Shorts: Naka interview · Autographed copies of PSOBB

[Segaholic2]

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.).

That makes so much sense you win the universe.

[Double-S-]

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.

But what if he doesn't want to do the same thing with both vehicles (chances of which are very high... although trucks and SUVs are very similar vehicles. Say a 9 sports car vs an 8 pickup for better illustration)? The sports car is excellent at looking cool and driving fast around corners. The pickup is great (slightly less than excellent) at hauling heavy loads. So which is the better vehicle? Well, it depends on what you want.

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.

Numbers for a review are meaningless without sufficient words to describe the thoughts behind the rating. I mean, if the reviewer goes in-depth as to why he rated the game the way he did (more in-depth than "I thought the graphics were great and the gameplay was fun"), then it's easier to accept his rating. If somebody has a 1-paragraph review with a final verdict of 8 and another one with 6, I'm not going to think that that first game is better than the second one.

[chriscaffee]

That makes so much sense you win the universe.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? If you're going to join in a debate could you at least lay off the one liners as they don't hurt my case nor do they help yours?

[Segaholic2]

I just said that because your counterpoint made less sense than a Jewish Nazi. They didn't rate the games how they should have? The numbers didn't reflect their true thoughts? A dead blind retard could see the utter nonsensical stupidity of your post. (Which, by the way, doesn't make any sense. Did I say that already?) You hurt your own case more than I ever could have, by pointing out everything that is wrong with the method you advocate.

NOBODY WRITES ALL THEIR REVIEWS IN COMPARISON WITH EVERY OTHER REVIEW THEY'VE PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN. If this were the case, you would be assuming that there is some sort of scale or ruler with which you could compare every game to each other with. And because THERE IS NO ULTIMATE STANDARD by which games should be measured, any number they assign a game means essentially nothing. A numerical review value is akin to a test grade. What are you gonna do, give the Mona Lisa a 7 and The Last Supper a 10? A review is the reviewer's opinion on a game; what he liked and didn't like about it. If you want to know what he thinks, just read the review or find out if he liked it or not. You don't know how this guy uses some number scale to rank games. And even if he was a good friend of yours whose opinion you valued highly, wouldn't it be easier to just ask him if he liked it or not, rather than demanding some number?

[chriscaffee]

It makes perfect sense. The reveiws were dishonest and didn't reflect what they should have. I don't see how that doesn't make sense or hurt my case.

[Segaholic2]

Okay, so reviews can be dishonest and not reflect what they should have. How are you supposed to tell apart the "good reviews" from the "bad reviews"? Are you going to tell me now that there is some sort of ultimate standard to compare reviews with and discern an honest review from a dishonest one?

If reviews can be dishonest, then you can discount any review's credibility based on that accusation. And that kind of defeats the purpose of a review in the first place, doesn't it?

[Green Gibbon!]

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.

Yeah, there's no comparison between apples and oranges, either. But if you look at some vague numbers applied to each by a total stranger and make your decision based on that, you're just being careless. I guarantee if the same person were to rate the two fruits a week later, he'd give them different numbers.

Even if you are arguing about the numbers as a representation of opinion, it's still a mathematic gauge for something that is not mathematic. I would challenge you to write out a list of what you consider to be your 20, or hell, even just your 10, all-time favorite games in descending order. Then, without referring to the original list, do it again a week later. I guarantee they won't be the same list.

As NT mentioned, when a critic is writing a review, he is consciously thinking of other games he has played in a general sense. It's impossible to play a game - especially within a particular genre - and not consider other titles in the same genre. Contrarily, it's utterly absurd to think every critic is remembering with numeric accuracy every game he has ever played when he writes a review. C'mon. I mean come on.

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.

Well in this particular thread, we've already encountered at least THREE people with that frame of mind, to say nothing of the hordes of that shit I'd have to deal with in my years of software retail.

If you want to know my personal philosophy about taking opinions, I don't read reviews period until I've already played a game, and even then I usually don't care enough to bother because I've already formulated my own opinion (one that is far too complex to be represented by any ridiculous numerals). When I am curious about a game and seek opinions, I ask those who have played it first-hand, the reason being that I always follow up my query with additional questions. Reason again being because I'm gathering information to make an informed decision, not looking at some arbitrary numeral applied by a total stranger and thinking, "Oh, he gave this RPG a 7, so it must not be as good as this platformer he gave a 7.5 six months ago." C'mon, dude, the inanity speaks for itself.

There is absolutely no way you can defend numbers as being a substitute or even just a placeholder for the written word when discussing matters of opinion, any more than you could use words to describe a numeric value in a mathematic problem. Imagine if we'd tried having this very argument with numbers instead of words.

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.

If you weren't so defensive, it might not have been difficult to see that it was a joke. If that's the best you can do to scrape for arguments, though...

[chriscaffee]

I think you guys are making this more complex then it really is. You take a reviewer that is writing a reveiw about a game and he has some sort of scale in his mind. A game is either poor, bad, average, good, or excellent, or some similar scale. As the guy is arranging his thoughts about the game he decides where on the scale it belongs by comparing it to other games he has played.

See the problem is this. To say a game is good or bad, you have to have some scale with which you measure it against. That scale exists as your thoughts but you could just as easily tac a number to it for simplicity's sake. So instead of "excellent" you have "5." How is that number meaningless when it reflects that the reveiwer thought the game was in a category of the best games he has played?

Now lets say that the reveiwer plays many more fun games. All of a sudden, these "good games" are so plentiful that "good" or "4" almost loses it's meaning. Some of them are notably better then others, but they still aren't good enough to make the top list. So then a scale of 1-10 is introduced, where in good is a range of 6-8.

This process can get infinitly more complex if necessary. And in the end, the review could be nothing more then a series of numbers, because that is what everything is in the end anyway. Complex thoughts are no more then strings of simple thoughts and those more simple thoughts are no more then 1s and 0s. The neuron is either firing or it isn't. So, yes, your emotions are mathematics, as are gaming reveiws. Current numbered gauges may not be complex enough, but they could be made that way, if one wanted to, given resources and time.

[Double-S-]

OMGS MY NEURONS ARE FIRING OR NOT SO EVERYTHING IS NUMBERS.

I don't want to know the reviewer's numerical score. I don't want to know whether the reviewer thought it was excellent, good, average, or bad. What I WANT to know WHY he thought it was good or bad, and even then I'm not going to pay much attention because I want my decision to be based mainly on my own opinion, not somebody else's.

[Green Gibbon!]

Allow me to go back to one of my original arguments -- if you really desire to condense your opinion, it still boils down to "it's good" or "it's bad." It's a yes or a no. A 1 or a 0, as you said. That tells you in as great a detail whether or not the player liked the game as a 3.5 versus a 6. The numbers are simply complicating a very simple thought and turning it into a self-important joke by covering it up in some mathematic farce.

And even assuming the number system was replaced for a simple thumbs up or thumbs down - it's still plain careless to make your entire decision based on the simple knowledge that this person liked or disliked the game, especially if it's a game you're seriously considering playing. If you want to make an informed decision and are unwilling to risk dropping cash to buy or rent the game in question, then that's when you need to read. Read what people are saying, many different people, and try to get as in-depth opinions as you can. (Those simple one paragraph reviews that are the current trend are no more informative than the ridiculous numbers.)

Chris, you can lop out all the quantum physics bullshit you like, there is absolutely no substitute for the written word when describing matters of aesthetics. Even the knowledge of whether a critic liked or disliked a game is useless unless you know why he feels the way he does. And if you think you can define this in terms of numbers... I would be thrilled to see you try.

[Baba O'Reily]

So, what was this topic originally about again?

[Delphine]

Your mom?

HAHA BET YOU DIDN'T EXPECT THAT ONE!!!!!

[Baba O'Reily]

You DEFINITELY didn't expect that.

[Delphine]

What the <i><b>hell</i></b>.

[Zeta]

Actually, the universe is problably finite. We just don't know to what degree.

But for all practical purposes, it's large enough to be almost infinite when compared to just a human perspective.

[Grant]

Actually, the universe is problably finite. We just don't know to what degree.

I've always read the opposite, I thought. Don't most scientists or astrologists or whatever believe the universe is, in fact, infinite?

[Delphine]

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.

[Zeta]

I've always read the opposite, I thought. Don't most scientists or astrologists or whatever believe the universe is, in fact, infinite?

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 can't argue this very well, can I? But that's the way it was explained to me.

[Guest]

Maybe the matter is, but doesn't the "emptiness" simply extend forever beyond the matter within the universe, though it would be impossible to get out there.

[CE]

I find that 90% of the time, someone else's honest numerical review (on a five point scale) will match up with my numerical review, within 1 point of error. Doesn't this show that numerical reviews are useful as a quick way to measure the quality of a game?
This doesn't mean that I consider the numerical review to be the most important part (I don't), but I do see that the numbers serve as a useful approximation to how much I enjoy playing the game. My top ten games all get fives (with the exception of Bangai-O. That gets a 400 MAX).

[Green Gibbon!]

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 can't say this enough, because evidently it's a difficult concept to grasp: you cannot use numbers to judge matters of aesthetic taste. Write it down and study it if you're having such a hard time understanding, because it isn't rocket science.

[Segaholic2]

Getting back on-topic (not that the off-topic conversation wasn't fun), but

<IMG SRC="http://www.dengekionline.com/data/img/n ... sobb03.jpg">

I absolutely <I>love</I> that shit-eating grin on the right guy's face.

[Zeta]

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 can't say this enough, because evidently it's a difficult concept to grasp: you cannot use numbers to judge matters of aesthetic taste. Write it down and study it if you're having such a hard time understanding, because it isn't rocket science.

On a scale of 1-10, how strongly do you feel about this?

[Baba O'Reily]

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

[Nakasan_UKG]

And here was me beleiving the ratings for games given by reviewers were mere guidelines. And its not the guidelines that are at fault, but actually the people who beleive them to be cold hard fact?
In which case, they are fine just the way they are... aren't they?