Are Fallout Fan Boys Blinded By Nostalgia?

PlanHex said:
So if there's no possible rating system where giving the top grade is acceptable, why should that grade even be a part of the system in the first place?
They're just arbitrary values that you decide how to assign.
Click to expand...

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?
 
CT Phipps said:
You realize *I* determine what qualifies as a 10 out of 10 because *I* am the reviewer right?

:)
Click to expand...
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.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
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?
Click to expand...
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:
PlanHex said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
oh yeah, I remember a perfect movie.

15080.jpg


The person should be seriously screwed in the head if he thinks of taking at least a tenth of the note from this movie.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Well? Ultimately on a number scale, some games ARE going to be a fraction of a fraction better than others.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Black Angel said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, fair enough. I basically didn't read anything in this thread since like the 3rd page until I randomly clicked on it again.
 
PlanHex said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
CT Phipps said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.

Also, why should anyone care about your retarded scale?
Click to expand...

I dunno, why are you asking about it?
 
Last edited:
The King of The Worms said:
Okay so recently I was watching a video about how the new fallout games do not stick to lore but a common theme in the video was the biased nature of it. the guy in the video praised Fallout 1 and 2 for being great games "which they are btw" but he slandered games such as fallout 3, 4, and yes even New Vegas. When I looked in the comments of the video I saw the same thing people saying things such as "Yeah the original games were the greatest screw Bethesda!!!" These same people also belittled those who dared disagree with the man in the video which I found to be pretty pathetic. Honestly I feel personally that way to many Fallout fans give the original games to much credit with statements such as "Ugh if Interplay were making Fallout games they would be way better!" Despite this not being true given Interplay was going bankrupt it stills shows a very common theme with these fanboys.
Click to expand...
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.
 
CT Phipps said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top