hezeuschrist
07-08-2005, 03:49 PM
About my 360 Quote, I don't find it rude or obscene that he has it in his sig, it was obviously a mistake I made (and I still contest that it's one of the most retarded console names ever). If I say something stupid I'll leave it there for all to see, there's no reason to rush back and edit it straight after the unveiling on MTV.
What I find ridiculous is that he updates it everyday to say that I posted today. That's just above and beyond and a complete waste of time. Anyways, onto the circus.
I've pointed out numerous times in this thread that scoring systems are a fallacy, that you cannot accurately compare scores from one site to another, or even within the same site. The example provided by my friend was interesting, and I shared it. You're accusing me of a nonexistent "rant" that wasn't even my own.
You still posted it, and if your friend had come in here with the same information I would have informed him that it was just as worthless to this conversation as if you had posted it. I also conceeded the point that Gamerankings along with metacritic and other compilation sites are principally flawed, and there's nothing to be done about it, but again you ignored that piece of my post. And it still has nothing to do with the consistency of scoring within the same site which is the point I've been advocating this entire time.
But it's interesting to note that of the three scoring systems in the listings, my average scores using each were:
5-star system: 3.10 out of 5 (average)
10-point system: 6 out of 10 (average)
100-point system: 77.1 out of 100 (above average because there's a disproportionate number of excellent games in the mix)
I'm not sure where you got your "6.8" number, but it's quite wrong.
Wow. I mean wow. You can't be serious, can you? You honestly can't figure out where I got that number?
5-star system: 3.10 out of 5 = 6.2 / 10
10-point system: 6 out of 10
100-point system: 77.1 out of 100 = 7.71 / 10
Now add up 6.2, 6, and 7.71, and divide them by the number three. We come up with 6.63, which is close enough due to an uneven amount of scores across each scoring system. I'm dumbfounded that in your intense battle to discredit me this elementry mathmatical issue went completely over your head. I assure you that 6.8 number is not "quite wrong."
As for the 100-point scale, you didn't mention the numbers I gave that AREN'T near 80--and there are more of those numbers--because you're cheating and throwing out contradictory evidence. 77 fits into your theory; 55 and 94 (not 91, as you claimed--again, quite wrong) don't.
First, the 91 instead of 94 was a typo, my bad.
Second, the point went straight over your head. I don't know if I can even explain that if you didn't get it already. Those numbers I gave were all "statistically insignificant" from the number 80. I know you scored other shit, but they weren't close to 80 and have nothing to do with the point (nothing to do with the point of the number 80, but are more relevant to the numbers 60 and 100, 80 is just my example). To also address your conformity point, you could have just scored all of those games an 80. A 4/5. That would fall into your ideal 5 point rating system and while your editors would be happy, you would also be "sticking it to the man" with something more than a whole lot of repetative words on some obscure corner of the internet. A whole lot. Shitloads of words, that all say the same thing.
Actually, you ARE wrong. I've invested time and energy into this thread, and provided all these facts and figures, to indicate your wrong-ness. And while facts and figures can't overcome blind faith, whether the subject is game-review scores or belief in a god, perhaps others will see this thread and agree with me instead of you.
There is no absolute here, Zach. You paint the 100 point scoring system as shitty for reasons X, Y, and Z. I paint it as valid for reasons A, B, and C.
And your reasons have become facts through the course of this discussion. Unless of course you mean the statistical differences between IGN and GameSpot, or the statistical differences between the Gamecube, PS2, and Xbox scores within the sites... I don't know what you're getting at.
Where are the facts? In the scientific community, facts are backed up with evidence. You are seriously claiming, in far more words, this:
"The 100 point rating system is completely invalid because I said so."
You find people who agree with you, and they're your "evidence." Yes, there are critical flaws with every rating system, but that does not render the entire concept of "rating scores" invalid.
The way this argument started was with me giving creedence to the small differences between the high end scores at Gamespot. I don't know what you thought would happen by going through all this, I don't know if you wanted to change my mind or what, but this fact remains:
I trust Gamespot and their scoring system for reviews and information on upcoming and newly released video games. I believe that a 9.7 on Gamespot speaks higher praise of a game than a 9.7 on IGN.
Why is that a fact? Because I started every sentence with the word "I." There's nothing you can do about this Zach, because it seems like you're trying to change the world one person at a time, and it's not worth your effort because it's impossible to change how a person thinks.
At this point, you will be wasting your breath. Entirely.
What I find ridiculous is that he updates it everyday to say that I posted today. That's just above and beyond and a complete waste of time. Anyways, onto the circus.
I've pointed out numerous times in this thread that scoring systems are a fallacy, that you cannot accurately compare scores from one site to another, or even within the same site. The example provided by my friend was interesting, and I shared it. You're accusing me of a nonexistent "rant" that wasn't even my own.
You still posted it, and if your friend had come in here with the same information I would have informed him that it was just as worthless to this conversation as if you had posted it. I also conceeded the point that Gamerankings along with metacritic and other compilation sites are principally flawed, and there's nothing to be done about it, but again you ignored that piece of my post. And it still has nothing to do with the consistency of scoring within the same site which is the point I've been advocating this entire time.
But it's interesting to note that of the three scoring systems in the listings, my average scores using each were:
5-star system: 3.10 out of 5 (average)
10-point system: 6 out of 10 (average)
100-point system: 77.1 out of 100 (above average because there's a disproportionate number of excellent games in the mix)
I'm not sure where you got your "6.8" number, but it's quite wrong.
Wow. I mean wow. You can't be serious, can you? You honestly can't figure out where I got that number?
5-star system: 3.10 out of 5 = 6.2 / 10
10-point system: 6 out of 10
100-point system: 77.1 out of 100 = 7.71 / 10
Now add up 6.2, 6, and 7.71, and divide them by the number three. We come up with 6.63, which is close enough due to an uneven amount of scores across each scoring system. I'm dumbfounded that in your intense battle to discredit me this elementry mathmatical issue went completely over your head. I assure you that 6.8 number is not "quite wrong."
As for the 100-point scale, you didn't mention the numbers I gave that AREN'T near 80--and there are more of those numbers--because you're cheating and throwing out contradictory evidence. 77 fits into your theory; 55 and 94 (not 91, as you claimed--again, quite wrong) don't.
First, the 91 instead of 94 was a typo, my bad.
Second, the point went straight over your head. I don't know if I can even explain that if you didn't get it already. Those numbers I gave were all "statistically insignificant" from the number 80. I know you scored other shit, but they weren't close to 80 and have nothing to do with the point (nothing to do with the point of the number 80, but are more relevant to the numbers 60 and 100, 80 is just my example). To also address your conformity point, you could have just scored all of those games an 80. A 4/5. That would fall into your ideal 5 point rating system and while your editors would be happy, you would also be "sticking it to the man" with something more than a whole lot of repetative words on some obscure corner of the internet. A whole lot. Shitloads of words, that all say the same thing.
Actually, you ARE wrong. I've invested time and energy into this thread, and provided all these facts and figures, to indicate your wrong-ness. And while facts and figures can't overcome blind faith, whether the subject is game-review scores or belief in a god, perhaps others will see this thread and agree with me instead of you.
There is no absolute here, Zach. You paint the 100 point scoring system as shitty for reasons X, Y, and Z. I paint it as valid for reasons A, B, and C.
And your reasons have become facts through the course of this discussion. Unless of course you mean the statistical differences between IGN and GameSpot, or the statistical differences between the Gamecube, PS2, and Xbox scores within the sites... I don't know what you're getting at.
Where are the facts? In the scientific community, facts are backed up with evidence. You are seriously claiming, in far more words, this:
"The 100 point rating system is completely invalid because I said so."
You find people who agree with you, and they're your "evidence." Yes, there are critical flaws with every rating system, but that does not render the entire concept of "rating scores" invalid.
The way this argument started was with me giving creedence to the small differences between the high end scores at Gamespot. I don't know what you thought would happen by going through all this, I don't know if you wanted to change my mind or what, but this fact remains:
I trust Gamespot and their scoring system for reviews and information on upcoming and newly released video games. I believe that a 9.7 on Gamespot speaks higher praise of a game than a 9.7 on IGN.
Why is that a fact? Because I started every sentence with the word "I." There's nothing you can do about this Zach, because it seems like you're trying to change the world one person at a time, and it's not worth your effort because it's impossible to change how a person thinks.
At this point, you will be wasting your breath. Entirely.