Spent more time looking for a game than actually playing one? Help me test Gamescovery, a recommendation engine built for your actual taste.

Submitted ⁨⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨YUART@feddit.org⁩ to ⁨gaming@lemmy.zip⁩

Hey everyone,

Like many of you, I’ve spent more time hunting for my next game than actually playing. I’m frustrated with recommenders that just push popular titles, ignoring what makes my taste unique.

That’s why I’ve been building Gamescovery (games discovery!).

What is it?

Gamescovery is a new recommendation system designed specifically for games. The goal is simple: use your ratings from the games you’ve played to find hidden gems and perfect matches you’d otherwise miss.

Why it’s different:

It’s not a generic engine. It’s being built from the ground up to understand what you love about games.
Future updates will let you fine-tune recommendations based on what matters most to you (genre, mood, developer, etc.).
We start by focusing on the incredible world of itch.io indie games to help you uncover amazing projects that big algorithms overlook.

This is where you come in.

The alpha is now live, and it’s very much an early build. I’m not a big company, I’m a solo developer who wants to build something the community actually finds useful. That’s why your feedback is crucial.

As an alpha tester, you’ll get:

Early access to a tool designed to beat the "recommendation paradox."
A direct line to the developer to shape project’s future.
The chance to help build a non-biased, community-driven platform.

Ready to try it out?

👉 Sign up for the alpha and start getting recommendations here: gamescovery.com

Want to chat, suggest features, or report bugs? 🎮 Join our Discord community: discord.gg/brr7aYezMc

This project has and will always have a free tier. The dream is to support all major platforms, but we’re starting with itch.io to prove the concept.

Thanks for your time, and I’m excited to hear what you think!

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

artyom@piefed.social ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Let me know when you figure out how to do this without an account and without Discord.

source
- YUART@feddit.org ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Hi, can you please elaborate?
  
  without an account - do you mean without itch.io account (Steam, Epic, GOG etc. in the future)? If yes - would you prefer to register a new account on the Gamescovery webpage that is specific to Gamescovery?
  
  without Discord - do you mean that you don’t like Discord and would like to communicate with developers/users on another platform? If yes - what platform suits you best in your opinion?
  
  source
  - artyom@piefed.social ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    do you mean without itch.io account (Steam, Epic, GOG
    
    Yes.
    
    would you prefer to register a new account on the Gamescovery webpage that is specific to Gamescovery?
    
    No I would prefer not to have an account at all.
    
    what platform suits you best in your opinion?
    
    Lemmy/PieFed/Threadiverse. Or really anything open source, not corporate controlled, and not full of ads.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
TyrianMollusk@infosec.pub ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
I notice you are using a nineteen point rating scale, going from 1 to 10 with halves in between and a slider. You will get better ratings if you use a more standard scale that’s compatible with other sites and a better method for inputting ratings.

You’ll want to link your rating data to other sites (eg, backloggd) if you have any hope of this being used, so that’s why compatibility is valuable. Mapping a backloggd 10 point scale to a 19 point scale is a silly wrench to throw in, and how will you translate your users’ 19 point scale to backloggd’s 10? You need to be able to keep users from entering scores over again to survive at all.

As to entry, something almost everything gets wrong is you actually get better data if you present ratings with the right number of points to the scale and use a tiered grouping (visually, not as in requiring a series of questions for a single rating). There’s basically a right answer here, and its 10 points grouped 3-4-3. The grouping helps cognitively because you’re basically picking high-mid-low twice instead of analyzing a 10 point spread. People are significantly statistically worse at using a wide, flat rating scale, and the two-tier version corrects that and gives you richer and more accurate data, especially if you label the tiers, to help reduce individual bias about how they apply their feelings to numbers (eg the modern 6/10=bad syndrome).

We need better rating analyzers than we have, but it will never work without connecting to other rating systems and processing games outside itch.io. And if you keep your recommendation mechanism under wraps with only manual rating entries, especially limited to itch.io games, you’re asking far too much from someone to see if it’s potentially relevant to them, both in the sense of effort and the sense of trust (“non-biased, community driven”).

source
- YUART@feddit.org ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  eg the modern 6/10=bad syndrome
  
  I also saw a solution for normalizing the scores of every person to battle this bias. This is used in Criticker system (recommendation for movies):
  
  criticker.com/critickers-algorithm-explained/
  
  Once you've got enough ratings, Criticker normalizes your scores. We do this because of the wide variety in the way people rate things. For some people, a score of "80" is close to a masterpiece, while for others "80" is middling. Some try to spread their scores equally across the whole scale, while others adhere to the system they learned in school, when a "60" was real bad. Like, if you came home with a "60" on your math test, you were probably going to get grounded.
  
  Currently, I’m investigating if this is something my recommendation algorithm needs, some maybe I will implement some kind of normalization for scores on Gamescovery, we will see.
  
  source
  - TyrianMollusk@infosec.pub ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    I also saw a solution for normalizing the scores of every person to battle this bias. This is used in Criticker system (recommendation for movies
    
    Sounds good. Doesn’t actually work :/ Sure, if everyone gave a statistically valid data spread covering every rating point, then you could probably normalize them so it doesn’t matter what numbers an individual used. But people don’t do that. Maybe someone only rates 8-10, but is that because they like everything, because they don’t rate anything they didn’t like, because they think an 8 is bad, because they just lump everything they don’t like in the “8 or below” group, or some other random thing? They don’t know, and what about the obvious fact that most everyone watches more movies they rate good than bad, so ratings have a huge implicit skew to the distribution? They don’t know that either, but they scale the ratings anyway, and that’s some of why they don’t really work if you get down to it. The rest is just that their analysis concept is broken.
    
    I actually use criticker for my movie rating, and it doesn’t really do me any good (but it’d be a pain to move everything, so I haven’t :). Their system still falls prey to the usual issues, just not as obviously as say Steam which basically just always throws the most popular candidate it can shoehorn into a rec. If you have weird taste, you get grouped with rating profiles that happen to agree enough on something, but that don’t actually have real connection to your taste. Eg, if I like some movies everyone likes (and let’s face it, we pretty much all have some close-enough-to-universally appreciated likes), my “close rating” users will be focused on people who also liked those movies, and a lot of meaningful stuff becomes noise, but one’s taste is much more in the noise data than in the big obvious strokes. Alternatively, if I watch and like some fringe thing no one sees, suddenly anyone else who did is closer to me, mainly because there’s so little data in common between us to go on.
    
    Criticker is convinced I love esoteric foreign drama (I really don’t), because I scour deep into horror during part of the year and occasionally find a gem that gets a good rating, often from some dark corner of Asia. They also think my 50 is 77th percentile, probably for the same reason (ie I do have a lot of low ratings, because I’m watching things just because they are horror). A 50 is where I put “pretty decent/not really that good” stuff, which seems a lot lower than 77 to me, but I can’t tell Criticker that because of their “helpful” scaling. After my partner (who watches basically everything I do and has very similar taste), the next closest TCI (their code for how close your normalized ratings are to someone else’s, and the basis for their rating prediction) comes at thirty. That basically says they’re useless, which is more accurate than any given rating prediction they generate for me, with my mere 1,845 ratings to go by ;)
    
    I really think one needs to find and minimize the “common” elements to focus on the uncommon in rating analysis, and in prediction. Eg if people tend to like X but I don’t, that actually means a lot more than if I also like X. And recommending I rush out to watch The Godfather (thanks again, Criticker, never heard that one…), doesn’t do me any good, because everyone already knows it. It’s an “easy” rec, but it’s not a good rec.
    
    If Criticker used the 3-4-3 system for their ratings instead of telling us it will just work out, that would lead me to apply my numbers differently, which on its own is kinda telling for improving their data. I didn’t make up the 3-4-3 thing, BTW. I was working on a related web/database project, and that was passed on to me as studied and statistically well-proven for producing better survey results (and that was someone from an industry that definitely cares about that). Does make a lot of sense, though. It’s nice when something has a clear right answer like that… except you get a little frustrated seeing nothing actually use it ;)
    
    source
- YUART@feddit.org ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Hi, thanks very much for this feedback, love it ❤️
  
  I never heard about backloggd.com, but it’s a good long-term thinking from you, that if the project survives to a stage where it has a big userbase, it’s a good idea to have compatibility or “plugins” with other trackers and data sources.
  
  I also like your idea with the rating scale, I will definitely think about implementing your idea or some variation of it.
  
  Yeah, it would be stupid to lock the project inside of itch.io games only. I started from itch.io and indie games for a few reasons:
  
  I would like Gamescovery to bring value for indie games community, so authors, who have no money for an advertisement campaign, have more chances for a bigger player base.
  
  itch.io data is very chaotic. So I decided that if my system can classify and correctly recommend itch.io games, it would definitely have no problems with better data, like from Steam.
  
  In the future, I definitely plan to support all popular PC game stores in the following order:
  
  GOG
  
  Steam
  
  Epic
  
  I also think about the support of the consoles, but this will be in the rather distant future.
  
  I have one more question, if you don’t mind - what is your feeling about game recommendations after you rated 3-4 games? Were recommendations lean towards predicable “correct” way, or were they completely random and off?
  
  source
  - TyrianMollusk@infosec.pub ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    I have one more question, if you don’t mind - what is your feeling about game recommendations after you rated 3-4 games? Were recommendations lean towards predicable “correct” way, or were they completely random and off?
    
    I didn’t rate any games, just looked at what it would take and had some quick feedback to offer. Part of the issue with Itch is that to rate games, you have to first find things on itch, as well as find things that’d be representative so you might see how recs do. For testing something that isn’t going to do much right now, that’s a fair bit of trouble, especially since my key interest would be whether recommendations really take taste into account or use one of the usual shortcuts that either lump you into categories or fall prey to the “well everyone likes X so X” syndrome. Either of those would take a fair bit of data for me to put in, and a rather surprising amount of data for you to already have at such an early stage.
    
    source
Auster@thebrainbin.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Can't test now, but an idea: as afaik EGS, GOG and Steam all have public APIs, maybe pull games to your internal database based on what is in the accounts of people joining in? As people likely have kilometric backlogs, it should already be useful for them, and it should help lessening the initial load as you wouldn't need to pull what probably is past 100k+ unique titles all at once.

source
- Auster@thebrainbin.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  When you add such login options, I mean.
  
  Although, in this idea of leveraging public APIs, maybe database sites have them too? In all such cases, you could probably also already import useful stuff like tags, ignoring what's redundant and thus lessening the load on both your server and the API's server.
  
  source