Fbos gets a honest opinion..

[Briosafreak]

True, i`m confusing the scores from my PS2 and Gamecube mags with online scores, thanks for pointing it out. But again let`s go to that list:

Intellivision Lives! XBOX 60.0%
Destruction Derby Arenas PS2 60.1%
Jack the Ripper PC 60.1%
Wrath Unleashed PS2 62.4%
Firefighter F.D. 18 PS2 62.4%
Wars and Warriors: Joan of Arc PC 62.9%
Judge Dredd: Dredd Versus Death PS2 63.0%
Drakengard PS2 63.5%
Dead Man's Hand XBOX 64.0%
AirForce Delta Strike PS2 64.1%
Samurai Jack: The Shadow of Aku PS2 64.2%
LifeLine PS2 64.7%

Now tell me that FOBOS scores on the 60/70 are good... This proves how rotten the game is in the eyes of reviewrs, particularly since one average i saw last month pointed it as having a 60 something average on online scores.

 

[Roshambo]

Now tell me that FOBOS scores on the 60/70 are good... This proves how rotten the game is in the eyes of reviewrs, particularly since one average i saw last month pointed it as having a 60 something average on online scores.

In relation to many of those titles, FOS is shit. Drakenguard has more play to it and it's basically nothing more than an engine demo.

Also, please note the part you've neglected to list with the others (you only listed those since the beginning of the year) titles that have gotten scores MUCH, MUCH lower than 60%. Most of those listed are crappy games in their own right, but many of them also manage to be better than FOS.

Oh, and that stores will actually sell them, versus FOS.

 

[Michael]

But they don`t, with just a couple exceptions, that`s what i`m trying to tell you guys. Please stop saying that 60/70 scores are high because they aren`t.

That's something that I was trying to point out a couple of days ago. Having a grading curve that makes a 60 or 70% a bad mark is deceptive. One usually associates any mark above 50% as being a passing grade and anything below as a fail. A mark of 60 or 70% tends to indicate that it is a passable game. Something few would agree with.

If one were to break it down into a simple yes/no question, that would make 0 to 49% as No and 50% to 99% as Yes. Two options, split evenly. But they aren't split evenly, which is why it is deceptive. More it is along the lines of 0 to 74% as No and 75 to 100% as Yes.

 

[Roshambo]

I would agree with that, but then you'd have to teach all the GED grads another set of grading scores. Don't fuck with their minds that maliciously, please.

Furthermore, there is a reason why they use percentile, and it's not really a "grading curve". You might be mistaking percentile score for the Bell Curve. You'd also have to teach all of the teachers how to convert percentile to the 50% medium level, and quite frankly I doubt the competence of most high school math teachers.

Also, an addition to my previous post, and something I feel I need to point out.

100% A+, Excellent
90-99% A, Good
80-89% B, Above Average
70-79& C, Average
60-69% D, Below Average
<60% F, FAIL, FUCKED

Which makes D (60%) a below-average score, which FOS is not just a below-average game, it failed because it's fucked. A 60-70% score IS ESPECIALLY FUCKED, most obviously when the reviewers don't point out if they are using 70% as average or 50% as average. Most modern reviewers tend to use 100%, mainly because that's all the GED kiddies are able to learn the second time around. That is also another artificial inflation of scores. "F" is too chickenshit for most of them as well, but sometimes they will give a deserving grade, which can explain those in the 20% range.

That's still pretty irrelevent as to how 60% is far too high for FOS in all grading schemes.

 

[Michael]

Well, when I did Engineering at Uni, the cut off for a fail was 50%. It makes sense to me because below 50% is mostly wrong and above 50% is mostly right. If 60% becomes the cut off then the test was too easy. Plus, 100% is impossible, so an A was above 80%, a B was 70%, a C was 60% and a D was 50%. Above 90% usually meant that you cheated. A 100% was and should always be impossible.

But as far as FOoS is concerned, it is not so much a different curve but simply an offset score. Instead of 0 to 100, subtract 50 to get 0 to 50. This means that a 60 out of 100 is actually 10 out of 50, which is where it really sits.

 

[Roshambo]

Well, when I did Engineering at Uni, the cut off for a fail was 50%. It makes sense to me because below 50% is mostly wrong and above 50% is mostly right.

Wow...just tell me you're not being serious, as nobody in their mind and with any familiarity with education would come up with the above. I'd say that even 60% isn't good enough for some fields. Then, of course, there are the courses where someone's life is at stake in the future, but Dr. Bad Touch had scored a whopping 72% for the course and got the diploma. Too bad what he needed to know wasn't in the material he absorbed, and just like with the test he fucks up his job as well.

If 60% becomes the cut off then the test was too easy.

No, it shows that more familiarity with the subject is needed to be of a satisfactory grade.

Plus, 100% is impossible, so an A was above 80%, a B was 70%, a C was 60% and a D was 50%. Above 90% usually meant that you cheated. A 100% was and should always be impossible.

I see that it's become standard to keep lowering the minimum score in classes. Next, it'll probably be a passing grade as long as you get within 1-100%.

 

[4too]

Grade Inflation

Grade Inflation Through The Ages

There has always been a defacto intent to push the marginal student through the academic right of passage. This was as true 30 years ago as it is now.

The smart one "games" the system and fills their area-sequence requirements with general survey courses that feature multiple choice tests which are on file in their fraternity's "library". The time saved by studying the material via the possible questions on the test, could be spend drinking what's popular at the moment, burning dumpsters or rolling parked cars after home games, or focusing on the essential disciplines of the reputed academic major.

As long as everyone involved gets their "paper", that diploma, that paycheck, then all involved move on to the next clearing in the path.

The context for these game grading systems are as soft as one wants it to be. Intelligent minds, no matter their chronological statistics are savvy to the pressures of the marketplace, and eventually wise up to the fact that those that spin out these reviews do not represent any absolute truth. Assuming that absolutes do, or do not exist in this space-time. (Your experience may vary.)

""Opinions are not facts.""

This is one of the reoccurring themes at NMA and DAC, and encourages the statement, and, or the discovery of the context of the opinion.

These scores are slippery.

It may be better to confine these scores to a field of their peers.

That's the intent of some comparative systems of assessing value.

Whether one wants to visualize a high plains free range or a fly infested agribiz chicken hatchery, well, whatever suits ones' world view. We're not here to proselytize any one faith only to witness the well executed delivery of intent.

Peers and context.
Let me suggest, BGA engine games such as BGA 2 and Champions of Norrath. Go out and fetch the numbers if you want, I don't. On this curve, FO:BOS straddles the down side of the slide.

And in this era of entertainment media saturation that may be enough to confine this product to be returned as a no sale, or fodder for the bargain bin, whatever the retailers' contract allows.


4too

 

[alec]

I've been meaning to hire the game, but I simply can't find it in Gent, and I'm not going to buy it, that's for sure.

There has to be a game mania around, for sure. Or something alike ?

Yeah, there's a Game Mania right around the corner, but guess what: the guy in the store said they are still thinking about purchasing and ordering it... Hm. They probably read the reviews, eh?

 

[Michael]

Wow...just tell me you're not being serious, as nobody in their mind and with any familiarity with education would come up with the above. I'd say that even 60% isn't good enough for some fields. Then, of course, there are the courses where someone's life is at stake in the future, but Dr. Bad Touch had scored a whopping 72% for the course and got the diploma. Too bad what he needed to know wasn't in the material he absorbed, and just like with the test he fucks up his job as well.

Of course I am being serious. The basis for exam writing at my University had the goal that to even get 50% of the exam done and correct, you had to be very familiar with the subject. Likewise you should not be capable of achieving 100% as this is unrealistic. If you were to go through Uni getting 100% in your exams then when you graduated and started designing or managing life threatening situations you would be overconfident. If you want to sign off on something that could kill someone, you want to be damn sure that it is OK. If you know that you make mistakes then you will be thorough in your checking. If you are some swatty prick who always got 100% then you will think you are always right. We have enough Engineers who think they are always right as it is, we don't need more. Failing and getting things wrong is one way which we learn. Everbody needs to experience that.

Trust me. I have seen some of the best students at University end up as some of the worst Engineers. Good marks mean jack when it comes to Engineering.

If 60% becomes the cut off then the test was too easy.

No, it shows that more familiarity with the subject is needed to be of a satisfactory grade.

It really depends upon your definition of a satisfactory grade. Between 50% and 60% was a passing grade for us, but we wouldn't get much satisfaction out of it.

I see that it's become standard to keep lowering the minimum score in classes. Next, it'll probably be a passing grade as long as you get within 1-100%.

Now you are the one who is not being serious. Remember, test scores are all about balance. The balance of where the students should be, how difficult it should be for them, and how much they can get done in a given time.

 

[megatron]

video game reviewers usually give the best and mainstream games 90-96%. It's never higher, for whatever reason. Below that are decent games, below 80 they start getting very iffy. I'd say below 73 is the cut-off point for games, otherwise they should have come out the year before. The text for fobos is always a lot harsher than the final grade too.

You can't really grade games though, there's no curriculum. No universal way too say 'This is shit, while this is good'. The grade is probably there because you can't write a review of there test paper on there C.V or something. The system isn't fucked though, you just have too understand the difference between what they're saying and what they mean.

I've always tried too get above 60 in a test, no matter what the grade. Most of the time it's just above the failing point, though sometimes it can vary. The system is silly though, anything below 50% doesnt matter. It's more or less out of 5 instead of out of 10.

 

[Briosafreak]

Let me suggest, BGA engine games such as BGA 2 and Champions of Norrath. Go out and fetch the numbers if you want, I don't. On this curve, FO:BOS straddles the down side of the slide.

Good point, didn`t thought of that.

Anyway if they are scraping the FOBOS2 name in their next shitty action game for the consoles that clearly means the game bombed. And that`s all that matters 8)

 

[Roshambo]

The basis for exam writing at my University had the goal that to even get 50% of the exam done and correct, you had to be very familiar with the subject.

I'd call bullshit. It still shows that they don't know up to 50% of the material, or aren't familiar enough with it in order to take a test upon it.

I don't know what kind of "Engineers" your "University" teaches, but I have a feeling. Now I think I know where a lot of the half-ass people who designed naval equipment were taught at. Most of my investment money was made mostly by getting the 10% of what I saved the govt in redesigns. The rest, including a letter of commendation, were from repairing an assload of poorly-engineered electronic equipment. Many times I was thankful I got my 2M certification.

By the way, I scored 100%s, especially on the tests with the operation tech manuals alone over a foot thick. The schematics were another set entirely. Of course, it is likely very different curriculum, and you could be Engineering Lincoln Logs, and pass if more than 50% are still standing after each attempt, I do not know. What I do know is that I was taught; that in the real world, there is little room for error unless you want that error to come back and bite you tenfold upon the ass, and likely at a point in which you'll end up dead, possibly because of that fault. I also liked working with multi-million dollar pieces of equipment. I get dollar signs in my eyes when I figured out how to make them better and at a fraction of the price versus a model "upgrade".

(Snip some REALLY naive stuff.)

Holy shit! You'd rather have people who are ignorant about a subject, under the excuse that nobody should be that knowledgable about a subject, than someone who may make an oversight in overconfidence?

Sorry, but in having worked in The Real World, I and every other professional would take someone who knew what they were doing (including knowing how to double-check your references, sources, and get an outside opinion), over someone who gets a lower score - a score that is often indicative of being able to at least test under pressure and familiarity with the subject.

Save your theoretics for school, please.

/me drops your résumé into the shredder.

 

[Michael]

Whatever Hideki. You're my hero.