here is one thing that may be controversial, and I’d be remiss if I did not address it. The female characters in the campaign mode, both the player and enemy soldiers, may disturb some. The role of fighter is not gender-specific, and while initially I was shocked that I was hearing women’s voices calling for my head, it is truly a gender bias to think that, given the way our societies have evolved would not have female troops in the later part of this century. I applaud the team for bringing a realism to the game where not everyone is willing to tread.
10/10 has never meant literally perfect in video game reviews. How do people not know that yet? It's a goddamn review, the score isn't objective, it's subjective to the amount of fun the reviewer had with the game.
Oh I know my fractions, but if you'd paid any attention to video game reviews in the past 20 years, you'd know what the trend is. Plenty of flawed games get 10/10's all the time. It's so common now that anyone with half a brain has come to realize it doesn't mean a flawless, perfect little gem like it might mean in, say, the movie industry.
>>315610772 Anon you just claimed that such a scale was math because it has numbers in it, whatever you're saying next will be completely ignored because you've outed yourself as a fucking mongoloid I'm also not the first guy
>>315611054 >By thinking perfection can be obtained I read 'phenomenal', not 'perfect', but maybe there's schmutz on my glasses or something > even subjectively, especially when the reviewer goes on to list their cons you literal child. This score means 'I think it deserves 100 points on my subjective rating scale'. Nothing more, nothing less. Every other interpretation you make is on your side.
>>315610364 And then we have a rating scale of 10 where 10 is unachievable since objectively perfect is not reachable when talking about subjective topics. BVut what about 9? When is it flawless enough to deserve 9? I see these graphical bugs in Zelda OOT, surely that's enough to decrease it to a 7, no? Surely it doesn't deserver the near-perfection on 9. Since we're staying objective here.
>>315611434 >Do you even read the posts you respond to >Do you even read the posts you respond to >This score means 'I think it deserves 100 points on my subjective rating scale'. Nothing more, nothing less. Every other interpretation you make is on your side. >This score means 'I think it deserves 100 points on my subjective rating scale'. Nothing more, nothing less. Every other interpretation you make is on your side. >Do you even read the posts you respond to
>>315611534 You really don't see the flaws in that thinking? There is no objective measurement system to grade video games. How the fuck would that even work? Everyone prefers differnt things, everyone expects different. things. Is a game not having x a flaw to deduct points for? Is bug x enough to reduce it by 1 point? What about this wooden dialogue, surely that's another point gone? But anon 2 things the dialogue is good, so what now? Now in comparison. Game 1 look nice, but I think game 2 looks nicer, thus game 1 can never have more score than game 2. Other people think game 2 has vastly better gameplay though, but I disagree. What now? It's all subjective based on the feelings of the reviewer. You can't evaluate the mechanics and many different aspects of video games with simple fucking numbers
>>315611426 That's simply not true. A 5/5 game might be as low as 90% on a truly continuous scale. 100/100 would have to be at least 99.5%. The finer the level of measurement, the more accurate the value. If a review outlet only gives "yes/no" scores, is a "yes" the same as 100%?
>>315611872 >ad hominem No anon, I'm flat out insulting you because you're too fucking retarded to argue with since you just ignore what the other side writes to spam your dribble Have fun being a fucking mongoloid
Nope. True, they're both perfect scores, in a completely objective way. We know the limit to how high we can score and we've reached it - the scores can't get any more full/perfect.
But the game itself isn't necessarily perfect, as games are very subjective things. A 5/5 game has gotten full scores, but all it means is that it ended up in the last of the available scores. There are five options: 1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5 and 5/5 (and perhaps 0/5, I guess). Many games might end up as being a bit above a 4/5, but not perfect, and end up with a 5/5 score, as it's the closest to what the reviewer thought. In a 10/10 rating it could also be a 9/10, giving the reviewer more flexibility to give his score. And a 100/100 rating would give him the opportunity to give it 95/100 if he wanted.
Look at it this way. What if the rating went 1/2 and 2/2. Those were the only options. Are you really saying that a 2/2 game is exactly as good as a 1000/1000 game? They both got the best score available, but it doesn't mean the reviewer thought they were equally good.
Their is also the strange issue of acting like the numerical score of a review is at all based on any sort of quantatative data. A review score is just an unscientific representation of the subjective feelings of a reviewer.
I'm pretty hyped for the game myself, but this is just blatant shilling >perfect score >flaws And before that autist gives me the whole "It's not perfect" spiel, I can't get a couple questions wrong on a test and still get a perfect score
>>315612450 >For the sake of objectivity >Same as purely objective. Autism confirmed, you only see what you want to see so it fits your narrative, you're probably the same type of person that thinks my favorite game = Best game ever made because you can't see anything from anyone else's point of view, a legitimate symptom of autism.
>>315612276 But you can have a flawed knowledge of what the test is about and still get a perfect score. Furthermore, if the test is an essay or similar, you could write an essay that is not perfect, but is closer to being perfect than to being nineteen twentieths perfect, and thus get a perfect score.
>>315612639 >flawless You should really stop reading words in places where they aren't He doesn't say the game is flawless or perfect or whatever other term you imagined, he said it's phenomenal, as in he thought it was great enough to deserve 100 points on his scale. This does not mean that he thinks the game deserves 100 objective points on the grand infallible scale of the rules of nature, or something. I'd actually agree that full marks shouldn't be given out lightly because it devalues that reviewers scale, but he can do so if he wishes, because, once again, shit's subjective. If you think his rating is wrong, all you have to do is mentally classify him as someone not competent enough to review vidya and never read him again.
What? I'm just throwing out a hypothetical question. I don't know the American system but isn't that what "extra-credit" questions are? Surely if you don't answer them, but answered everything else you'd get a GPA of...whatever the max is, but if you answered the extra credit stuff you can go over the maximum?
>>315612867 Yeah that's a problem with these scales, they don't really work retroactively. That's why they're really only an opinion frozen in time. Like, if they were supposed to be objective or anythingt, then they should continuously be updated since new games come out that might surpass older ones in certain departments, especially tech ones. In 100 years we most likely have games that let our current masterpieces look like a childs toy
>>315612981 But we do, anon In >>315612498 you claimed that as soon as you get a question wrong, you can't get full score anyome. Anon made the valid counterargument of 'bonus' question, usually about topics not really on the curicculum, but those can still add to the maximum score
>>315613215 No, it's not valid, it's literally just spewing shit out in a desperate attempt to be correct. You're basically pulling a "that kid" >rats can't fly >WHAT IF A BIRD PICKED ONE UP, THE RAT IS FLYING HAHAHA I'M RIGHT You right now desu senpai
>>315613185 But you're interpreting the numbers wrong. 100/100 on a maths test and 100/100 on a random rewievers scale for some random piece of media don't really mean the same thing [insert subjective......] But it's alright, we can settle this argument now. It'd be cool if he had given the game some number below 100, but he didn't, shit happens, ignore that guy from now on
>>315613406 I'm not that dude, I've literally called you autistic in every single post I've made because you're a fucking moron with no sense of any mindset outside of your own. You're an autistic brat mad on the internet because a game you don't like got a 100
>>315613360 But anon, I personally have been in the situation where I got full marks on a test despite getting some regular questions wrong. Whast now? Seems like the statement you deemed a fact was actually not a fact
>>315613443 It's still a scale, if they're going to appropriate maths to try and get their opinion across then they should abide by it's logic. If they can't even do that then they should abandon it and stick to "Great/Good/Alright/etc"
>>315613569 >I never had any argument I just wanted to come into this thread to call someone names
>>315613631 >Pretty pathetic to be honest Not as pathetic as you. I'm not the one shitting up an entire thread because I think my personal tastes are the bar for anyone to have a meaningful conversation, dickhead. Faggot Queer. Does this upset you? I'm calling you names autismo.
>>315613878 >My personal view on logic somehow makes them more valid than anyone elses. Wrong, fag, there's a reason said guy is a reviewer and you're bitching on a forum about how much better you are than him at it.
>>315613740 >this fucking guy No anon, I'm not going to gdig out my 5th grade exam to prove something obvious to a random guy on a philipinese crab catching chalkboard But I know that I'm right and you're smug because you think you're right so it's cool, we both win!
>>315614372 A proper analogy would be that you're bitching about how the ship is run, because if there was a hole, he'd be out of a job. Sorry to tell you this but your opinion means jack shit in the real world. Stay angry.
>>315618895 Just replay an old one, idiot A new one couldn't add anything to the genre at this point anyway because it's all been done a thousand times (which is why we got tired of them in the first place)
>>315621167 Movies get a long fine with 1-5. Everyone knows intuitively what a 5 star movie is and there's no drama, whereas everyone freaks out when 10's or 100's are given out as it looks like the game is being portrayed as perfect and theres endless bitching about one game getting a 0.1 higher score than another.
Good rating system >Hey this movie has five stars it must be great lets go see it Bad rating system >Hey this game is 100/100 it surely can't be perfect, what the fuck is wrong with these journos, why did my favourite game get a 95 and this trash got a 100!?
SAYING THE GAME IS 100/100 AND LISTING FLAWS IS IDIOTIC.
BY GIVING IT 100/100, YOU ARE SUGGESTING TWO THINGS.
>1. THAT YOUR RATING SYSTEM IS SOMEHOW DETACHED FROM YOUR ACTUAL REVIEW, MEANING THE RATING SYSTEM IS FUCKING USELESS
>2. THAT YOUR CONS AREN'T REALLY CONS, BUT YOU NEEDED SOMETHING TO FILL THE BOX ON YOUR AWFUL FORMAT.
GIVING SOMETHING 100/100 MEANS THAT IN THE HYPOTHETICAL INSTANCE THAT THE PERFECT GAME DID ACTUALLY COME ALONG, IT'D HAVE THE SAME SCORE AS A GAME WITH CONS - ONCE AGAIN MEANING THAT YOUR RATING SYSTEM IS USELESS
>I RATE MY POST 100/100 DESPITE ITS FLAWS, IF YOU ARGUE YOU ARE OBJECTIVELY WRONG.
>>315620329 Its really weird to me how fucked the occupations of /v/irgins are. I mean, I work in a cab company but I'm able to pull in 200-300 a day. I saw thread the other day where people were comparing how many days they needed to work to buy one 60 dollar game. Like holy shit.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.