Shorts: Naka interview · Autographed copies of PSOBB

[Green Gibbon!]

There's absolutely no way you can express complex thoughts with numbers the way you can with words. No matter how detailed you try to be with your scale, be it from 1-5, 1-10, or any number of fractal divisions between, you are telling me nothing about the game in question. If you're going to condense your opinions so drastically, why not reduce it to a simple, "I liked it" or "I didn't like it?" (Which, of course, still tells me nothing.) If that's all it's going to come down to, there's no reason to reconstitute the generalization to some absurd mathematical formula. It's even more absurd on the part of the reader to make sweeping generalizations about what these numbers mean (as Light Speed and Double S have so amusingly demonstrated).

[Delphine]

Del, you get a 7/10.

That's higher than I was expecting, actually.

[chriscaffee]

<I>There's absolutely no way you can express complex thoughts with numbers the way you can with words.</I>

Some thoughts are better expressed with numbers then words, not to go on a tangent or anything.

<I>No matter how detailed you try to be with your scale, be it from 1-5, 1-10, or any number of fractal divisions between, you are telling me nothing about the game in question.</I>

No. But again, the reason is for comparitive purposes between different titles. You are saying that the number is insufficient for a task that it isn't designed for. So I fail to see what that has to do with anything. A 50-page deconstruction about Half-Life doesn't tell me whether or not the reveiwer liked it more then Dark Forces. So that detailed reveiw of complex thoughts is useless in that respect.

<I>If you're going to condense your opinions so drastically, why not reduce it to a simple, "I liked it" or "I didn't like it?" (Which, of course, still tells me nothing.) If that's all it's going to come down to, there's no reason to reconstitute the generalization to some absurd mathematical formula.</I>

Again, because "I liked it" or "I didn't like it" doesn't say whether you liked VOOT more then Soul Calibur. An 8.5 versus a 10 does. Then one can read the reveiws to see the reasons why.

<I>It's even more absurd on the part of the reader to make sweeping generalizations about what these numbers mean (as Light Speed and Double S have so amusingly demonstrated).</I>

Ratings serve to instantly communicate how the reviewer felt about the game. By seeing that someone reviewed Astroboy as a 3/10, Double-S- inferred that someone thought the game was shit and wondered who. How is that a sweeping generalization? It seems to me to be a fair assumption that if a reviewer rates something as a 3/10 the reveiwer must think it was shit.

[bcdcdude]

Hmm...perhaps i said it wrong. What i mean to imply is that out of all the Sonic Team (or Sonic Team related games), Astro Boy is the game that would most similar to Burning Rangers. Of course - having only seen pictures i cannot comment on the game myself, but when i see Astro Boy, the mechanics of the game reminds me of Burning Rangers the most.

When i heard of the poor reviews, it made me think that a new Burning Rangers may not be a good idea if Astro Boy leaves anything to be desired. I don't really care for the numbers, (i do actually read the entire review), but i've heard that the game is not very good anyway.

For whoever wanted to know - Teletext is kinda like the internet on a TV. In that the pages are updated every day. That's as bluntly as i can put it. There is a video game page which is updated every day, and is quite a good one.

[Baba O'Reily]

words

You're getting an 8/10. Pipe down.

[Delphine]

I knew you liked the cock. I just knew it.

[Crazy Penguin]

I knew you liked the cock. I just knew it.

Baba likes the cock, the goose and the rooster.

[Grant]

That was funnier than it should've been.

[plasticwingsband]

I give that joke two thumbs up.

[Grant]

500/517.

[Baba O'Reily]

It's funny, because I suddenly hate you all.

[Green Gibbon!]

Chris, even if you want to compare one game to another (which is largely irrelevant in a review unless there are striking similarities between the games), you can still do it better in words than you can with some arbitrary numeral.

The absurdity of numerical ratings for something like games is that it pretends to inject mathematic accuracy into something that is not mathematic. What's the precise difference between a 3 game and a 4 game? Or a 3 game with one reviewer from a 4 game with another? If you want to quickly and concisely state that you like or dislike a game, for God's sake, just say: "It's cool" or "It sucks". This playing with numbers is just a load of bullshit and a way to complicate a simple thought into something laughably self-important.

However, again, it probably wouldn't bother me as much if there weren't so many brainless sheep who follow these ridiculous numerals like some goddamn bible. "Oh, I never buy anything this magazine rates lower than a 6." Seriously. I mean seriously.


Go back and play your Halo. You miss the point of life again.

[Double-S-]

If it's a game that I know little to nothing about, I look up info and check its ratings from a summary site like Gamerankings.com, which usually does give a decent rating. Still, I take everything I see with a entirely large grain of salt because I disagree with most everything reviewers say anyways.

[CE]

GG, don't you think you're being a bit strong by saying that all numerical reviews are useless? I find numerical reviews to be useful to quickly identify the absolute crap and must consider games. Any game that ends up getting less then 50% on average is almost centianly absolute shit, and any game is over 90% should definately be considered. This is useful to know!

[Segaholic2]

And what if you happen to disagree with the reviewer's opinion? The reason numerical reviews are so useless is because a review is essentially the reviewer's opinion of a game. You can make a much better judgment on that person's opinion of the game through reading an actual review, rather than just looking at some arbitrary number the guy pulled out of his ass.

[Green Gibbon!]

CE, you're not getting any more information from that than you would if the review consisted of nothing but the words: "It's cool" or "It sucks." There's nothing you'll get from that number that you won't in greater detail and more accuracy from actually bothering to read his review. It's really not that difficult or time consuming.

This has been infuriating me for years, and it's no wonder when evidently so many people are so eager to be lead by this nonsense. Seriously. If it's a game you're considering buying, you should be willing to read the goddamn review and not make your decision based on some ridiculous number. All those damn numbers are doing is facilitating laziness and ignorance.

[Baba O'Reily]

*Insert comment about music and reviews here*

[chriscaffee]

<I>Chris, even if you want to compare one game to another (which is largely irrelevant in a review unless there are striking similarities between the games), you can still do it better in words than you can with some arbitrary numeral.</I>

Okay. Now you tell me the reveiw crew that compares every game to every other games in essay form. Oh they don't. Well how about a comparison in every game within the same genre? Oh they don't do that either. Well how about every game within the same genre on the same console? Oh they don't do even that.

I guess I will have to stick to the numbers when comparing two games, because unfortunately, there is no comparison with Soul Calibur in a given Virtual On review.

<I>The absurdity of numerical ratings for something like games is that it pretends to inject mathematic accuracy into something that is not mathematic.</I>

No it doesn't. The point is purely for ranking purposes. The reveiwer likes one game better then another, but not as much as another, so he assigns it a number in between those two games. It's an opinion, no more or less valid then "the camera is shit" or "the art is beautiful."

<I>What's the precise difference between a 3 game and a 4 game? Or a 3 game with one reviewer from a 4 game with another?</I>

I would say the difference is that the reviewer liked the 4 game better then the 3 game. Obviously no reviewing system is universal since they are all opinion based. But that is no different from comparing two written reiews. One person could love Sonic Heroes, where another hates it. How do you compare two since the reveiwers obviously have different standards on what makes a good game?

<I>If you want to quickly and concisely state that you like or dislike a game, for God's sake, just say: "It's cool" or "It sucks". This playing with numbers is just a load of bullshit and a way to complicate a simple thought into something laughably self-important.</I>

Yeah again, saying "it's good" doesn't tell me how the reviewer looks at it against other games.

<I>However, again, it probably wouldn't bother me as much if there weren't so many brainless sheep who follow these ridiculous numerals like some goddamn bible. "Oh, I never buy anything this magazine rates lower than a 6." Seriously. I mean seriously. </I>

And who cares? Really? How many people have you encountered that even have the frame of mind, first of all, and second, how does it effect you? Since we already agreed that even written reviews are inherently flawed, the only way to truly know whether a game is worth it, is to rent it. So if you ever buy a game off a review you are just as "bad" as the numbers people and a hypocrite to boot. Sure your information is more detailed, but it isn't as detailed as it could be, because nothing ultimately compares to a first-hand experience, as you yourself already admitted.

<I>Go back and play your Halo. You miss the point of life again.</I>

This is what an immature person says when someone disagrees with them. I find it funny that you can argue that there is no universal numeric scale for rating games (so the ratings are pointless), but there is a universal scale for life. It's great.

[Double-S-]

Okay. Now you tell me the reveiw crew that compares every game to every other games in essay form. Oh they don't. Well how about a comparison in every game within the same genre? Oh they don't do that either. Well how about every game within the same genre on the same console? Oh they don't do even that.

I guess I will have to stick to the numbers when comparing two games, because unfortunately, there is no comparison with Soul Calibur in a given Virtual On review.

No it doesn't. The point is purely for ranking purposes. The reveiwer likes one game better then another, but not as much as another, so he assigns it a number in between those two games. It's an opinion, no more or less valid then "the camera is shit" or "the art is beautiful."

Yeah again, saying "it's good" doesn't tell me how the reviewer looks at it against other games.

Here's the real question: Why the hell are you so obsessed with comparing every game in existance with each other, when it cannot (and should not) be done? I mean, what are you going to do when Mr. Driller gets near-perfect (or perfect, was it?) scores from Famitsu, and Halo 2 doesn't? Well OBVIOUSLY THE REVIEWERS FEEL THAT MR. DRILLER IS THE MUCH BETTER GAME AND HALO IS WORSE THAN IT IN EVERY ASPECT EVER AND THEY WOULD MUCH RATHER PLAY MR. DRILLER THAN HALO AT ANY TIME!!!

[chriscaffee]

It has nothing to do with an obsession. It's the purpose of the rating system. It is why you rate things to begin with. This argument is so stupid. You're looking at a tire gauge and saying it is useless because it doesn't tell you how fast the car is moving. I say "Hey, the tire gauge tells you the air pressure, which while related to the car's velocity is something a bit different." Then you respond "Why are you obsessed with air pressure in tires? LOLZ."

As for this...

<I>Well OBVIOUSLY THE REVIEWERS FEEL THAT MR. DRILLER IS THE MUCH BETTER GAME AND HALO IS WORSE THAN IT IN EVERY ASPECT EVER AND THEY WOULD MUCH RATHER PLAY MR. DRILLER THAN HALO AT ANY TIME!!!</I>

It means they had more fun with it. The extrapolations of "every aspect" and "every time" have nothing to do with it, aren't necessaryily true, and aren't implied by a higher score. You just added them as padding to bolster your bankrupt argument.

[Segaholic2]

Numerical ratings fail in your definition because I am positively sure that reviewers do not rate games in conjunction with every other game they've reviewed previously, nor with all the other games that have been reviewed by their fellow reviewers.

Proof: ODCM. They gave Soul Calibur, a launch title, a 9. They gave DoA2, which came out later, a 10. Afterwards, they themselves admitted that Soul Calibur was the better game, despite it getting a score one point lower.

[Double-S-]

It has nothing to do with an obsession. It's the purpose of the rating system. It is why you rate things to begin with. This argument is so stupid. You're looking at a tire gauge and saying it is useless because it doesn't tell you how fast the car is moving. I say "Hey, the tire gauge tells you the air pressure, which while related to the car's velocity is something a bit different." Then you respond "Why are you obsessed with air pressure in tires? LOLZ."

No, you're comparing the tire gauge and the speedometer. And saying the tire gauge is better because its reading is higher.

<I>Well OBVIOUSLY THE REVIEWERS FEEL THAT MR. DRILLER IS THE MUCH BETTER GAME AND HALO IS WORSE THAN IT IN EVERY ASPECT EVER AND THEY WOULD MUCH RATHER PLAY MR. DRILLER THAN HALO AT ANY TIME!!!</I>

It means they had more fun with it. The extrapolations of "every aspect" and "every time" have nothing to do with it, aren't necessaryily true, and aren't implied by a higher score. You just added them as padding to bolster your bankrupt argument.

Wow, good call. That was exactly my point. I'm glad to see you're so great at picking up sarcasm (helpful note: this was sarcasm).

Most people rate games in their own realm. Not by comparing it to another game. A higher rating for one game does not necessarily mean it's the better game, ESPECIALLY if they're of completely different genres. Heck, even if they are the same type of game it doesn't mean a lot.

[chriscaffee]

If they don't, then they should, since the whole point of ranking something is to determine which is better. As for the SC/DOA2 case, they just didn't rate DOA2 how they should have, or Soul Calibur. In this instance, the numbers didn't reflect their true thoughts (unless of course a different person was reveiwing each game, in which case any comparisons between the two reveiws are null and void anyhow.).

[Double-S-]

If they don't, then they should, since the whole point of ranking something is to determine which is better.

Okay then, so in a car magazine, which is better? In reviews by the same person, an engine rated 8, or an exhaust port rated 9?

[chriscaffee]

No, you're comparing the tire gauge and the speedometer. And saying the tire gauge is better because its reading is higher.

I never said that a reveiw solely by numbers is better then a literary reveiw. What I said it, it is a better way to compare what an author thinks of more then one game in a shorter time span.

That said, onto your most recent post:

They are different components to one vehicle. That would be like comparing a game's "graphics" rating with another game's "sound" rating. The analogy you are looking for, if you are meaning games of different genres, would be a truck that rates a 9 versus an SUV that rates an 8. And I would say in that case, if it's the same reveiwer, and he intends to do the same thing with either vehicle, then the truck wins. That's what his numbers tell me. If that is not the case, then he is being dishonest.

In the event of dishonesty, yes, his numbers are meaningless, but that is no different from someone being dishonest in a literary reveiw, embelishing problems or glorifying minor positive points.

I will alter my argument slightly, however, in light of new information: Numbers don't HAVE to be meaningless in reveiwing games. Though they CAN be.