3 ms·

"The proof of the pudding is in the tasting" is certainly a statement I would agree with. Controversy around the rating system on boardgamegeek.com doesn't rea

"The proof of the pudding is in the tasting" is certainly a statement I would agree with. Controversy around the rating system on boardgamegeek.com doesn't really invalidate that games that rank higher tend to be better. The same could be said of rottentomatoes.com, metacritic.com, and just about anything that rates anything. Use a large enough set of data and even subjective evaluations are useful. But I certainly wouldn't let a rating system dictate what I think is a good game.

agentultra 11y ago
The rating system is under fire because it encourages fashion over merit. It's scale is based on what I want to play and think is good right now [0]. I mentioned Pandemic: Legacy because technically you cannot play it a second time (and personally I don't think I'll want to). It's a good game but I'm going to rate it highly today and probably lower once I finish it. It seems to me that the rating system on BGG is skewed towards what the community thinks is presently a good game. I think Monopoly would rate much higher if we were rating based on merit instead of opinion. I think most game enthusiasts and critics can see the importance and position Monopoly has had in gaming history. But in terms of what we like right now I don't find it very surprising that Monopoly or Checkers rank low in BGG's system. It's a system that favors novelty (over a longer term than "The Hotness" but still... flash in the pan games like P:L have been rising high, quickly, and with greater frequency) [0] https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Ratings# https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Ratings#