What the fuck is going on at RPGdot?

[Sol Invictus]

I provided two game examples, about 30 minutes ago. Refresh your browser.

Oh yeah, Arx Fatalis should read 2.5/5 stars which is 50%, not 2/5 stars.

 

[ichpokhudezh]

50 is the average of the numbers 1 to 100. Hence, 50% is "average".

F+. Plus is for the "hence" instead of the plain-jane "therefore".
Ask for help if you unable to come up with another solution in five minutes.

ps. ok, bonus 5 points if you can demonstrate what is wrong with your prior statement.

 

[LlamaGod]

@llamagod, you suck at making intelligent arguments. I'd challenge you to the same thing as Exitium but I already know you'd fail. !!!11111!!

because i'm right.

you guys are too pussy and lame to give any game a low score so you just make up magic numbers and say 50% = bottom rating as an excuse.

I would say most of your reviews are 80%+, so yeah, 20% away from 100% is AVERAGE. Alright.

dont be a woman.

edit: and okay, say you're setting your "averages" high... you're basically saying you give out high scores for free? Same argument against you. You guys suck.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I confused averages with the median.

Moving on: GameSpot states on their review scores page that 7.0-7.9 represents the 'average' score for a game, which when you think about it, makes the numbers arbitrary meaningless.

How do you differentiate a 7.8 from a 7.9? In any case, they are saying that every game rates as a 7.0-7.9, which in their rating system means "Good"

7.0-7.9: "Good"
A game within this range is good and is likely worth playing by fans of its particular genre or by those otherwise interested. While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults. A low 7 represents the average score on GameSpot, which is suggestive of the fact that the typical game found on store shelves is actually pretty good.

I can't accept the 'idea' that the average game is a good game, when in fact most games are really mediocre.

p.s. If 5 = 100%, then 2.5 = 50%

 

[Dhruin]

Well, you did give me an example, even if it is years old. I don't I agree they think Arx is average - he lists a long litany of problems.

Check out Gamerankings:

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/ ... %20Fatalis

Average user rating is 7.5/10, so if you tell me the general public thinks Arx is "average", then they obviously understand 75% to be an average score. If I tell them 50%, that communicates "just barely passed" to them.

@llamagod; I'd say I have faith in you saying something worthwhile, only...I don't. Keep your chin up, though - that was almost a sentence.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Reviewers of any sort made the %-based score arbitrary when they started taking bribes from movie studios and publishers. I'm sure that when the scoring system was initially established, 50% was regarded as the average, based on the median.

But as the bribes increased and poor or average films, and games started receiving mid-60% to 70% scores, gamers, readers and moviegoers alike associated the range with the 'average' because the reviewers seemed to reserve that range for games or movies that were mediocre either received a bribe to do so, or allowed "70% = average" meme to infect their psyches.

Pete Hines was clearly not under the influence of the meme when he reviewed Betrayal In Antara, because it was, by all means, an average game and he rated it as such, according to the average based on the median.

 

[Atrokkus]

A game like Quake 3 would score high on Visuals, Audio and Overall but it might plummet in regards to Longevity and Gameplay.

Hahah. Quake3 is almost as popular today as it was in its release year. Gameplay is purely a matter of personal preference.

 

[LlamaGod]

Stop pussyfooting around, jeez. You do this every argument, you throw sassy comments and then disappear.



The examples provided proove why AVault was a good review site and why RPGDot isnt. They had in depth reviews that showed the game for what they were and not what the general hyped opinion was (like you guys do). Doesnt help you got idiots like Corwin and Kristophe.

Instead of coming up with real reviews you just spew out the 'favorable opinion'.

So you set your average to 75% just because thats the 'public view'? That's a crappy excuse. So it's cool and dandy to basically give most games a free 60%+? Why do you even do it to begin with? Why not just remove the 60% and lower your maximum rating?


And for giggles, here's 6 randomly picked RPGDot review scores:

82%
82% (for Might and Magic 9, ha)
88%
91%
95%
82%


You guys are such wussies.

 

[Screaming_life]

... So you set your average to 75% just because thats the 'public view'?

And why not? what difference does it make? if the general consensus is that 70-75% is "average" then there is no confusion, it's just a number afterall.

Besides, it's all subjective anyway. I know i'd much prefer to play a 70% gothic than a 90% Diablo.

 

[Rat Keeng]

That would force someone like me, to first learn what exactly the general consensus for "average" is. I don't tour gaming sites and forums on a daily basis, i'm not able to keep up with what the current trend in "averages" is. Instead, i've reached the conclusion that ratings are completely meaningless, and i never ever judge a game differently, just because it's gotten "low" ratings, AKA the dreaded below 70%.

Come to think of it, why even measure a rating in percentages, if the scale is 50-100? That's just confusing.

 

[Pr()ZaC]

I don't know... when I saw a surprising high score given to the Bard's Tale game I stopped reading their reviews.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Lake Wobegon: Where all the children are above average

 

[DarkSign]

In an attempt to show your e-peens everyone here is going overboard.

I use statistics on a daily basis, but instead of dazzling everyone with that, I was attempting to appeal to your common sense.

Yes. Scores of 50% might not be the statistical average of RPGidot scores. In fact, Im betting that the majority of scores (yes not very specific) scores are within 1 standard deviation of 80% based on what others have said.

But colloquially, by most people over the course of my particular, strange, sad life most people would say that when the top of the range is 10 and the bottom is 1, that 5 is in the middle...and therefore average.

Now Ill go to the other side and say that perhaps not everyone feels that a priori that 50% is average. Some might take their grammar school grades which make 75% average as a measuring system.

Have fun matching (half-)wits over mathematical terms. But you're glossing over common sense.

 

[obediah]

Exactly, when has 50% ever been "average" except in maths?! Average is around 70% in my book.

It's fragile little girl syndrome. The fact is setting the "average" at halfway between the min and max (i.e. 50% for percentages) offers the most descriptive power. If you want to know how well someone knows something, you write tests so that the average student gets half wrong. But someone decided it was more important to make students feel good about themselves, than to actually see how much they knew. Then it caught on to sports, entertainment reviews, etc...it's all more about making people feel good than actually evaluating things. Everyone that participates in it shouldn't be taken to task at every opportunity.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Yeah it's definitely a 'fragile girl syndrome' as you call it. Couldn't have said it better myself. A lot of schools do it. Instead of setting the passing mark to a low 30% they instead make it impossible for anyone, excepting someone suffering from down's syndrome to get a score that's lower than 60%.

 

[Calis]

Review scaling: Yeah, it's dumb to have a scale you're only ever gonna use the top 40% of.
Common sense says that scores in game reviews are a dumb idea in general, though. The only way they'll ever make sense is if the review site in question provides a translation table with what they mean, like: "70% - some enjoyment to be had, but by no means one of the better games in its class". And if you're gonna provide a translation table, *why not just say that stuff in your review* ?

Providing review scores cooked up by *different reviewers* for *different kinds of games* as a way to provide scores to rank games by makes even less sense. The only way to ever have that make any kind of sense is to do it in the IMDB way, by having lots and lots of people submit scores for something and then averaging. And even then all you have is a lot of numbers with extremely limited significance.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'd actually defend RPGDot by saying that they tend not to review bad games deserving of low scores... ah, but then there's Sudeki.

Didn't Dungeon Lords get a 80% there? And Dungeon Siege 2 got a 90%?

 

[Calis]

Exactly, when has 50% ever been "average" except in maths?! Average is around 70% in my book.

It's fragile little girl syndrome. The fact is setting the "average" at halfway between the min and max (i.e. 50% for percentages) offers the most descriptive power. If you want to know how well someone knows something, you write tests so that the average student gets half wrong. But someone decided it was more important to make students feel good about themselves, than to actually see how much they knew. Then it caught on to sports, entertainment reviews, etc...it's all more about making people feel good than actually evaluating things. Everyone that participates in it shouldn't be taken to task at every opportunity.

If you think that you can actually ascertain how well someone knows something with 2-digit precision by use of a written test, you're kidding yourself. And the grade itself would not have to be directly based on "portion of questions answered correctly", either.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

I'd actually defend RPGDot by saying that they tend not to review bad games deserving of low scores... ah, but then there's Sudeki.

Didn't Dungeon Lords get a 80% there? And Dungeon Siege 2 got a 90%?

And FOBOS got a 64%

 

[DarkSign]

Saying that "they only review decent games" is the worst fucking defense I have ever heard.

They should be warning us of the bad ones not to spend our money on!

 

[Tintin]

Saying that "they only review decent games" is the worst fucking defense I have ever heard.

They should be warning us of the bad ones not to spend our money on!

Uh, isn't that basically what they're doing by not reviewing the bad games?

 

[aboyd]

You seem to think that my entire life revolves around the RPG Codex (or Duck and Cover, even though I don't post there, or even lurk). That might be true for you, but it isn't true for me.

A man with 8749 posts is saying this to a man with 38 posts.

 

[Elwro]

Uh, isn't that basically what they're doing by not reviewing the bad games?

Yeah, but you never know if the review isn't coming up next week.

 

[Dhruin]

But colloquially, by most people over the course of my particular, strange, sad life most people would say that when the top of the range is 10 and the bottom is 1, that 5 is in the middle...and therefore average.

Now Ill go to the other side and say that perhaps not everyone feels that a priori that 50% is average. Some might take their grammar school grades which make 75% average as a measuring system.

Have fun matching (half-)wits over mathematical terms. But you're glossing over common sense.

No, I'm not. Props to Exitium to finding a site that uses a different scale - I'd forgotten about AVault and they did indeed used to write some good reviews. However, if everyone accepted that as common sense, then Gamerankings (and every other site for that matter) would reflect that. When Average Joe votes at Gamerankings or GameSpot or wherever, he sure as hell uses 70-75% as average -- go take a look.

The funny thing is, so do many of you guys.

If 50% is average, it stands to reason 60% is a reasonable score -- not greatest evar! but a little above average.

When Gamebanshee reviewed ToEE and gave it 6/10, there was a general outcry. Saint says "OUCH!", Exitium says Crap!" and "it's pretty harsh to give the game a 60%", VD says "it's a solid 80% minimum".

Bottom line - you guys know damn well that 60% is "Crap!". Where was the "60%? OK, so it's a bit above average? I'd rate it higher but that's fair".

Pretty hilarious, really.

Stop pussyfooting around, jeez. You do this every argument, you throw sassy comments and then disappear.

I throw sassy comments because every post directed at me is something like "RPGDot sucks!!!111111". It's a waste of time to even read. This would be the first time you actually said something to me that looks like an actual communication. I disappeared becuase it was 11:30pm and I was trying to finish the Fable review (yes, a shitty overrated one, no doubt).

No, it's not a crappy excuse to use 75% as average because that's the "public view". It makes sense because otherwise a review that's meant to read "just a little above average" gets an "OUCH!" response even from this site.

Here's a serious response you'll just trash me for: yes, RPGDot reviews too high in general. 50% isn't average and probably never will be but I would like to see our scores come down. There's a variety of reasons I won't go into, because it will just turn into a circus rather than a useful conversation.

@Darksign, rather than asking us to protect you, why don't you lobby RPG Codex for some actual content?

BTW, the irony is one of our worst overrated scores ( ToEE got 94% ), didn't raise a single comment about the score. Noone worried about the integrity of scoring if they like the game, eh?

 

[Pr()ZaC]

BTW, the irony is one of our worst overrated scores ( ToEE got 94% ), didn't raise a single comment about the score. Funny stuff.

Holy shit! Well, if it's not too late then PLEASE, kick the reviewer in the nuts for me.
That title would have scored that much only if BUGS were the game!