by Becq
I think one of the most interesting things is how the folk that HATE SeaFall (who are a vocal minority, but a minority nonetheless) just make up statistics to support their view.Initial rush of 9's and 10's by the enthusiasts before they have ever played the game.
There were a few of these. For example, there were a number of ratings logged in Oct 2016 as preorders went out and people changed their status to 'owned'. But even if all of the ratings from Oct 2016 and before were lumped into this category, it would account for only 27% of the 9s and 10s, and would include a number of ratings from legitimate ratings like this one, who clearly got his hands on one of the early GenCon copies:
9 tjstack Sep 2016
6 games in and having much fun playing it so far. Still got 2 chests to look forward to unlocking.
Collections: Own
6 games in and having much fun playing it so far. Still got 2 chests to look forward to unlocking.
Collections: Own
Another bump of 8's, 9's and 10's for a few months as folks get the game and a chance to play their first few games..but before the reach the mid-game.
Ok, let's correct for that. SeaFall had a limited release in Aug 2016 and a general release in Oct 2016. Does three months after general release sound like a good amount of time to work through those 'first few games' ratings? Because fewer than 25% of all of the '8, 9, and 10' ratings occurred before Jan 2017.
As time goes on, those "early campaign" ratings are more tempered....more 7's, fewer 9's than 10's. They've been forewarned.
Looking at the ratings from 2018 *only* (so more than a year after release), there are 92 ratings in the 9 and 10 bar and 77 in the 7 bar. That's a 1.2:1 ratio, which is actually *higher* than the overall ratio of 0.9:1. :)
Going back to this comment:
I'd say there is a vocal minority who LOVE it, but a minority nonetheless. ;)
Does it sound fair to divide the ratings this way?
8-10 "loved it" (very good or higher)
1-5 "hated it" (mediocre at best)
6-7 "in between"
The "loved it" crowd is in the plurality of those three groups, even filtering to include only those ratings from Jan 2017 and later...
So there's some actual numbers. Do you have any actual numbers that show otherwise, or are you basing your assessment on gut feeling? Because while I'll admit that BGG ratings aren't perfect, they are probably a better reflection of the gaming community than your gut feeling.
And while we're on the subject, a quick comment on BGG ratings: the value of the ratings might improve if gamers were asked to check a box that says "I have played this game fully at least once", with any numerical ratings by those not checking the box suppressed (ie, not displayed and not counted in statistics; they could still plug in a number for their own uses). I don't know how easy this would be to implement, and I understand that it wouldn't stop people from outright lying about playing the game, but I think it would be a vast improvement and I'd certainly vote in favor of such a proposal.