Are Fallout Fan Boys Blinded By Nostalgia?

Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by The King of The Worms, Jul 31, 2017.

  1. ThatZenoGuy

    ThatZenoGuy Residential Zealous Evolved Nano Organism

    Nov 8, 2016
    Stuff can always be improved, always.

    Improvements to stuff won't ever cease until it reaches perfect (which, won't happen).

    Thus, 100 out of 100 is the ideal, doesn't mean it'll ever happen.

    But if it does, and there's finally a 100 out of 100 game, bam, perfect game.

    If 100 out of 100 is 'less than perfect', what is a perfect game on the scale then? 101 out of 100?
     
  2. Ben Soto

    Ben Soto Professional Salt Shaker

    Jul 7, 2014
    The scoring system has to be somewhat standardized between critics, otherwise it's useless because nobody will know what it means. Now, the scores you actually give a game are your opinion, so you can give them whatever you want, but it's recommended that you still with a scale that's similar to most other people.

    Note that I said recommended. The Criticism Police aren't going to come knocking on your door and drag you away to Internet Reviewer Penitentiary for crimes against humanity. I mean, they should, but they won't.
     
  3. PlanHex

    PlanHex Useless layabout oTO Moderator Orderite

    Nov 4, 2007
    Sounds more like these are inherent problems with using such an overly fine scale more than anything.

    Also, it sounds like technological advancement would mean that any game that's not a huge budget AAA game made within the last year or so is docked points in retrospect because the animations aren't lifelike enough for a realistic style or something like that. And next year, that same bestest GotY would be docked points whenever new technology emerged.
    Like you'd have to write new reviews every year, even for the bad games, because a shit game that looked pretty in 1997's 3D is now a shit game that looks shit.
    This view of how ratings should work seems pretty impractical for something that's just supposed to sum up the reviewers feelings about something on an arbitrary scale.

    edit:
    Actually, I think I know what the problem is here.
    I see the ideal rating system as a real number line where each rating covers a range of that line, as each game with a similar rating as another could be infinitesimally better or worse than the other, but we just give them the same rating on a coarse system for convenience because ratings are just information for the consumer too lazy to read the actual text of a review.
    You see a rating system that should decree exactly how much better or worse two games are compared to each other as precisely as possible on a very fine natural/fractional number scale such that... Why exactly? So fanboys can circlejerk over whether Ocarina of Time is better than Link to the Past?
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
  4. ThatZenoGuy

    ThatZenoGuy Residential Zealous Evolved Nano Organism

    Nov 8, 2016
    Well? Ultimately on a number scale, some games ARE going to be a fraction of a fraction better than others.

    Nothing to circlejerk over, who cares if one game is a bit better than the other, if its a good game, no need to throw it into the trash.

    0 rating means literally nothing works, its not a game, it's malware, or something.

    100 is the second coming of jesus.
     
  5. Cobra Commander

    Cobra Commander Still Mildly Glowing

    Dec 6, 2016
    oh yeah, I remember a perfect movie.



    The person should be seriously screwed in the head if he thinks of taking at least a tenth of the note from this movie.
     
  6. PlanHex

    PlanHex Useless layabout oTO Moderator Orderite

    Nov 4, 2007
    Yes, but I mean, what's the point of actually quantifying that?
    What's the point of saying that Fallout 1 is a 1269863/1275163 and Fallout 2 is a 1259759/1275163? The only thing I can see is some kind of "academic" discussion whether you think one game is better than another, and in that case you might as well just explain why instead of using a score.
     
  7. Black Angel

    Black Angel Grand Inquisitor of the Ordo Hereticus

    Mar 21, 2016
    I think this is the point that people has been trying to make, against CT's odd numbering system where 8/10 is average or something.
     
  8. PlanHex

    PlanHex Useless layabout oTO Moderator Orderite

    Nov 4, 2007
    Well, fair enough. I basically didn't read anything in this thread since like the 3rd page until I randomly clicked on it again.
     
  9. ThatZenoGuy

    ThatZenoGuy Residential Zealous Evolved Nano Organism

    Nov 8, 2016
    Because if Fallout 1 is > than Fallout 2, its number will be higher.

    When you say X car is faster than Y, even if by 1 km/h, its STILL faster.
     
  10. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Half-way Through My Half-life

    Sep 17, 2016
    5= Meh. Not bad, Not Good

    6-7 is "Okay. Good but nothing exceptional."

    8 is a good game, entertaining to the point of being a recommended game

    9-10 are great games. Ones you love and must haves.
     
  11. ThatZenoGuy

    ThatZenoGuy Residential Zealous Evolved Nano Organism

    Nov 8, 2016
    That's...Accurate.

    What have you done with CT!?
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  12. R.Graves

    R.Graves Confirmed Retard

    Apr 21, 2016
    Almost a 7/10 is recommended to those who like the type of game that it is.
     
  13. ThatZenoGuy

    ThatZenoGuy Residential Zealous Evolved Nano Organism

    Nov 8, 2016
    True, 7/10 is easily 'good, I recomend' territory.
     
  14. PlanHex

    PlanHex Useless layabout oTO Moderator Orderite

    Nov 4, 2007
    wat
    That's a terrible simile for reviews.
    And again, you never answered why I should care if one is better than the other on the fine scale.
    This scale is weird.
    Is it just 5-10? Or is it 1-10?
    Why are you not using the rest of the scale?
    And if not, why not just make it a 1-5 scale?
    5-10 seems extremely arbitrary
    Also, why should anyone care about your retarded scale?
    Please give some examples from what you would give 1-5 or make a case why you should start at 5.
     
  15. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Half-way Through My Half-life

    Sep 17, 2016
    I created the UFOC because, again, I hated "mainstream" reviews who were just constantly posting nonsense technical reviews that didn't tell me what I wanted to know--which was, again, just how fun it was. This was a reactionary move on my part and the deliberate style I chose to do because it's my blog and I'll blog how I want to. Blog how I want to.

    I rarely post 1-5 reviews, though, because if I'm going to talk about a game then I'm going to talk about games I like.

    I have written plenty of shitty reviews but they tend to be of games which I *SHOULD* enjoy but don't. For example, I do love the Call of Duty series but the shift from the Modern Warfare/Black Ops 1-2 moral ambiguity and people dying to straight good versus evil offends me as a storyteller as well as how shitty some of the games are in terms of plotting. So I wrote 4/10 reviews for Ghosts and Advanced Warfare.

    But Black Ops 3 and Infinite Warfare was so bad I couldn't do write-ups at all for them.

    I dunno, why are you asking about it?
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017
  16. PlanHex

    PlanHex Useless layabout oTO Moderator Orderite

    Nov 4, 2007
    I dunno, I was ddriunk
     
  17. Black Angel

    Black Angel Grand Inquisitor of the Ordo Hereticus

    Mar 21, 2016
     
  18. Jogre

    Jogre It's all JO'Ger now

    Oct 25, 2015
    The Original Games were miles, miles, miles better than 3 and 4. While they do have flaws, simply pointing out that they were great games and leagues ahead of what we have now isn't nostalgia.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  19. Risewild

    Risewild Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
    Modder Orderite

    Jun 14, 2014
    I think that is because technical stuff is usually objective, while fun is very subjective. No one can really tell you if you will have fun playing a game or not except for yourself.
    For example, if I wrote a review about Skyrim I would give it a fun factor of 5 the first time you play it for a few hours, but a fun factor of 4 after you realize how shallow everything in it is. I am sure many people who own the game would think my review was wrong. Now if I talk about the technical stuff like bugs, controls, combat system, leveling system, etc. There is not many people who could say it was wrong.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  20. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Half-way Through My Half-life

    Sep 17, 2016
    Yeah but every reviewer is just giving their opinion anyway.