
I agree with most if not all you said... And there were a few people that seemed to have a crusade against Go On Board during the campaign, spreading misleading (sometimes false) claims, which was very annoying. Everyone has the right to suggest chances on the game, but keep pushing the same suggestions, to the point that they just become complaints over and over again, then is not ok, just don't back it. And I feel (can't prove) that this thread was created on that sentiment, that the game wasn't exactly how they wanted, their suggestions where not accepted, then they started "firing" against the company/campaign anyway they could. Too much fuss for almost nothing, other than having at some points a good discussion about BGG ratings.
This is a great topic! Personally, I don't really consider BGG ratings or reviews as much as watching a solid playthrough of a game. That's when I know a game is truly for me before I make my purchase. That way, it's between me and the game, and not someone else validating or trying to convince me that the game fits my playstyle. And yes, the internet is all fire and brimstone - this is common. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Great video sir with a very measured take on the situation. I personally loved the Witcher old world game by go on board but have not really looked into their other titles. As you stated people who know how bgg ratings work know they are not a great way to know if a game is good or not
I never fully rely on rating. Imho the key to reviews is to find reviewers that have a similar taste than you. Doesnt matter if movies, games etc. I played a lot of games which hadnt the best rating on BGG and had a total blast, while other praised titles just weren't for me. Also its not just the manipulation, its also people who dont know how ratings work. Like rating games before they have even played them. Or simply because they dislike the developer. Or even more stupid reasons.
Polish people remember about punishing people because of diffrent view than comunism authority (many people died because of diffrent view), so probably because of silencing/ banning by BGG, Polish people vote 1.
You know, because steam verifies at least who has the game. BGG has no means to manage that because there is no single platform for buying board games and never will be. I would not go for a 'critic' review either bc those tend to be extra biased or paid for.
I think it's okay for friends and family to post game reviews to support a project. The real issue would be mass fake ratings by shady marketing companies like you see in many other industries. Ultimately, it is up to BGG to police this issue. A few inflated reviews isn't a big deal and does almost nothing to change the needle for the final rating.
Being involved in the development of a product or the even just the company, doing a review and not disclaiming that might not be deceit, but certainly is very bad practice and might very well look deceitful to onlookers. Even if I work at a restaurant and I think the food is amazing and someone asks for a good place to eat, I'd recommend that restaurant but qualify my recommendation with my strong bias. The poster might have jumped the gun a bit, but this situation happening still is mostly on GOB imo, they should've thought about something like this. They are a major player of the industry now, not amateurs, and very well should manage public relations.
Not really surprised this happens in this space. Reviews are opinions about how the thing you review feels to you. there is definitely going to be bias in a review, even when you want to be objective about it. that bias is more noticeable with the shortest reviews than one that are longer which discuss many aspects of the review. If you're giving the game a 9 or 10 our of 10, you should be going into detail about what you liked about the game. if your review is just 'oh I really liked gameplay' you're aren't really giving a good review and I would question this review being helpful or true. what else about the game did you like? Same thing on the flipside with 1 or 2 out of 10. What did you dislike or hate about the game? I don't think many people actually read review and see if they are meaningful. they just look at the scores and decide from there.
Nothing good is on BGG anymore anyway except for the files...which users create and upload that the site gatekeeps. The mods need to go tech free if they can't be tyrants.
off topic A pug? i know its some money, but if u can get him the surgery so he breath normal, i would love that. (a CF ironically could be an idea too)
Thankfully he's actually not too bad. He's a Victorian pug so he stands a bit taller and his nose isn't quite as flattened. I'll have to get him on camera sometime soon! 🙂
Everything like this is open to abuse, and people will abuse this, it undermines the site, I can't take any ratings seriously on any kind of site like this. and to be honest I don't take to much notice of journalists reviews these days either.
BGG's admins are horrendous. Permabanned my account because I did not agreed with someones thoughts. But does not matter, I have other account which I use and they cant track my IP, because it is different than what I had before
Part of the issue with BGG ratings or any other board game ratings for that matter, is that regardless of your opinion, you are kind of incentivize to rate a game as high as possible, so you can resell a copy that you may have. This is especially true for Crowdfunded games. Videogames don't have that problem cause you can't resell your digital copy, so if you don't like it you just say you don't.
a lot of words and I feel a little bit rambling though rationalization, reasoning and relativation... BUT.. I feel you have left out a crucial point which I feel sits a the core of things.... it is deceitful... it is NOT an honest review if it comes out of your own house.. no matter if it can be researched.. this like/dislike systems are for customers/views and not for the producers.... sure they can use it that way.. sure it is futile to try to prevent it.. this does not make it right... at least in my opinion.... does this warrant this uproar? no... I find it more and more amusing how people are surprised that corporations will blow the sweetest sugar up their butts in communications, comment sections, updates. and wooing and cooing them like maniac on aphrodisiacs.. they will do almost anything to sell you what they offer.. and the degree of almost varies... and people seem always to fall out of the pinkest of softest of all heavens when they are faced with the reality that corporations (be it AR, CMON, MG, etc.) care not about them but money... did anyone really believe Leo his "you are in a good place"-BS? i mean, REALLY?
I've had a BGG account since 2006 and I've never used the ratings as a basis for what games to buy. However, I do think this issue is entirely BGG's fault. Their "Hotness" list is based solely on unverified ratings, so the system is easy to manipulate. Besides, Kickstarters are a scam so I don't see why anyone is surprised that Kickstarter companies deploy shady tactics.
How are kickstarters a scam? You know the risks when you back, including even the possibility of not getting the game at all if the project goes under. It sucks, which is why I mainly back small time aspiring creators hoping to help their dream project come true, but they aren't scams.
Bgg rating.....is just act for marketing, promo, franchise strategy. Nothing concern about quality, worthy for collection, popular in market, analysis on prices with honest comparing...etc.
It's been going on for years. Remember those shill Influencers who said Stormsunder was better than Wild Assent? Just as WA ended and the Stormsunder campaign started. Even though the first act was only finished a few weeks ago. Yeah, I remember. I remember very well.
It looks like you're found some exploit loop too 👍
First of all, the BGG forums are a cesspool.
Second, there are so many things that people look to when they want to buy/try a new game that just looking at a rating is preposterous. I always check playthroughs from youtubers that I agree with in general, read rules, etc and sometimes I sell the game after a few disappointing plays. So, I have absolutely no sympathy for people who just look at some ratings and dive in.
As a tiny publisher, this general opinion of some people really hurts a lot: If a co-writer or playtester rates the game, other people step in and say "this is fake". Sometimes they counter it with a 1 rating. Not a problem for games like Cyberpunk with thousands of ratings, but a real problem if you only have 20, 50 or 100 ratings. Where is the line for a rating to be ok? Friends? Family? People who played the game on a convention? All people with a BGG account that played a game should be able to rate it - and that includes the designer or publisher themselves. In the end, these are just a few more ratings by maybe 20 people on top. This should not be a problem for a rating system.
But when I see comments associated to a 1 like "Designer rated the game themselves" or "works with the designer and rates the game, avoid!" I really question what people creating these ratings think they will achieve. A rating should always be about the game, never about anything around that. And if a game designer plays their own game, why should they not rate it? I created many games, some I don't like as much as others. Even Designers and Publishers have favorites! ;)
Well put!
A designer should not rate their own game because they will never be objective, so their opinion is not useful. Why would you submit a rating knowing is not fair? Only one reason, to manipulate positively the rating of the game. If you think that's legit, anyone rating the game 1 because of that should be legit too. To me, as an independent party who wants to know the real quality of the game, the designer rating and the hater one are equally useless and missleading.
@@tarao666yeah I would def. question or “take less seriously” a review made by the game creator . I mean how can the general public not expect some type of bias if the bloody board game creator is the one doing the review .
That being said for me the reviews that are 1 or 10 with no comments are useless. The ratings that leave comments , detailed comments are the ones that I find more valuable.
@@tiredguy2753 While I mostly agree with that and always try to read or watch full detailed reviews (can't count the amount of times a negative review convinced me to buy a game and the other way around), and watch some playthroughts before buying a game, there's no denying that a game's BGG score influences the decision too. Luckily BGG has already a mechanism to dilute those extreme scorings but it's not perfect.
@@tiredguy2753 Yes, definitely understand that, and I also do not rate my own game. But especially for friends or family of the designer, it really is hard to "pursue" ratings. And I think it also should not be - as these are also people playing the game.
I don’t think you should be able to rate a game until it’s released. It seems like all the emotional ratings come before the game is even released, then it dies down when the game is actually released.
Not surprised at all.
Video game companies have been doing this for years, and I don't see why board game companies wouldn't do it too.
I think more need to move towards the Steam rating system, either thumbs up or thumbs down, and also show both historical results and current results, as things can change over time.
I am of the mind that BGG ratings are worthless and often manipulated by children. I have played enough games at this point to have a pretty good idea if I like a game or not. Meaningless measures like the BGG hotness or ratings are just something I don't care about.
Ratings of 1 and ratings of 10 are both as bad. They are not truly representing the product. It's just the person can't control their feelings and thus give an extreme rating which ends with a biased review.
Even without scam reviews there are so many reviews posted by people after just a play or two. Would be surprised if many people actually pay attention to the actual scores games have there.
I think this is a great point. I feel there a a vocal minority that actually puts some value in a BGG rating, but most people just play what they like or think they will like. For me, I couldn’t care less what a game’s rating is. I watch playthrough videos if I can, or maybe a preview video and if it looks interesting to me and my tastes, then I will buy/play it.
Board games are no different than any other type of medium or entertainment and is extremely subjective. Just because someone doesn’t like a certain type of food doesn’t mean I will feel the same way. Or if people say a movie is bad, doesn’t mean I won’t like it, and 99.9% of the time I find value in the movie even if it wasn’t “the greatest movie ever made”. Why? Because it’s a movie I value it for what it is, not what I think it should be. Same for board games.
Now that is not to say people who do value BGG ratings are wrong. If those ratings help them, then great. But don’t think that everyone who plays board games relies on the reviews of people they dont know. But this is just my two cents.
Liked the video thanks for the hard work, definitely BGG rating system needs improvement and they can work on the scaling system. What is a bit concerning is as consumers ratings should be a guide at best bur in reality is a suggestion. It bogles my mind how board gamers especially due to the increased price of experiencing recent board games that can cost well past 500 USD are permitting a number at a open website to decide on their "investment". If the game is not for you "feeling angry" that it rates high it does not mean that will suddenly make you love the game or make you feel better about owning an experience you will not like. In the end ratings are not objective and biases will affect them every time so hopefully consumers become responsible for their actions and only invest in those products that they want to experience and not those that "sell you due to hotness"
"Quantity has a Quality of its own"
Are BGG ratings an important factor driving board games purchases, yes.
Do a handful of publisher-associated raters significantly influence a BGG rating that is popular enough to meet its funding goals, no.
Is there a significant problem with raters at large giving poorly grounded ratings meant to drive purchasing behaviors of crowdfunding games, probably so.
I have seen designers give their own games a 10 rating, but be open about it, saying something to the effect, "I love this game, but I am the designer ;)", and I assume they are being honest.
If it were discovered that hundreds of fake reviews were purchased from internet content manufacturers in Southeast Asia, I would consider this a significant issue. The sheer volume of intentionally biased reviews would differ greatly from a few self-interested ones, as it would substantially impact the BoardGameGeek (BGG) rating.
I believe that unreleased games should not have an averaged BGG rating. Instead, users should be able to provide ratings in a comment format, but the averaged ratings should only be accepted after the game's official release. This approach would help eliminate a significant number of potentially illegitimate ratings from the outset, although the rating system would still have its flaws.
Finally someone talking about this hideous page managed by corrupted moderators. Got the first strike when dealing with a random multi account guy who was trash talking about Awaken Realms just because. Communicated with proofs about this guy using multiple accounts to give bad reviews about AR and they just said that it didn't seem to be the same guy. Then I had my account removed for no reason.
Unfortunately, the site is so famous and serves as a database for board games. But reviews and forums are extremely toxic.
They are the definition of the danger of monopolies. More a business than an enthusiast site now and the mods are totalitarian cowards who silence debate to ensure their political ideology is both interjected into games and alone is heard. "Octavian" is one of the more infamous one. They have the notoriety with providing files that have content for boardgames and their infamous ratings. It gets worse.
I was a yearly supporter of the page for more than 5 years, but once they started banning users based on their opinions, I quit. It's a pity, it was a good website.
@@tarao666 Agreed and regrettably they are not the only ones. The recent controversy over the blasphemous Christian trappings-based post apocalyptic miniatures game on KS "Trench Crusade" is another example of mods that seek to impose an ideology of some kind. The devs used a far "liberal" group "28Mag" they have as friends (and at least one is a dev) to manage a joint official discord server then began banning anyone who had "bad vibes," possible Roman Catholics, asked questions regarding the setting and other cultures, asked for transparency as to why individuals were banned, or did not want current real world politics inserted into the universe. They tried to ban/Doxx harass posters on X if they could ID them. The usual character assassination tactic of calling others "fascists" (oh the irony,) puerile "chuds" insult has some connection to the other controversy regarding Warhammer 40 and Games Workshop behavior towards its customers when they gas lighted them.
When there was an outcry the devs sided with 28Mag without even investigating. They realized the potential future damage and the server was closed. There are a few YT videos that chronicle the matter with screenshots and one has an interview with one of the devs yet he is being disingenuous as to the events and their role. From what I have heard there is a new official server without 28Mag, however it is not necessarily an improvement as to new mods / terms.
At present it is likely to break the 40M level though not that many are supporting in comparison while the use of STLs, US shipping, no KS exclusives is a definite advantage. The devs have effectively cleaned up the matter from further public knowledge. What that means for the future as to their server and the game is unknown with some players speaking of un official servers and going miniature agnostic.
I had considered examining it further at the outset, yet when all this was exposed I lost any interest to proceed further.
I agree with most if not all you said... And there were a few people that seemed to have a crusade against Go On Board during the campaign, spreading misleading (sometimes false) claims, which was very annoying.
Everyone has the right to suggest chances on the game, but keep pushing the same suggestions, to the point that they just become complaints over and over again, then is not ok, just don't back it.
And I feel (can't prove) that this thread was created on that sentiment, that the game wasn't exactly how they wanted, their suggestions where not accepted, then they started "firing" against the company/campaign anyway they could.
Too much fuss for almost nothing, other than having at some points a good discussion about BGG ratings.
It's not so hard to be not biased if you have brains)
This is a great topic! Personally, I don't really consider BGG ratings or reviews as much as watching a solid playthrough of a game. That's when I know a game is truly for me before I make my purchase. That way, it's between me and the game, and not someone else validating or trying to convince me that the game fits my playstyle. And yes, the internet is all fire and brimstone - this is common. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Great video sir with a very measured take on the situation. I personally loved the Witcher old world game by go on board but have not really looked into their other titles. As you stated people who know how bgg ratings work know they are not a great way to know if a game is good or not
I never fully rely on rating. Imho the key to reviews is to find reviewers that have a similar taste than you. Doesnt matter if movies, games etc. I played a lot of games which hadnt the best rating on BGG and had a total blast, while other praised titles just weren't for me. Also its not just the manipulation, its also people who dont know how ratings work. Like rating games before they have even played them. Or simply because they dislike the developer. Or even more stupid reasons.
Polish people remember about punishing people because of diffrent view than comunism authority (many people died because of diffrent view),
so probably because of silencing/ banning by BGG, Polish people vote 1.
You know, because steam verifies at least who has the game. BGG has no means to manage that because there is no single platform for buying board games and never will be. I would not go for a 'critic' review either bc those tend to be extra biased or paid for.
What is up with The Red Joker? Can we get an update? Okko and Cyber Odyssey backers have not heard anything all year. Are they still in business?
I think it's okay for friends and family to post game reviews to support a project. The real issue would be mass fake ratings by shady marketing companies like you see in many other industries. Ultimately, it is up to BGG to police this issue. A few inflated reviews isn't a big deal and does almost nothing to change the needle for the final rating.
Being involved in the development of a product or the even just the company, doing a review and not disclaiming that might not be deceit, but certainly is very bad practice and might very well look deceitful to onlookers. Even if I work at a restaurant and I think the food is amazing and someone asks for a good place to eat, I'd recommend that restaurant but qualify my recommendation with my strong bias. The poster might have jumped the gun a bit, but this situation happening still is mostly on GOB imo, they should've thought about something like this. They are a major player of the industry now, not amateurs, and very well should manage public relations.
Not really surprised this happens in this space. Reviews are opinions about how the thing you review feels to you. there is definitely going to be bias in a review, even when you want to be objective about it. that bias is more noticeable with the shortest reviews than one that are longer which discuss many aspects of the review. If you're giving the game a 9 or 10 our of 10, you should be going into detail about what you liked about the game. if your review is just 'oh I really liked gameplay' you're aren't really giving a good review and I would question this review being helpful or true. what else about the game did you like? Same thing on the flipside with 1 or 2 out of 10. What did you dislike or hate about the game? I don't think many people actually read review and see if they are meaningful. they just look at the scores and decide from there.
Nothing good is on BGG anymore anyway except for the files...which users create and upload that the site gatekeeps. The mods need to go tech free if they can't be tyrants.
Lol. 66 total ratings? That's what we are whining about. Not a very effective market manipulation.
off topic A pug? i know its some money, but if u can get him the surgery so he breath normal, i would love that. (a CF ironically could be an idea too)
Thankfully he's actually not too bad. He's a Victorian pug so he stands a bit taller and his nose isn't quite as flattened. I'll have to get him on camera sometime soon! 🙂
@@TheKingofAverage glad to hear. and yeah i bet he is a good pupper. looking forward to this
IMO they can review the game, they just should put a disclaimer that they are affiliated with the company.
Everything like this is open to abuse, and people will abuse this, it undermines the site, I can't take any ratings seriously on any kind of site like this. and to be honest I don't take to much notice of journalists reviews these days either.
I say the same thing about my dog, only it is if you smell something it was him.
Hah!
as an animal lover, I demand more dogs on camera!
Hah! He inserts himself sometimes :)
And cats!
Storm in a teapot 😂
Tldr?
Too lazy, didn't read
BGG is a pit
BGG's admins are horrendous. Permabanned my account because I did not agreed with someones thoughts. But does not matter, I have other account which I use and they cant track my IP, because it is different than what I had before
@@Kamion991 They need to be replaced with another site to offer competition and as mentioned forums that allow debate not control of it..
Part of the issue with BGG ratings or any other board game ratings for that matter, is that regardless of your opinion, you are kind of incentivize to rate a game as high as possible, so you can resell a copy that you may have. This is especially true for Crowdfunded games.
Videogames don't have that problem cause you can't resell your digital copy, so if you don't like it you just say you don't.
a lot of words and I feel a little bit rambling though rationalization, reasoning and relativation... BUT.. I feel you have left out a crucial point which I feel sits a the core of things.... it is deceitful... it is NOT an honest review if it comes out of your own house.. no matter if it can be researched.. this like/dislike systems are for customers/views and not for the producers.... sure they can use it that way.. sure it is futile to try to prevent it.. this does not make it right... at least in my opinion.... does this warrant this uproar? no... I find it more and more amusing how people are surprised that corporations will blow the sweetest sugar up their butts in communications, comment sections, updates. and wooing and cooing them like maniac on aphrodisiacs.. they will do almost anything to sell you what they offer.. and the degree of almost varies... and people seem always to fall out of the pinkest of softest of all heavens when they are faced with the reality that corporations (be it AR, CMON, MG, etc.) care not about them but money... did anyone really believe Leo his "you are in a good place"-BS? i mean, REALLY?
I've had a BGG account since 2006 and I've never used the ratings as a basis for what games to buy. However, I do think this issue is entirely BGG's fault. Their "Hotness" list is based solely on unverified ratings, so the system is easy to manipulate.
Besides, Kickstarters are a scam so I don't see why anyone is surprised that Kickstarter companies deploy shady tactics.
How are kickstarters a scam? You know the risks when you back, including even the possibility of not getting the game at all if the project goes under. It sucks, which is why I mainly back small time aspiring creators hoping to help their dream project come true, but they aren't scams.
The hotness list isn't based on the ratings, it's literally just a list of which game forums are the most active.
@@markwatson8714 I did not know that.
Bgg rating.....is just act for marketing, promo, franchise strategy. Nothing concern about quality, worthy for collection, popular in market, analysis on prices with honest comparing...etc.
@@commandershepard9920...we,backers just bare these
risk taking by choosing our interest like board games.