GameSpy wishes for the Fallout fans to die

[DarkUnderlord]

I'm also somewhat lost on what exactly your "expertise" provides the reader. If you can only present facts, without any analysis, your job could be done by practically anyone. The only room for expertise is in analysis - which it seems you're not doing.

What do you mean? Of course he's providing his "expert" opinion. That's what all the "This game made me CREAM MY PANTS si so AWSUM!!1!oneone" previews are. The only problem is it's the expert opinion of a 12 year old who thinks that Chuck Norris and Optimus Prime fighting each other would make the most awesomest movie ever.

Because that's the developer *opinion*, not a fact.

Really? So, a dev saying something is a placeholder isn't good enough? To stick to the analogy, if you saw a green screen when you got an early look at a set, you don't think being told "that's a green screen, it'll have something else in there for the film" is enough?
Because placeholders -- in art, balance, the script -- are all just as common and just as necessary, for similiar reasons.

Except that when it comes to computer games, the placeholders often seem to get left in.

Why don't you, in short, get alll the information together before you write the preview, and do a cohesive piece that lays out what I need to know -- instead of making me decide if I trust someone I've never met and have no means of communicating with?

Get all the information from what? A movie and a slideshow? That's what most previews are written on these days. Like in that link you brought up earlier where GameSpy were the only ones to say "all we saw was a slideshow". The very nature of a preview also belies the fact that it won't have all the information. Otherwise it's not actually a preview, is it?

Now, as for Oblivion: I think I answered your actual questions in my review (which I linked to a post or two ago; 1up 360 oblivion review google). But there's one thing I want to really address, and it's the funny word once more: technicalities.
Here's what I wrote:
"the best combat system the series has seen, and one of the best combat systems in any RPG."
Here's what you quoted:
"the best combat system in any RPG"?
Between what I actually, technically wrote and what you quoted me! as writing, the game has gone from being previewed as the best combat the elder scrolls series game has seen and one of the best RPG combat systems to:
the best combat system in any RPG.

Uhhh... Do you have a reading disability? "the best combat system in any RPG" is precisely what you wrote. No really, are you clueless? Oh, you mean "one of" the best. Well that makes it... Mean exactly the same thing. That out of all the RPGs out there, Oblivion's combat is TEH TOP SHIT.

As for coverage, can you ping me privately? I would need to get some more details about what you're working on, and I'm sure that most of the people here know it already. I'm sure I could google it, but I just don't have the oomph. Sorry.

VD, send him a slideshow and a movie. That'll be enough.

 

[deadairis]

[quote="galsiah
EDIT:
Oh and your scoring system does suck. Having 70% as an average in a percentage system is one thing (I'd argue it's not good). Having 3.5 as an average in a 5 stars scale is just stupid. It gives you only three scores for anything above average. That's a needlessly imprecise system which does nothing to serve the readers' interests.
Of course you can say that the score is only an indication, and the precise information is in the review - but why have scores be needlessly imprecise? In this respect, it's as stupid as having a percentage system with an average of 97%. You get the same degree of expression - almost none.[/quote]

Really? A scale that has 10 points and marks the 7th as "average" is as precise as one that has 100 points and marks the 97th as average?
Really? You really think 60% of a scale and 96% of a scale are comprable?
Wow.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Oh and your scoring system does suck. Having 70% as an average in a percentage system is one thing (I'd argue it's not good). Having 3.5 as an average in a 5 stars scale is just stupid. It gives you only three scores for anything above average. That's a needlessly imprecise system which does nothing to serve the readers' interests.
Of course you can say that the score is only an indication, and the precise information is in the review - but why have scores be needlessly imprecise? In this respect, it's as stupid as having a percentage system with an average of 97%. You get the same degree of expression - almost none.

Really? A scale that has 10 points and marks the 7th as "average" is as precise as one that has 100 points and marks the 97th as average?
Really? You really think 60% of a scale and 96% of a scale are comprable?
Wow.

See now technically, he said "it's as stupid as". He didn't mention anywhere about precision. He was talking about the mental retardedness of the system. Just because it's more or less retarded doesn't mean it's better, it's still retarded, presumably for the very reason that it's not precise. Again, there's that reading comprehension problem of yours.

 

[deadairis]

Now, as for Oblivion: I think I answered your actual questions in my review (which I linked to a post or two ago; 1up 360 oblivion review google). But there's one thing I want to really address, and it's the funny word once more: technicalities.
Here's what I wrote:
"the best combat system the series has seen, and one of the best combat systems in any RPG."
Here's what you quoted:
"the best combat system in any RPG"?
Between what I actually, technically wrote and what you quoted me! as writing, the game has gone from being previewed as the best combat the elder scrolls series game has seen and one of the best RPG combat systems to:
the best combat system in any RPG.

Uhhh... Do you have a reading disability? "the best combat system in any RPG" is precisely what you wrote. No really, are you clueless? Oh, you mean "one of" the best. Well that makes it... Mean exactly the same thing. That out of all the RPGs out there, Oblivion's combat is TEH TOP SHIT.

Boy. I don't know what to tell you. The best and one of the best aren't the same.
I mean...I sort of wish they were, so you could be right, because that would be neat.
But they're not.
Example: One person will clear the finals of the competition to go the Olympics, from ten thousand competitors.
You are one of the top 100 people in the competiiton to go compete in the Olympics
vs
You are the top person in the competition to go compete in to the Olympics.
Hey, guess who's actually going to, huh?

Hopefully, that makes clear that two different things are different.

 

[deadairis]

but why have scores be needlessly imprecise? In this respect, it's as stupid as having a percentage system with an average of 97%. You get the same degree of expression - almost none.

Really? A scale that has 10 points and marks the 7th as "average" is as precise as one that has 100 points and marks the 97th as average?
Really? You really think 60% of a scale and 96% of a scale are comprable?
Wow.

See now technically, he said "it's as stupid as". He didn't mention anywhere about precision.

Really? What about that part -- you can see, I bolded it -- where he talked about precision?
Noting that, for clarity, precision and imprecision are both measures of precision. Just, you know. Technically.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Uhhh... Do you have a reading disability? "the best combat system in any RPG" is precisely what you wrote. No really, are you clueless? Oh, you mean "one of" the best. Well that makes it... Mean exactly the same thing. That out of all the RPGs out there, Oblivion's combat is TEH TOP SHIT.

Boy. I don't know what to tell you. The best and one of the best aren't the same.
I mean...I sort of wish they were, so you could be right, because that would be neat.
But they're not.

I like how you weasel arguments around. I really do. See, VD raised the issue of making unsupported, unexplained claims:

It's not about having an opinion and liking Oblivion. It's about making unsupported, unexplained claims like "There's no question that this [Oblivion combat] is the best combat system the series has seen, and one of the best combat systems in any RPG."

You then weasle your way around the question and turn it into a "that's not what I said", rather than answering it. See, VD quoted you precisely, then later on (a whole half a paragraph down even), he just repeated the last bit for emphasis. What do you do? You focus entirely on that last bit with a "well technically". Even though VD quoted you precisely, just moments earlier.

Look, here's VD's post. Note that bit at the end where he quotes your exact words? VD knows what you said. We all know what you said. You made an unsupported, unexplained claim and now you're trying to weasle out of it by saying it's not what you said... When it's precisely what you said (again, VD quoted you completely, which is when he asked you about it).

 

[DarkUnderlord]

but why have scores be needlessly imprecise? In this respect, it's as stupid as having a percentage system with an average of 97%. You get the same degree of expression - almost none.

Really? A scale that has 10 points and marks the 7th as "average" is as precise as one that has 100 points and marks the 97th as average?
Really? You really think 60% of a scale and 96% of a scale are comprable?
Wow.

See now technically, he said "it's as stupid as". He didn't mention anywhere about precision.

Really? What about that part -- you can see, I bolded it -- where he talked about precision?
Noting that, for clarity, precision and imprecision are both measures of precision. Just, you know. Technically.

Again, for a guy arguing technicalities, you have a selective reading disorder. Galsiah is saying that having one system that is imprecise, is no better than any other system that's imprecise. Come on, after your little rant about technicalities, don't tell me you forgot? Having one system that is imprecise is as stupid as having any other system that is imprecise. Hence "it's as stupid as". They key here is that both systems are imprecise.

He said NOTHING about both systems being as accurate as each other, which is what you've tried to weasle him into with this bullshit:

Really? A scale that has 10 points and marks the 7th as "average" is as precise as one that has 100 points and marks the 97th as average?

After whinging about yourself being misquoted, it'd sure help if you understood what was being said. Galsiah said nothing about both systems being the same in precision. He said both systems were retarded because they were imprecise.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Because that's the developer *opinion*, not a fact.

Really? So, a dev saying something is a placeholder isn't good enough?

Don't be silly, of course it's not good enough. I have no doubt that Steven will change the text, but that's my opinion and not a fact. See what I mean?

To stick to the analogy, if you saw a green screen when you got an early look at a set, you don't think being told "that's a green screen, it'll have something else in there for the film" is enough?

Your analogy sucks. What I saw was not a green screen, but a poorly constructed set that could have easily been in the finished product.

Because placeholders -- in art, balance, the script -- are all just as common and just as necessary, for similiar reasons.

They are. What you failed to understand, despite my many attempts to explain it, is that what I saw didn't look like a placeholder. It looked like a typical action RPG text, no different than something you can see in Dungeon Siege 2, for example, which I criticized for a very similar reason. Must have been placeholders too.

http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9207

So here's my core issue: it's not his opinion. That is, or is not, placeholder text. Claiming its opinion is like claiming that its my opinion that my keyboard is a keyboard or not. That's not opinion; it's a basic existential description.

You should put more efforts into your analogies. Your keyboard is a keyboard by any definition. Placeholder text is a different story. It *is* a matter of its author opinion at the moment. For example, right now you are attacking my choice of a word ("opinion"). Well, guess what, it was a placeholder in my previous post. According to your logic, I win by default.

Now, he may know that that placeholder text will never go away and be lying by not mentioning it -- that's unethical and would be reallly unusual (since it's so easy to get caught), but what the heck.

Unusual? You can make a book out of Bethesda quotes that turned out to be complete and utter bullshit. You are either naive or... Well, let's hope that you are naive.

But there's one thing I want to really address, and it's the funny word once more: technicalities.
Here's what I wrote:
"the best combat system the series has seen, and one of the best combat systems in any RPG."
Here's what you quoted:
"the best combat system in any RPG"?
Between what I actually, technically wrote and what you quoted me! as writing, the game has gone from being previewed as the best combat the elder scrolls series game has seen and one of the best RPG combat systems to:
the best combat system in any RPG.

English is my third language, unfortunately, so I must claim that I'm unable to decipher the meaning. Pray tell, what is the REAL difference between "the best combat system in any RPG" and "...one of the best combat systems in any RPG". It must be very significant indeed.

In addition, it's version of the Elder Scrolls real-time combat managed to draw in a lot more "action" for people who wanted that while still being build and gear dependant enough that it wasn't truly an "action" game.

That's what the "... one of the best combat system in any RPG" is based on?

As for coverage, can you ping me privately?

PM'ed. Surprise me.

Edit:

I like how you weasel arguments around. I really do.

"Weasel" custom tag?

 

[deadairis]

[quote="DarkUnderlordYou then weasle your way around the question and turn it into a "that's not what I said", rather than answering it. See, VD quoted you precisely, then later on (a whole half a paragraph down even),[/quote]

Don't know what to tell, you buddy...he didn't quote me. He did, I suppose, claim I said something and put it in quotes, but without carefully editing what I actually said, you can't get that quote.
Maybe a life lesson, someday, will make clear the difference. Like, the difference between being one of the best people for a job and the person who gets the job.

As for the other quote, it seems pretty clear: both scales are imprecise. They are stupid. They must be stupid for a reason, and I'll go under the assumption that whatever his name is is intelligent enough to realize that I can't discuss "stupid." "No it's not!" "Yes it is!"
You guys can have that discussion if you like.
If they're stupid, okay. He must have given a reason for why they were -- well, he said they're imprecise, that's something I can actually discuss.

What can I tell you? Almost quoting someone isn't the same as quoting someone. You seem to think it is. Uh...don't go into journalism?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Don't know what to tell, you buddy...he didn't quote me. He did, I suppose, claim I said something and put it in quotes, but without carefully editing what I actually said, you can't get that quote.

Since clicking on the link provided by DU is too much work, here is the EXACT quote from my post:

"It's not about having an opinion and liking Oblivion. It's about making unsupported, unexplained claims like "There's no question that this [Oblivion combat] is the best combat system the series has seen, and one of the best combat systems in any RPG."

With the exception of "[Oblivion combat]" is this the EXACT quote from your preview?

Uh...don't go into journalism?

Since it's clear that we lack many of your skills and fine qualities, we won't.

 

[deadairis]

Because placeholders -- in art, balance, the script -- are all just as common and just as necessary, for similiar reasons.

They are. What you failed to understand, despite my many attempts to explain it, is that what I saw didn't look like a placeholder.

It looked like placeholder text to me. Sure, I'm just one of your readers. But does the opinion of the reader matter or not?
It looked, at first glance, like placeholder text to me.
Turns out it was.
Why defend not catching it?

So here's my core issue: it's not his opinion. That is, or is not, placeholder text. Claiming its opinion is like claiming that its my opinion that my keyboard is a keyboard or not. That's not opinion; it's a basic existential description.

You should put more efforts into your analogies. Your keyboard is a keyboard by any definition. Placeholder text is a different story. It *is* a matter of its author opinion at the moment. For example, right now you are attacking my choice of a word ("opinion"). Well, guess what, it was a placeholder in my previous post. According to your logic, I win by default.

Sure. It was placeholder -- as any game producer will pay someone to write for their. And then pay someone to write final text for the, well, final text. I mean, you get different rates for it and everything. It's a clearly defined thing, seperate from final text. But, okay, sure it was placeholder.
I'm not going to call you a liar.
Are you lying?

Now, he may know that that placeholder text will never go away and be lying by not mentioning it -- that's unethical and would be reallly unusual (since it's so easy to get caught), but what the heck.

Unusual? You can make a book out of Bethesda quotes that turned out to be complete and utter bullshit. You are either naive or... Well, let's hope that you are naive.

Bethesda, you know, isn't the only dev in town.
Even in DC.
The industry standard is not to lie, straight faced, to press. Because then they call you on it, or fans do if the press doesn't catch it. Honestly, like moneyhats, this is one of those great myths that I just don't see validated actually working in the industry. I get quotes. I get what devs are willing to say. In general, they won't lie -- they'll just refuse to comment.

But there's one thing I want to really address, and it's the funny word once more: technicalities.
Here's what I wrote:
"the best combat system the series has seen, and one of the best combat systems in any RPG."
Here's what you quoted:
"the best combat system in any RPG"?
Between what I actually, technically wrote and what you quoted me! as writing, the game has gone from being previewed as the best combat the elder scrolls series game has seen and one of the best RPG combat systems to:
the best combat system in any RPG.

English is my third language, unfortunately, so I must claim that I'm unable to decipher the meaning. Pray tell, what is the REAL difference between "the best combat system in any RPG" and "...one of the best combat systems in any RPG". It must be very significant indeed.

Really? Holy shite.
Your English is awesome.
Okay, then with no sarcasm, here's the difference:
the best is #1.
One of the best is not.
Does this matter? Depends. Are you competing for one job position with a bunch of other people? Well, do you want to be the best, or just "one of the best" -- but not the one who gets the job?

In addition, it's version of the Elder Scrolls real-time combat managed to draw in a lot more "action" for people who wanted that while still being build and gear dependant enough that it wasn't truly an "action" game.

That's what the "... one of the best combat system in any RPG" is based on?

That's one part -- as mentioned it's really the integration of the combat into the experience. It wasn't as meaty as something turn-based, which are my cup of tea systems (but, you know. Run d20 every Tuesday. I like turns), and it wasn't as good an action game as a real action game.
But everyone I know who picked it up enjoyed it for at least a few hours, and usually a few dozen hours, across a spread of people who like RPGs, don't, like video games, don't, like the 360, don't.
And there's plenty of meat in the system for building and tweaking the character, which I enjoyed.

But, really, it's the fact that the combat is part of the experience, not dominating it. Which I realize is an unpopular thing to want from an RPG.
Hah, I'm unpopular!

As for coverage, can you ping me privately?

PM'ed. Surprise me.

Edit:

I like how you weasel arguments around. I really do.

"Weasel" custom tag?

Sure...can you guys get ones for misquoting me and calling me a weasel for correcting you?
Something like "liars," something like that?
I mean, Vault, you didn't meant to -- third language -- but it was the effect you had.
And if I'm going to get a tag based on effect, not intent...
Anyways. Technicalities and precision -- they're not fun, but they're imporant.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

But, really, it's the fact that the combat is part of the experience, not dominating it.

You aren't saying this in reference to Oblivion...are you?

 

[robur]

1-2-3-4-5

Notice how 3 is in the middle? How does that make 3.5 the benchmark any sense?

Actually, it should be 2.5 - that's exactly the middle of 0-5. In other words, 5 divided by 2 is 2.5.

 

[deadairis]

Don't know what to tell, you buddy...he didn't quote me. He did, I suppose, claim I said something and put it in quotes, but without carefully editing what I actually said, you can't get that quote.

Since clicking on the link provided by DU is too much work, here is the EXACT quote from my post:

"It's not about having an opinion and liking Oblivion. It's about making unsupported, unexplained claims like "There's no question that this [Oblivion combat] is the best combat system the series has seen, and one of the best combat systems in any RPG."

With the exception of "[Oblivion combat]" is this the EXACT quote from your preview?

It's a quote, but not the one you misquoted that we're discussing:

"You saw that it has 'the best combat system in any RPG'? Do explain. "

See, that's the quote we're discussing -- which is a misquote. As we discussed.

Uh...don't go into journalism?

Since it's clear that we lack many of your skills and fine qualities, we won't.[/quote]

 

[deadairis]

1-2-3-4-5

Notice how 3 is in the middle? How does that make 3.5 the benchmark any sense?

Actually, it should be 2.5 - that's exactly the middle of 0-5. In other words, 5 divided by 2 is 2.5.

See: 1up's scale. It's pretty ballsy.

 

[galsiah]

IN THIS RESPECT, it's as stupid as having a percentage system with an average of 97%. You get the same degree of expression - almost none.

Really? A scale that has 10 points and marks the 7th as "average" is as precise as one that has 100 points and marks the 97th as average?

IN THAT RESPECT. I bolded it so that it'd hopefully be obvious even to those who'd be likely to come out with the predictable, knee-jerk response.

It gives the same degree of expression for above average games as a 97% average because you have only three categories of above average:
4 -> 98
4.5 -> 99
5 -> 100

Given that your initial choice for an average is essentially arbitrary, the factor you're left to play with is the degree of precision/expression. You have only three possible choices - which gives you the same expressive power as a 98/99/100 choice - or a 1/2/3 choice, for that matter. If your average were 2.5, you'd have 5 above average categories - giving your system significantly greater precision/expressive power.
Please try to understand the point being made. I didn't say the two systems were the same - I said they were the same in this respect: they have equivalent precision/expressive power [i.e. they're identical in this regard once the reader adjusts to the system]

Really? You really think 60% of a scale and 96% of a scale are comprable?

Which part of IN THIS RESPECT do you not understand? All of it, it seems.

With the reviews vs previews bit, it's just silly to suppose that because your reviews cover holistic gameplay, that previews should make no attempt to predict it. Again, I want to know what the building might look like - an educated, supported guess. I'm less interested to know how great the materials they're using to build it are.

Developer comments can easily be treated with scepticism without stating/implying that they're liars or incompetent. You simply have to put over the idea that making games is a difficult, unpredictable business: with the best of intentions, aspirations and efforts, talented teams can and do fail - either in part, or entirely. When a developer says "Feature X will be fixed", he usually means "We're going to do our best to fix feature X". You can doubt the chances of that by stating the facts, and calling it an optimistic/ambitious aim in your view.
That's not calling anyone a liar - it's simply calling them humans taking on a difficult, unpredictable task.

I can't be bothered to go on about the rest of what you're saying - I'm not trying to appear superior here with an "I can't be bothered with your crap..." exit. I simply can't be bothered. You're failing to see grey areas all over the place, and taking moderate points to extremes when it makes no sense to do so.
E.g., by all means critique muddy textures - just don't use it as an argument that you're holding the developers to account. You're making an obvious, inexpert remark that anyone could - nothing more.

And while I admit that getting at your repeated misspelling of "sentence" is a cheap shot, it's hardly something which inspires confidence in your journalistic abilities.

 

[robur]

1-2-3-4-5

Notice how 3 is in the middle? How does that make 3.5 the benchmark any sense?

Actually, it should be 2.5 - that's exactly the middle of 0-5. In other words, 5 divided by 2 is 2.5.

See: 1up's scale. It's pretty ballsy.

Heh, hadn't checked them in a while. So they combine the reviewers score with the users'? What's the weighting?

And what was the Oblivion score? And what will the Fallout 3 one be? Must. check.

EDIT: I checked. Interesting stuff.

Oblivion (PS3): Joe Rybicki says 9.5, readers say 8.8, total score 9.1
Oblivion (360): Patrick Joynt says 9.0, readers say 9.1, total score 9.1
Oblivion (PC): Patrick Joynt says 9.0, readers say 9.0, total score 9.0

Mhh. 9.5. Not too much air left there. I kinda shy away from such high ratings personally. I did, however, give Planescape the highest magazine rating back in the day in Germany. ;-) I think.

http://www.pcplayer.de/history/spieletests/gametest.php?game=planescape=6

 

[deadairis]

IN THIS RESPECT, it's as stupid as having a percentage system with an average of 97%. You get the same degree of expression - almost none. ...<snip>IN THAT RESPECT. I bolded it so that it'd hopefully be obvious even to those who'd be likely to come out with the predictable, knee-jerk response.

It gives the same degree of expression for above average games as a 97% average because you have only three categories of above average:
4 -> 98
4.5 -> 99
5 -> 100

Given that your initial choice for an average is essentially arbitrary

Except that lots of games don't make it to average.
Go look at target. Look at walmart. How many of those games do you think are "average?"
Beyond that, your whole assumption about how scales work is flawed.
If you have a scale that runs 1-10, and you're dealing with anyone who went through the US educational system -- which is the core audience for the 1-10 scale outlets -- then they'll assume "7" is average. A C average.
That's not arbitrary. That's using a system people know to give them a common frame of reference.
Beyond that, how many choices you have above the average isn't independant of how many choices you have below the average, and it isn't independant of the scale itself.
If your three "above average" choices are 1 out of 100 apart, and their are only 3 choices out of 100, they matter less -- either in the universal sense of the scale or the specific sense of their symbolic seperation from each other -- than if they are 1 out of ten apart, and are 30% of your scale.
I know you're trying to create an arguement where that isn't the case, but it is.
Here's an example:
The top 3% of all applicants will be accepted.
The top 30% of all applicants will be accepted.
Hm. Only the top 3/10 are being accepted...
but that extra 0 in the there seems to matter, doesn't it?

 

[robur]

If you have a scale that runs 1-10, and you're dealing with anyone who went through the US educational system -- which is the core audience for the 1-10 scale outlets -- then they'll assume "7" is average. A C average.

Interesting. In Germany, in high school you get 15 points for an A+, 12 for a B+, 9 for a C+. Hence 8 = C. Conveniently enough, 15/2 = 7. Almost there, as 7 = C-. Still average.

 

[deadairis]

Edit: Germany is crazy.
Crazy like a fox.
Yeah, can't say that 55%=C wouldn't make more sense here, but it doesn't.
I mean, we don't use metric, either.

So, Ziff-Davis' review scale:
the reviewer for 1up does his review. This is 1up's review.
UNLESS
it's a PC game, in which case the Games For Windows score is the 1up score as well.
EGM does a three part review, and the lead (biggest text, but same value) score is the score and review that 1up publishes as the EGM score.
The readers scores are strictly internal metrics: That EGM, 1up and GFW score are what the aggregators grab.
And all of those, I believe, are on a "5=average", 1-10 scale.
And you can see how it's a work in progress -- back in the Oblivion release days, I did the PC and 360 review for 1up; they hadn't integrated coverage with GFW yet (and, heck, it wasn't GFW yet).

1-2-3-4-5

Notice how 3 is in the middle? How does that make 3.5 the benchmark any sense?

Actually, it should be 2.5 - that's exactly the middle of 0-5. In other words, 5 divided by 2 is 2.5.

See: 1up's scale. It's pretty ballsy.

Heh, hadn't checked them in a while. So they combine the reviewers score with the users'? What's the weighting?

And what was the Oblivion score? And what will the Fallout 3 one be? Must. check.

EDIT: I checked. Interesting stuff.

Oblivion (PS3): Joe Rybicki says 9.5, readers say 8.8, total score 9.1
Oblivion (360): Patrick Joynt says 9.0, readers say 9.1, total score 9.1
Oblivion (PC): Patrick Joynt says 9.0, readers say 9.0, total score 9.0

Mhh. 9.5. Not too much air left there. I kinda shy away from such high ratings personally. I did, however, give Planescape the highest magazine rating back in the day in Germany. ;-) I think.

Uh, there's an issue -- this is all in some sort of weird moon language. I can't read your crazy moon language, mustache.
That noted, if ... jeez, if Torment had never been released and they released it today, as is, I'd probably still give it a 5/5.
4 for such hideous graphics; 5 for having the balls to stick to a cooler D&D mechanic.

http://www.pcplayer.de/history/spieletests/gametest.php?game=planescape=6

 

[robur]

So, Ziff-Davis' review scale:
the reviewer for 1up does his review. This is 1up's review.
UNLESS
it's a PC game, in which case the Games For Windows score is the 1up score as well.
EGM does a three part review, and the lead (biggest text, but same value) score is the score and review that 1up publishes as the EGM score.
The readers scores are strictly internal metrics: That EGM, 1up and GFW score are what the aggregators grab.

Vice versa it seems - the reviewer's rating is being grabbed by the aggregators, while the 1up score, the one right under the game's title, will be the mix of reviewer's and readers'. Right?

Uh, there's an issue -- this is all in some sort of weird moon language. I can't read your crazy moon language, mustache.
That noted, if ... jeez, if Torment had never been released and they released it today, as is, I'd probably still give it a 5/5.
4 for such hideous graphics; 5 for having the balls to stick to a cooler D&D mechanic.

Well, I gave it 89/100. I still think that's a pretty good rating. Leaves some good space up north. Might have given it 90 even, but back then we were very very careful with our 90 ratings. Would have maybe a handful per year. Kid you not.

 

[galsiah]

stuff that misses the point

First, I wasn't critiquing the entire system or implying that there isn't a tradeoff. I made a simple, factual observation:
The expressive power you have to say something about over average games is the same for a ...4/4.5/5 system as for a ...98/99/100 system.

The actual scores are a different issue - I'm simply talking about the number of categories you have. You have three categories, so if you have this situation:
Games A, B, C, D are above average.
Game A is clearly better than B.
B is better than C.
C is better than D.

Your system cannot express this through its scoring system. Its expressive power is very limited because it can't even differentiate four such above average games. Since you might presume that most players will be looking to purchase above average games, this is important.

With an average of 2.5 you can handle 5 such above average games - you only get stuck when there are 6 clearly different qualities. That's a significant benefit.


Your arguments about percentages in your post miss the point entirely - in those situations the percentages refer to something specific: e.g. 3% of all applicants.
Review scores do not - it's an arbitrary scale where the "%" means nothing - apart perhaps from "% of a perfect score" - which again means pretty much nothing, even where the scale is assumed linear (whatever that means for essentially arbitrary units).

I'm not trying to create an argument. I'm simply making a point: your system is needlessly lacking in expressive power for above average games - i.e. exactly where it's most important.
This is a fact, and it's the only point I'm making.
IN THIS RESPECT, your system sucks.
In other respects, it debatably sucks. (but I'm not arguing these)

I'm not saying that a 97% average is as good as a 3.5/5 average in any other sense, so do stop thinking/implying otherwise.

 

[deadairis]

Vice versa it seems - the reviewer's rating is being grabbed by the aggregators, while the 1up score, the one right under the game's title, will be the mix of reviewer's and readers'. Right?

God, that site has gotten messy since I wrote there.
The editor's scores are what are grabbed, from each of the three outlets. Readers scores, and the reader/editor average are not.

Uh, there's an issue -- this is all in some sort of weird moon language. I can't read your crazy moon language, mustache.
That noted, if ... jeez, if Torment had never been released and they released it today, as is, I'd probably still give it a 5/5.
4 for such hideous graphics; 5 for having the balls to stick to a cooler D&D mechanic.

Well, I gave it 89/100. I still think that's a pretty good rating. Leaves some good space up north. Might have given it 90 even, but back then we were very very careful with our 90 ratings. Would have maybe a handful per year. Kid you not.

I believe it. Does the German review system use 50 as an average?
I think I've given...a perfect score. Maybe two, but I can't think of the second.

 

[deadairis]

First, I wasn't critiquing the entire system or implying that there isn't a tradeoff. I made a simple, factual observation:
The expressive power you have to say something about over average games is the same for a ...4/4.5/5 system as for a ...98/99/100 system.

This is wrong. The context of the scale is important. You can disagree; you're wrong.
I realize I'm usually game for discussion, but you're wrong. The context of a scale matters. The expressive power of the scale takes into account the symbolic (in this case, numeric) difference between units in the scale, and it takes into account how many things are below the item you're discussing.
That's why being #1 (out of 2) is less cool than being #1 (out of 500,000). It's why being # 1, 2, and 3 out of 4 is less cool than out of 500,000.

I'm simply making a point: your system is needlessly lacking in expressive power for above average games - i.e. exactly where it's most important.
This is a fact, and it's the only point I'm making.

That's an interesting point.
It's not the one you've been making with your examples.
It's honestly not my fault I've been reading what you're writing, not what you wish you were writing. Robur managed to communicate a similiar point in, like, a paragraph.

As far as that goes? Interesting point. Why is that where it's most important? What's wrong with a scale that's the most easily understood by the largest part of the audience -- that 70 is an average, just like in US school for the US media's majority US audience? Other than it being "stupid."

galsiahI'm not saying that a 97% average is as good as a 3.5/5 average in any other sense, so do stop thinking/implying otherwise.

Stop not listening to me when I try to inform you how metrics work. I'm not going to stop thinking you're wrong when you're wrong, anymore than I'm going to think that a 97% average gives you as many meaningful above average choices as a 3.5/5 average does.
Because that's not, despite your (apparantly, unintentional) claim to the contrary -- "The expressive power you have to say something about over average games is the same for a ...4/4.5/5 system as for a ...98/99/100 system. "

 

[robur]

Well, I gave it 89/100. I still think that's a pretty good rating. Leaves some good space up north. Might have given it 90 even, but back then we were very very careful with our 90 ratings. Would have maybe a handful per year. Kid you not.

I believe it. Does the German review system use 50 as an average?
I think I've given...a perfect score. Maybe two, but I can't think of the second.

PC Player had a reputation of catering to the older gamers who could understand that 50 was average and that a game in *their* favourite genre with a 65 rating might still be worth checking out. I gave that court adventure "In the 1st Degree" a 50something and personally played it three times for all the different endings. PC Player folded when Future pulled the plug on the German operations. Nowadays, sadly, I believe 70 is more the average with some PR people believing it should be 80 cause 70 games don't sell. Whatever. I'm happy that I don't have to review games anymore.