VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited June 2011
I too support getting rid of any quantitative signifier on a review. No letter grades, 10-point scales, or percentages. Just a well-written article detailing the ups and down of the gaming experience.
The problem with this model is that is doesn't make for good marketing. No matter how well-written your reviews are, people will always prefer to see "IGN Score: 9.5" over some choice quote from an in-depth critique of a game.
After-all most of us are smarter than your average joe.
Yeah, after going by what I've seen on the internet, I highly doubt that.
Oh wow, yeah. I missed that.
No sorry Zion, selection bias all up ins for you. That whole statement you made about the "gaming population" is quite clearly your own faulty judgement based on anecdotal observation.
A selection bias occurs when you take a sample that is not representative of the population at large and then attempt to analyze it as if it is.
That article references a single study and a couple of "experts", one of which is from a family based foundation. It also is regarding video games making people "smarter" in a restricted area of intelligence. You were not specifying which area of intelligence, of which there are many, you were referring to. You clearly just meant "better".
Your statement is that most gamers are smarter than the average of the rest of the population.
I can show you what you have done using numbers, to see if it's clearer.
Lets take an intelligence test 0-100, for the sake of the argument.
Assuming a normal distribution (which any scientific study would) an average joe = 50 intelligence points.
Your statement claims that most gamers start from 51 upwards. This is obviously flawed.
Someone playing games who started out at, say, 40, might get improved a bit from games, or they might not. They are not going to automatically jump up to 51 just from playing a few games. They're not magical brain improvement devices.
If there is a uniform improvement from playing games, you might get the average gamer increased above the average joe, but you are still going to get gamers less than the average score in the population.
Lets say that playing games gives a uniform +3, just for this argument. Let's also assume that this improvement happens to all people, which does not normally happen. (Usually some get a benefit and some do not.) So our 40 gamer has +3 from playing games. He's now 43. He's still below average.
This isn't the only problem with what you said, you also ignored what it means for there to be an average score in the first place. Computer games may or may not adjust the average for those who play them upwards, but given that so many people play computer games of some kind nowadays and most intelligence tests do not actually have a box that asks "so, do you play games?", even if it does improve people in a consistent and significant way, this is going to be reflected in rising average joe scores. Everybody gets boosted upwards as a result. So now 53 is our new average and everybody maxes out at 103. And our 43 gamer boy hasn't changed in respect to those around him. He's still below average.
(I know it wouldn't be a straight +3 to the average it'd be something less, I'm just keeping it simple)
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
The second something becomes mainstream...well, we used to be a community of geeks, techheads, etc. Now? Shit. Not trying to sound elitist here: my point is that way back when gaming was niche it was easier to comment on gamers in general. Now there's the brosquad and their shooters, the housewives with their <insert random word>ville games and whoever the hell plays Angry Birds.
I do. Angry Birds is great. I've been playing games for 28 years.
Yes, you sound elitist.
Madden 96 was for nerds, techheads, geeks, but now? I seriously can't believe he believes his own argument.
mrt144 on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited June 2011
I personally read as many individual reviews from different places as I can and try to get a feel of what the game is like based on what the reviewer is actually claiming, and how many other reviews substantiate this claim.
I also look at the quality of the writing, the general tone and mood of the review, and a variety of other factors. I discredit and/or ignore generalised claims "The controls suck" = ignored. "The controls are awkward because x is on r2 and this makes it difficult to hit x and y at the same time" = my attention. I require the reviews I allow to influence my decision to have good reasoning behind the opinions before I treat them as anything other than a random stranger spouting his ideas at me.
I try to have a look at video reviews as well.
Then after a decent information gathering session, which usually only takes me about twenty minutes to half an hour since reviews don't take that long to skim read, I'll make my decision based on all of the above. But only if I'm in a hurry. Otherwise I'll take a bit longer, look up more reviews, maybe think about it and come back later. Maybe see what people I know and trust have to say. And so on.
I don't look at the score, because it's a meaningless arbitrary whatever. It isn't going to help me.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
The second something becomes mainstream...well, we used to be a community of geeks, techheads, etc. Now? Shit. Not trying to sound elitist here: my point is that way back when gaming was niche it was easier to comment on gamers in general. Now there's the brosquad and their shooters, the housewives with their <insert random word>ville games and whoever the hell plays Angry Birds.
Welcome to capitalism? You're complaining about something that is a fundamental aspect of American way of life.
I'm not complaining. I'm stating that there's a much, much wider assortment of people who game these days and that commenting on gamer intelligence levels is absurd giving how wide a scope the term 'gamer' now covers.
And not everyone lives in America, just a heads up.
Morninglord, you're my go-to action guy for go-to action
What do you think of Anarchy Reigns, if you've seen any of it so far?
Jintor on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited June 2011
Hard to say based on what we've seen, which is mostly character trailers. I can't even put out a cursory speculation on how I think the engine works with what I've seen.
We have a thread, we should take this to that. It is kind of offtopic and I only replied because I did say I ask people I know for advice. I think perhaps this shouldn't be a thread for asking other forumers their views though. It's about written reviews.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Posts
The problem with this model is that is doesn't make for good marketing. No matter how well-written your reviews are, people will always prefer to see "IGN Score: 9.5" over some choice quote from an in-depth critique of a game.
Sushi-X always gave crap ratings
PSN - sumowot
A selection bias occurs when you take a sample that is not representative of the population at large and then attempt to analyze it as if it is.
That article references a single study and a couple of "experts", one of which is from a family based foundation. It also is regarding video games making people "smarter" in a restricted area of intelligence. You were not specifying which area of intelligence, of which there are many, you were referring to. You clearly just meant "better".
Your statement is that most gamers are smarter than the average of the rest of the population.
I can show you what you have done using numbers, to see if it's clearer.
Lets take an intelligence test 0-100, for the sake of the argument.
Assuming a normal distribution (which any scientific study would) an average joe = 50 intelligence points.
Your statement claims that most gamers start from 51 upwards. This is obviously flawed.
Someone playing games who started out at, say, 40, might get improved a bit from games, or they might not. They are not going to automatically jump up to 51 just from playing a few games. They're not magical brain improvement devices.
If there is a uniform improvement from playing games, you might get the average gamer increased above the average joe, but you are still going to get gamers less than the average score in the population.
Lets say that playing games gives a uniform +3, just for this argument. Let's also assume that this improvement happens to all people, which does not normally happen. (Usually some get a benefit and some do not.) So our 40 gamer has +3 from playing games. He's now 43. He's still below average.
This isn't the only problem with what you said, you also ignored what it means for there to be an average score in the first place. Computer games may or may not adjust the average for those who play them upwards, but given that so many people play computer games of some kind nowadays and most intelligence tests do not actually have a box that asks "so, do you play games?", even if it does improve people in a consistent and significant way, this is going to be reflected in rising average joe scores. Everybody gets boosted upwards as a result. So now 53 is our new average and everybody maxes out at 103. And our 43 gamer boy hasn't changed in respect to those around him. He's still below average.
(I know it wouldn't be a straight +3 to the average it'd be something less, I'm just keeping it simple)
Madden 96 was for nerds, techheads, geeks, but now? I seriously can't believe he believes his own argument.
I also look at the quality of the writing, the general tone and mood of the review, and a variety of other factors. I discredit and/or ignore generalised claims "The controls suck" = ignored. "The controls are awkward because x is on r2 and this makes it difficult to hit x and y at the same time" = my attention. I require the reviews I allow to influence my decision to have good reasoning behind the opinions before I treat them as anything other than a random stranger spouting his ideas at me.
I try to have a look at video reviews as well.
Then after a decent information gathering session, which usually only takes me about twenty minutes to half an hour since reviews don't take that long to skim read, I'll make my decision based on all of the above. But only if I'm in a hurry. Otherwise I'll take a bit longer, look up more reviews, maybe think about it and come back later. Maybe see what people I know and trust have to say. And so on.
I don't look at the score, because it's a meaningless arbitrary whatever. It isn't going to help me.
I'm not complaining. I'm stating that there's a much, much wider assortment of people who game these days and that commenting on gamer intelligence levels is absurd giving how wide a scope the term 'gamer' now covers.
And not everyone lives in America, just a heads up.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
What do you think of Anarchy Reigns, if you've seen any of it so far?
But it's music is spectacular.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw91jhK6c2o
We have a thread, we should take this to that. It is kind of offtopic and I only replied because I did say I ask people I know for advice. I think perhaps this shouldn't be a thread for asking other forumers their views though. It's about written reviews.
You are my go-to guy for go-to action though. Hang in AusPAX more.