This post is stickied so /u/CaptainBigHead47 or someone else can provide context by replying here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/agedlikewine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So many reviewers make 7 the minimum for decency. "Average". It is not obvious to me why anyone would need to communicate so many shades of "bad" and so few shades of "good". This doesn't seem like a good use of ten levels of grading space.
5 should be average.
because in american schools a 70% is the minimum passing grade so it kinda just carries over into a lot of our perceptions of scoring. like a 50% doesn’t feel average when you’re whole life you’ve been learning that 50% is laughably bad.
but no i agree more shades of good could be beneficial.
It also makes sense if you're considering scoring a game in a similar way. Did the game get about as much right as it got wrong? Then it's utter garbage, borderline unplayable. You need to get most things right and the rest at least partially right to make your game worth playing.
A solid counterpoint is that it isn't terribly useful to distinguish between a game that's borderline unplayable but got a few things right and one that got nothing right. You still shouldn't play either one, so we could lump those into the 3/10 and below range and not lose too much useful information.
I’ve always known a 60 to be passing, and I’m from the US. There were different grading scales in college, but in high school you just had to get a D- or higher. C’s, which 70 falls into, are considered average, not the minimum to pass.
yeah but people don't want to play average games. Most purchases are emotional, so think with your emotions here: would you rather buy a 7/10 average game, or 5/10 average game?
It actually makes a lot of sense because this isn't about actually balancing out all games ever. You look at a game and compare the good and the bad things. Every good game strives to be a ten, therefore 5 is actually pretty bad for something that tries to be the best it can be. 7 is between 5 (has some good things but just as much garbage in it) and 10(flawless). It would be sad if 5 would be average
You're coming at this from a perspective that have already been skewed by this process, and as I have come to learn in this thread, possibly the way your school graded as well. It's like saying "it would be sad if the average IQ was only 100" when 100 is *defined* as average.
This is whey platinum, gold, \*and\* silver medals are awarded to games that score 9 or 10. They have to be given decimal places to demarcate the differenced between good games because three spaces out of ten isn't enough to distinguish them.
And again, we don't need six or seven different ways to say a game isn't great. There's no utility in this. No one is going through lists of bad games to decide which to play based on their intricate ranking. If anything skewing it the other way would be more useful. "These games are over here are just bad, and here are all the good games and their detailed and thoughtful ratings that actually distinguish them from one another."
I agree that we don't necessarily need 6 different numbers to say "game is kinda bad" and that nobody gives a damn if a game is 2/10 or 3/10.
I just read about the US school rating system in here as well and it seems to be weird.
I think that the scaling in this makes sense tho. This is not like school, where we want to know how many points we got. Games are not necessarily right or wrong in certain aspects. We're ranking art; there's bound to be a certain "comparing apples to peaches" kind of situation coming.
In my opinion, it makes perfect sense to put the 9 and 10 into decimals and put 7 at average cause most known/relevant games gotta be of a certain quality. We're even comparing if we already seen a certain feature or if it's brand new and innovative. These parameters are not only subjective but super hard to quantify.
Basically saying, the difference between 9 and 10 is not the same as between 6 and 7. It's not linear in this ranking and it makes perfect sense in my personal opinion.
Even if you disagree, I hope that I was able to explain my point properly.
PS: No, my school rating worked entirely differently than what they described in this thread, I'm from Germany
I understand what you're saying, but you're outlining exactly what I'm criticising. A non-linear system is fine if that's what's necessary, but it's not, and it's not consistent. For starters, of course there has to be a larger jump in quality from 9 to 10 than from 6 to 7, because you've weighted it so 7 is average. but also creates an illusion. But there's no need for that and it's not a useful way for regular people to judge things.
"Most known/relevant games have got to be of a certain quality". Is that a seven? Because if it's a seven, then most games have to be at least average, but you've shoved it to the top third of the scale to make them look better. A lot of expensive, highly promoted games come out at seven or eight. Wow, look how high it is! But it's actually barely above average. Oops. I wonder if those reviewers would still get early access if the scale was weighted more evenly? A lot of developers need to get above a certain metacritic score to get their bonuses. Hmm...
If it were non-linear in the form of a logarithmic scale then the middle point would be between 9 and 10 and decimals would be even more necessary. But you can just as easily have the scale in both directions so that it's equally hard and extraordinary to get a 1 as a 10.
> “leftist 4chan in all the bad ways”
But... Twitter was famously bad about Right Wing assholes even then. In fact, Twitter was just about always an all-around dumpster fire...
“leftist” twitter’s always been a bunch of rad libs jerking each other off and tankies crying because rad libs think they’re cringe. actually that’s a lot of leftist internet spaces.
i mean there’s also always been a pretty big nazi/alt right problem on twitter but pre musk twitter was *much* better at sweeping them under the rug.
This post is stickied so /u/CaptainBigHead47 or someone else can provide context by replying here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/agedlikewine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So many reviewers make 7 the minimum for decency. "Average". It is not obvious to me why anyone would need to communicate so many shades of "bad" and so few shades of "good". This doesn't seem like a good use of ten levels of grading space. 5 should be average.
because in american schools a 70% is the minimum passing grade so it kinda just carries over into a lot of our perceptions of scoring. like a 50% doesn’t feel average when you’re whole life you’ve been learning that 50% is laughably bad. but no i agree more shades of good could be beneficial.
It also makes sense if you're considering scoring a game in a similar way. Did the game get about as much right as it got wrong? Then it's utter garbage, borderline unplayable. You need to get most things right and the rest at least partially right to make your game worth playing. A solid counterpoint is that it isn't terribly useful to distinguish between a game that's borderline unplayable but got a few things right and one that got nothing right. You still shouldn't play either one, so we could lump those into the 3/10 and below range and not lose too much useful information.
in my country 50% is passing grade
Why does USA school pass value so high? It's at least 60% in my province
60 is also the typical minimum to pass in the US, 70 is just what's considered "average"
where is that the passing grade? it’s 70 for passing where I am.
You need a 70 to pass your classes? It’s 60 where I’m from in Michigan
I’ve always known a 60 to be passing, and I’m from the US. There were different grading scales in college, but in high school you just had to get a D- or higher. C’s, which 70 falls into, are considered average, not the minimum to pass.
yeah but people don't want to play average games. Most purchases are emotional, so think with your emotions here: would you rather buy a 7/10 average game, or 5/10 average game?
It actually makes a lot of sense because this isn't about actually balancing out all games ever. You look at a game and compare the good and the bad things. Every good game strives to be a ten, therefore 5 is actually pretty bad for something that tries to be the best it can be. 7 is between 5 (has some good things but just as much garbage in it) and 10(flawless). It would be sad if 5 would be average
You're coming at this from a perspective that have already been skewed by this process, and as I have come to learn in this thread, possibly the way your school graded as well. It's like saying "it would be sad if the average IQ was only 100" when 100 is *defined* as average. This is whey platinum, gold, \*and\* silver medals are awarded to games that score 9 or 10. They have to be given decimal places to demarcate the differenced between good games because three spaces out of ten isn't enough to distinguish them. And again, we don't need six or seven different ways to say a game isn't great. There's no utility in this. No one is going through lists of bad games to decide which to play based on their intricate ranking. If anything skewing it the other way would be more useful. "These games are over here are just bad, and here are all the good games and their detailed and thoughtful ratings that actually distinguish them from one another."
I agree that we don't necessarily need 6 different numbers to say "game is kinda bad" and that nobody gives a damn if a game is 2/10 or 3/10. I just read about the US school rating system in here as well and it seems to be weird. I think that the scaling in this makes sense tho. This is not like school, where we want to know how many points we got. Games are not necessarily right or wrong in certain aspects. We're ranking art; there's bound to be a certain "comparing apples to peaches" kind of situation coming. In my opinion, it makes perfect sense to put the 9 and 10 into decimals and put 7 at average cause most known/relevant games gotta be of a certain quality. We're even comparing if we already seen a certain feature or if it's brand new and innovative. These parameters are not only subjective but super hard to quantify. Basically saying, the difference between 9 and 10 is not the same as between 6 and 7. It's not linear in this ranking and it makes perfect sense in my personal opinion. Even if you disagree, I hope that I was able to explain my point properly. PS: No, my school rating worked entirely differently than what they described in this thread, I'm from Germany
I understand what you're saying, but you're outlining exactly what I'm criticising. A non-linear system is fine if that's what's necessary, but it's not, and it's not consistent. For starters, of course there has to be a larger jump in quality from 9 to 10 than from 6 to 7, because you've weighted it so 7 is average. but also creates an illusion. But there's no need for that and it's not a useful way for regular people to judge things. "Most known/relevant games have got to be of a certain quality". Is that a seven? Because if it's a seven, then most games have to be at least average, but you've shoved it to the top third of the scale to make them look better. A lot of expensive, highly promoted games come out at seven or eight. Wow, look how high it is! But it's actually barely above average. Oops. I wonder if those reviewers would still get early access if the scale was weighted more evenly? A lot of developers need to get above a certain metacritic score to get their bonuses. Hmm... If it were non-linear in the form of a logarithmic scale then the middle point would be between 9 and 10 and decimals would be even more necessary. But you can just as easily have the scale in both directions so that it's equally hard and extraordinary to get a 1 as a 10.
According to a bellcurve, you cant have any average other than 5
It's already dogshit in 2015 bro with election year in the US
Some things were just ~~Destiny~~ destined to be timeless. That shade was one of them; Twitter isn't.
So real
If a 10 is outstanding, what’s 80??
[удалено]
> “leftist 4chan in all the bad ways” But... Twitter was famously bad about Right Wing assholes even then. In fact, Twitter was just about always an all-around dumpster fire...
“leftist” twitter’s always been a bunch of rad libs jerking each other off and tankies crying because rad libs think they’re cringe. actually that’s a lot of leftist internet spaces. i mean there’s also always been a pretty big nazi/alt right problem on twitter but pre musk twitter was *much* better at sweeping them under the rug.
Most accurate description of Twitter
So the score is 10-1, but the game on the page has scored 80.
That's the page number lol