It means whatever the assigned rating is, excellent, great etc. 9/10 means significantly better than 5/10 and better than 8/10. It has a qualitative value and a quantitative value.
Don't know what the first sentence means. What is being measured to determine the difference between 5 and 9?
Look man we can talk about semantics all day long and be bla blabalba it doesn't mean anything, but it does. Look at ratings on any website, especially meta ones, which add together the reviews of hundreds of people who do this for a living or casually: 90s : SUPER MARIO GALAXY Grand Theft Auto IV Uncharted 2: Among Thieves The Orange Box 60/50s: Viva Pinata: Party Animals Rocketmen: Axis of Evil Smash Court Tennis 3 Shrek the Third Fairytale Fights Don't try to tell me there is not a difference there.
Well I haven't played any of the games in the second list, but I reckon it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that GTA 4 is anywhere near as good as Galaxy. And The Orange Box? I don't think many albums would fare well against The Beatles' discography. Is your point that you like the first list better than the second? Because my point is that assigning the games numbers is bullshit, not giving positive reviews.
I never payed much attention to you before but I rather think people on this board are pretty cool so I will just ignore you for a little while and hopefully I will forget.
You said that the numbers don't mean anything while they clearly do. I don't expect you to be familiar with qualitative or quantitative rating scales and statistics but come on man. Doesn't take a genius to see that the games in the 9s are far better than the ones in the 6. Its very very simple, and you know it is, don't try to think too hard about it. 10= amazing, 0=horrible, 5= average ish. These things are rated subjectively by a large number of people, and when you pool that all together, if in general people say a game is a 9, and another is a 6, there is a very very good chance, unless there is some sort of anomaly, that the 9 game is far superior to the 6 game. Sorry for not bashing the system.
Yeah I know how metacritic works, it doesn't determine the numbers, it just uses them, I've got no problem with a website doing some maths. It's the individual scores. How are they determined? Is that scale you just posted what everyone uses? What if a game is more amazing than a 10? Is a 9/10 not amazing? What criteria are you using to measure? Does everyone use that criteria?
It's not perfect and its all over the place, just like any other subjective rating scale in the world. It is currently the best we have. Each website has their own rating system which they describe. You know this stuff.
the crux of all of this is that most all gaming websites assign a number based upon what are thought of as established and agreed upon standards, or feature sets; ones that these publications think that consumers will look for and support/deny with their dollars. Yes, sometimes it simply comes down to "this game has an inconsistent framerate" and that's a nice legitimate objective criticism, but too often now "journalists" talk more about what isn't there that they expected before even starting a game, or in the most egregious of offenses they go into the approximate amount of time they feel you'll enjoy a game, or spend more time weighing it against one of its peers. As if to monetize a unique interactive experience down to the raw cash value/minute. bah, i dont know I could go on for way too long on this topic, but all I know is that one of my most beloved gaming experiences of this gen is sitting pretty with a 67 on metacritic, and I could give a rats ass. Can we get back to butt-fucking donkey kong with our raging retro studios/platforming hard-ons?
lol And one person saying they really like a game that is a 67 is very useless, which is probably why you guys dont like ratings at all. But one person saying that and one person saying "I recognize that this is a relatively "worse" game than most "great" games right now, but I like this style so for me personally I would give it a high rating for myself, me, I" Those are different things. I recognize that some of the games I love aren't as GREAT overall or enjoyable by many people in a huge way because of my tastes. Also, one person saying a game is a 65, who cares, but if its someone who does it for a living, sees games every day (although we all think they are idiots), and there are 50 of them who rated this game independently and the average is 65, vs. another game that is a 90, to ignore this is pretty ignorant. IGNORANT WINNERS OF DANCING WITH THE STARS ARE BETTER THAN THOSE WHO WERE KICKED OUT EARLY /IGNORANT
None of the BT games are that low on MC. It's Fragile Dreams, and honestly went I went to look up the MC score I was surprised that it's as high as it is new trailer here. i'm not watching it because I've officially gone dark until I get this game: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/exclusive-eruption-donkey-kong/707131
One of the biggest disappointments I've ever played. I seriously can't see how you could like anything about that game aside from the intro cuscene.
It has to do with how the game truly makes you feel like the relatively helpless and lost child that you're controlling, and about his place in a vast and largely uninteresting world that has been left to him (and select others), and the respite he discovers from other forms of consciousness/intelligence (human or otherwise). It's less a game in the conventional sense and more an experience, taking you from moments of beauty, to fear, to tedium, to remorse, to introspection, to wonder. It comments, sometimes bluntly but often subtly, on the fragile nature of existence, on human interaction, intuition, love, regret, growth etc. My failure of a ghost town of a blog has a review that I'm fairly happy with several months removed. anyway, fuck all that, I hope that Rambi isn't the only animal pal that we can weild/ride
yes, please, back to eijqrnviniqenviouqenv. Definitely agree, I love rambi, but I would hope for at least 2 other animals to be riding around. Squack has been in just about every game, no? He would make a fine addition. No water levels means no swordfish dude, whatever his name was. which is a shame, cause i loved messing up fish with his sword nose. Maybe a new one? they introduced a new one in every game i believe, though the elephant in 3 was a pussy.
Sorry to go "offtopic" one more time but... as much as I tried to get sucked in by the atmosphere this game tried to deliver I was always held back by the horrendous voice acting(the main character sounded like a pussy emo Michael Jackson that just got butthole-raped), the archaic gameplay mechanics and the crippled animations which severely lack some mocap. A typical case of a game that could've been so much better if the maker had had more money and effort to put into the project.
and another new trailer! [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj-tkwelhGw"]YouTube - Donkey Kong Country Returns Trailer (Europe)[/ame]
You shoulda switched to Japanese VO with subs. SOOOOOOOOO MUCH better, both because the voice actors have more feeling, and because the subs are decently poetic, in a japanese way, much of the time.
Yeah.. American voice acting is mostly atrocious and fucking rapes memorable experiences. Thank God Shigeru knows this and therefore Link will never say anything other than "HIIYAAAHH"
It's not ignorant, because it's subjective. Even though I think gaming journalism is in a sorry state at the moment, it wouldn't make a difference if I was on board with all of the major websites' writers. It doesn't matter how much someone gets paid to play video games, if they like different things to you (highly likely, as we're all individuals), it doesn't matter. GREAT games are games that you think are great. Do you trust metacritic for it's music reviews? I'd really like to know the answer to this, because if you don't, I'd like to know what's different, and if you do, our brains must function so differently that it's remarkable that we're even able to have a conversation. Also the judges collectively think that the winners are better, they aren't better, but the participants go in to the competition knowing this.
Yes, Uncharted has great voice acting. Tho, it was made as "movie" featuring real actors and shit. That's bound to be at least acceptable. I should have said that what i meant was "Japanese" games have horrible English dubs. (But lots of english ones do to)
There are structures that we consider as positive and some as negative. We have an understanding of what is good and what is bad. We have the ability to separate ourself from our subjective view points to some extent, and we have the ability to agree upon what is good and what is bad. Just because I think my 1995 toyota tercel is fucking awesome, doesn't mean its a better car than a new car that is better than is in every dimension that we consider good (e.g., speed, gas mileage, looks, comfort, etc). That is only ONE opinion too, I am talking about many many opinions. This is very simple stuff man, I know you are trying to make a point by saying its semantics and its subjective. I know its subjective, I am saying our subjectivity is based on an agreement to a great extent on what is good, and that an amalgamation of subjective opinions. I don't expect you to understand classical or latent response theories or anything like that, but saying that a 6/10 and a 9/10 based on 50 ratings for a game means nothing, is BS. Same thing, if its just ONE person, there is lots of room for error there, but it still means something. So if I think a game is great for me (i.e., some "boring" RPGs) that doesn't mean I would say its a great game, because I understand that I am not like everyone and I might like things that are a bit further away from what we consider great aspects of games (e.g., slow battles and long dialogues). Same thing about women. You can tell when a chick is hot as FUCK, but maybe you prefer more the one with the fat nose cause she reminds you of your mother. I've never used metacritic, and if I did, I probably wouldn't use it for music. They are completely different in so many aspects that to think you would think they are somehow comparable would lead me to believe our brains must function so differently that it's remarkable that we're even able to have a conversation.
Fuck I want this game more than almost any other game. I bet it will be FUN. Fuck I want a wii. SHIT. I should borrow it from my coworker when she leaves for weekend, but she doesn't have galaxy 2..
Cognacad, my problem is assigning numbers to things that are not measurable. Not people thinking things are better than other things. I'm not saying a positive review doesn't mean anything, I'm saying a 9/10 doesn't mean anything. Please keep this in mind if you decide to respond. There are no agreed upon objective criteria for video games. Speed and gas mileage are measurable, and based on fact. You can easily separate cars based on this and apply ratings. Looks and comfort aren't, there is nothing measurable about how good a car looks, and this is the case with video games. You can say that one game is better than another, because the story, the art design, the physics, the control, the score, etc are better, but they're all subjective. I can say the same thing about the opposite game and neither of is incorrect. Neither of us are more correct than each other or a gaming journalist. Nobody here is suggesting that 50 positive reviews isn't a better indicator than no indicator at all, giving it a numbered rating is my problem (and has been all along). So if I think one person assigning a game a number is meaningless, obviously I think the mean of 50 peoples' numbers is meaningless. These criteria you are talking about do not exist. There are no "aspects" that everybody agrees make a game (or a woman) great. Just another art form, I figured 'cause we're a music forum it might help address the point. I know people naturally want to try and "prove" that their favourite art is better than everything else, and that's probably why these systems exist, it only bothers me so much, because people put so much stock in the number, alone, when the number, alone, provides no indication at all as to whether or not you will like something.
Man I am not reading all that after you say something is not measurable. Everything is measurable, EVERYTHING. When we say something is beautiful, it is a measure. Just because it cannot be purely objectively measured using some sort of physical standard does not mean it cannot be measured. A 9/10, if decided to be better than a 6/10, on an ordinal scale, means that 9 is better or whatever than 6 in that context. That is a measure. It is not perfect, but it is a measure. So if someone gives a 9/10, they are saying it is not a 10/10, or a 6/10, but it is a 9/10, which they have qualitatively described as better than 6/10. Enough of those 9/10s and you get some decent data.
and if someone does it for money it DOES mean something. The money doesn't cause a good rating, its just associated with someone who does it for a living and is familiar with a system. Ask my grandmother to review a video game, she has never played one and wouldn't rate worth shit. Someone is is paid is not my grand mother.
So you're saying when someone gives a game a number out of ten, they're ordering every game they've played from most liked to least liked and dividing them into groups of ten, and seeing where the game lands? I wouldn't trust a review from your grandmother, I've never met her. I might trust the opinion of someone who's paid to do it, if I've found that they like similar things in games to me. I don't want you to hate me, I don't hate you
Just because we can't measure something now doesn't mean it is impossible to do so, especially not subjectively. Pleasure and suffering and memory are relatively easy ones too, moral standing, now that a conundrum.
Well, from my understanding, measurement requires a baseline. X number of something out of Y somethings. Memory has no known limit, so its Y would be infinite. Immeasurable? Mike Thibodeau: 10:30 PM nothing is measurable can also be said 10:30 PM there I SAID IT 10:30 PM ITS OUT THERE 10:30 PM FOREVER Aaaand now back on topic, that last trailer posted actually looked somehow cooler to me than earlier ones. I'm definitely interested in this game. /edit: goddammit
