surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
I have a very hard time separating the two scoring systems as well. I too grew up with an education system which dictated that everything below 60 was a failure. It's very hard to consider a game that is beneath that mark even though the grading is totally different. The success average is burnt into my brain unfortunately.
It's a pretty obvious misunderstanding, which not a lot of people get.
It's a pretty obvious misunderstanding, which not a lot of people get.
I think of it like how most contest scoring works e.g. take a score out of 10 to present your general feeling on the act which is then averaged with other scores to give a final one. The problem I have is when reviewers sound like they're forcing themselves to like or dislike a game because of previous acts by developers, publishers or the quality of prequels in the series.
I think a lot of third party, smaller titles get highly rated in the gaming world because no one would give them a chance otherwise. Although that's more of a problem with gamers than it is reviewers as I know people that don't really give new IPs a chance unless they're console exclusive or at least 8s out of 10.
It's sad really =[
I think a lot of third party, smaller titles get highly rated in the gaming world because no one would give them a chance otherwise. Although that's more of a problem with gamers than it is reviewers as I know people that don't really give new IPs a chance unless they're console exclusive or at least 8s out of 10.
It's sad really =[
Yeah, I totally agree. Also, the better you do in school, the worse the effect is. I'm a straight-A guy, so it's really bad for me.
Also, I just got an idea for a blog.
Muahahahahahaha...
Also, I just got an idea for a blog.
Muahahahahahaha...
Kinda true... though with video games I don't look at the number so much as read what that number corresponds to. Each site seems to use a slightly different scale so the words are more important than the number (unless you are very familiar with the site and know the scale).
Then again I like words more than numbers in general anyway... and was never very good at math! :)
Then again I like words more than numbers in general anyway... and was never very good at math! :)
I would call a game below a 70% a failure. Not necessarily from a single reviewer, but from metacritic overall.
If you're a working adult you don't have enough free time to play every high profile release, and if you're a kid you're unlikely to have enough cash to buy said releases.
Unless you enjoy a very very specific genre of game, and want all of it on offer regardless of quality, there are simply too many decent games to bother with anything below a certain grade. I personally think that most reviewers are too generous with their scores (I have no clue how Borderlands averaged to an 84), so I rarely dip below the 80% line. Exceptions to this have been the latest Prince of Persia 75% (I felt like Prince of Persia), and Killer7 70% (I felt like something messed up and outside the norms of gaming).
Given the number of games ranked above 80%, which is defined as a "great", I really don't think there's a reason for me (or anybody else for that matter) to have less than a great time.
Oh and I know a few people dislike a reliance on numbers and metacritic due to different sites scaling their reviews differently. But metacritic DOES give an overall idea of the most critically acclaimed games on a system. I do read reviews as well, that's how I knew to be interested in Killer7, but as a general rule of thumb I would still say below 70% is a failure.
If you're a working adult you don't have enough free time to play every high profile release, and if you're a kid you're unlikely to have enough cash to buy said releases.
Unless you enjoy a very very specific genre of game, and want all of it on offer regardless of quality, there are simply too many decent games to bother with anything below a certain grade. I personally think that most reviewers are too generous with their scores (I have no clue how Borderlands averaged to an 84), so I rarely dip below the 80% line. Exceptions to this have been the latest Prince of Persia 75% (I felt like Prince of Persia), and Killer7 70% (I felt like something messed up and outside the norms of gaming).
Given the number of games ranked above 80%, which is defined as a "great", I really don't think there's a reason for me (or anybody else for that matter) to have less than a great time.
Oh and I know a few people dislike a reliance on numbers and metacritic due to different sites scaling their reviews differently. But metacritic DOES give an overall idea of the most critically acclaimed games on a system. I do read reviews as well, that's how I knew to be interested in Killer7, but as a general rule of thumb I would still say below 70% is a failure.
Not only is anything below a 50 a failure but anything that was between 50-60 was considered an unsatisfactory results. People would only consider you smart if you got in the 80-100 range and so we pass that on onto our games.
I personally haven't noticed the connection before but you can't deny it doesn't exist.
I personally haven't noticed the connection before but you can't deny it doesn't exist.
This is very nice to see.I really want this kind of site.Thanks for sharing this.Thanks to you.
mcse 70-290 | mcts 70-648 | ccna wireless 640-721 | mcts 70-573
mcse 70-290 | mcts 70-648 | ccna wireless 640-721 | mcts 70-573
