Shorts: Naka interview · Autographed copies of PSOBB

[Double-S-]

The universe is expanding, so it can't be infinite. It has to be expanding into <i>something</i>. Unless it's expanding into itself.

I don't see WHERE scientists manage to pull this out of. I mean, what do we know about anything beyond our own solar system?

For example, Stephen Hawking's theory that the expanding universe was related to time what absolutely absurd. He said when the universe started collapsing time would go backwards... because as time goes on the universe gets bigger, so obviously if the universe gets smaller time will go backwards. Uh, sure, okay.

Anyways, Zeta's explanation makes the most sense.

[CE]

No. You can't seriously "rate" a game playing experience with numbers. It doesn't work that way. There are too many dynamics involved. And using numbers even to describe your own personal opinion has no informative value, because nobody knows precisely what your numbers mean except you, and even your own perception of these numbers will change based on mood and a million other things.

I find the meanings to be quite stationary. I'd rather play a 5 game then a 4 game, I'd rather play a 4 game then a 3 game, and I'd rather not play a 2 or 1 game. Of course, my 4's may be your 5's or 3's, but as I said, there tends to be a margin of error of 1 point between my rating and someone else's.

1 to 10 does not give you a full range of emotions!
It must be from 1 to 1000 for minimal margin of error!

I find that having more then a 10 point scale actually *increases* the overall error. Where as previously a "good" 4 would become a "great" 5, now you can have a "kinda good" 70 become an "absolutely awesome" 95. While I haven't paid nearly as much attention to 100 point scales as I have to 5 point scales, my guess would be that you'd have to increase the error to over 23 points to get the same 90% accuracy.

It is easier to hit a large target then a small one.

[chriscaffee]

I don't see WHERE scientists manage to pull this out of. I mean, what do we know about anything beyond our own solar system?

Certainly not mathematics or phenomonon in the real world. I find it funny that you label Hawking's theories as absurd when your sole knowledge on the subject consists of maybe two terms of basic college physics. That isn't to say that Hawking's ideas aren't wrong, but just saying they are absurd with no actual counterpoints or arguments is pretty weak.

[smiths32]

I have to say that I don't like the point scale a very lot, and one of the main reasons I don't like it is because a game's franchise adds a certain number of points to it. For example, a game with "Mario" in the title will probably get at least 6 (on a scale of 1 to 10) points for that. Games like Mario Pinball and Mario Party 4- while not being abysmal- received a larger score than something completely unknown prbably would have. Whereas a quick summary of the game's main pros and cons at the end would allow a reader to see if he or she felt that they could handle the cons and would enjoy the game's positive points and could ignore any emphaisis on how so and so's in it.

Also, the number values vary greatly from game to game (or genre to genre to be slightly more exact). I mean, giving Super Mario Bros. 3 a 1/10 for story doesn't really matter, while giving Final Fantasy VII a 10/10 for story does matter because the story is probably the most important element of it.

[Green Gibbon!]

I find the meanings to be quite stationary. I'd rather play a 5 game then a 4 game, I'd rather play a 4 game then a 3 game, and I'd rather not play a 2 or 1 game. Of course, my 4's may be your 5's or 3's, but as I said, there tends to be a margin of error of 1 point between my rating and someone else's.

But that's what I'm saying... these numbers mean nothing to anybody except the reviewer, and even then, a game he'd rate "3" one day might have been "4" if he'd rated it the next day.

You can either like or dislike a game, and even to infinite varying degrees between, but there's no accurate or even approximate way to measure this. Thought patterns are too abstract to be numbered. And again, that still asn't as big a sin as using such numbers to make decisions about what to buy and/or play, yet so many people do, and that's just careless and lazy.

[Frieza2000]

The universe is a wrap around. One day, it's all going to converge on the point of the big bang, which will be known as the big un-bang. Then the next big bang will occur an instant later.

Nakasan_UKG? The old gaming group UKG? Hey, do you remember the XTC? We're still around...sorta.

[Delphine]

For example, Stephen Hawking's theory that the expanding universe was related to time what absolutely absurd.
<snip>
Anyways, Zeta's explanation makes the most sense.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Double-S-]

What?

<I>"No, the law of the conservation of energy, as well as laws of entrophy - pretty much mean that the universe has an end to it. If it were infinite, for instance - we'd have energy and matter popping out of nowhere all the time.

The very fact that energy and matter are available in limited amounts means that the universe itself is limited. "</I>

This makes a hell of a lot more sense than "time is interlaced with the size of the universe".

[Guest]

What's funny is they don't contradict each other!

[CE]

You can either like or dislike a game, and even to infinite varying degrees between, but there's no accurate

That is correct, there is no way to reliably get a accurate representation of one person's feelings as a number.

or even approximate way to measure this. Thought patterns are too abstract to be numbered. And again, that still asn't as big a sin as using such numbers to make decisions about what to buy and/or play, yet so many people do, and that's just careless and lazy.

This still seems too strong a statement to me. If you can create a good approximation of your feelings using just the words "very bad", "bad", "ok", "good", and "very good", what's wrong with asigning numbers to each statement? So now I can give a game a 1 when I think it is "very bad", a 2 when I think it is "bad", and so on.

Now obviously, I don't want to play a bad game; if it is bad then I'm not enjoying it. So I don't want to buy any game that gets a 1 or 2. Of course, you have to make sure that when you normalize the scores to a five point scale, you account for the rating inflation in the numerical scores. An IGN 60% denotes a much worse game then a GameCritics 60%.[/quote]

[Double-S-]

The thing is I don't want to buy a game on someone else's "very bad", "bad", "ok", "good", or "very good". I want to know about the game, not what this other guy thinks about it.

[Baba O'Reily]

Hey, let's laugh at some other pointlessly bitter people!
http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/sh ... genumber=1

[Omni Hunter]

What?

<I>"No, the law of the conservation of energy, as well as laws of entrophy - pretty much mean that the universe has an end to it. If it were infinite, for instance - we'd have energy and matter popping out of nowhere all the time.

The very fact that energy and matter are available in limited amounts means that the universe itself is limited. "</I>

This makes a hell of a lot more sense than "time is interlaced with the size of the universe".

I know this goes back a bit but...
The fact is that energy can only travel through the vacuum in space via light energy (stars and suns that we can see) and radiation. The only thing limiting the energy transference is the vacuum. Let's also remember that a lot of space is in fact "space" which is a lack of all substance and so does not give off nor contain energy for us to use.

[Baba O'Reily]

Wow. That was an intellectual, well-thought out, researched, deep post.
BUT THE THREAD HAS BEEN DEAD FOR A MONTH.

[Omni Hunter]

No shit... I jus realised after I made the post.
My bad

(Edit) Mind you I could have gone into an even more in depth answer if I wanted to.