By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Rate this Game! (Battlefield 4)

curl-6 on 17 January 2014
dsage01 said:
I didn't count in a couple scores due to being waay to unreasonable and giving it a zero or a one..or not playing the full component of a game

What's the point of asking for ratings if you're going to arbitrarily decide which ones you accept? Might as well just decide the rating for yourself if you're going to tailor and influence the results.



Around the Network
wick on 17 January 2014
curl-6 said:
wick said:
curl-6 said:
3/10 on account of the awful campaign

Playing a Battlefield game for the campaign is like playing a Mario game for the story.

I have no interest in online multiplayer.

Then I might suggest a different series to play as the Battlefield series is 95% about the online multiplayer.



 

 

        Wii FC: 6440 8298 7583 0720   XBOX GT: WICK1978               PSN: its_the_wick   3DS: 1676-3747-7846                                          Nintendo Network: its-the-wick

Systems I've owned: Atari 2600, NES, SNES, GBColor, N64, Gamecube, PS2, Xbox, GBAdvance, DSlite, PSP, Wii, Xbox360, PS3, 3DS, PSVita, PS4, 3DS XL, Wii U

The best quote I've seen this year:

Angelus said: I'm a moron
dsage01 on 17 January 2014
curl-6 said:
dsage01 said:
I didn't count in a couple scores due to being waay to unreasonable and giving it a zero or a one..or not playing the full component of a game

What's the point of asking for ratings if you're going to arbitrarily decide which ones you accept? Might as well just decide the rating for yourself if you're going to tailor and influence the results.

Do you accept me to accept ratings where people are saying ``game does not work`` and giving it between a 0-3 even though it works for majority of the people. Or people like yourself or neglect the strongest component of this game. I feel there should be some level of moderation or there would be no difference between this and the overly biased metacritic user scores. But I agree, I should defintley update the OP saying that if you give any video game below the user score of 50 or much below the average score it should be very well explained just so the score can stay as free from trolling as possible.



dsage01 on 17 January 2014
wick said:
curl-6 said:
wick said:
curl-6 said:
3/10 on account of the awful campaign

Playing a Battlefield game for the campaign is like playing a Mario game for the story.

I have no interest in online multiplayer.

Then I might suggest a different series to play as the Battlefield series is 95% about the online multiplayer.

THIS!



curl-6 on 17 January 2014
dsage01 said:
curl-6 said:
dsage01 said:
I didn't count in a couple scores due to being waay to unreasonable and giving it a zero or a one..or not playing the full component of a game

What's the point of asking for ratings if you're going to arbitrarily decide which ones you accept? Might as well just decide the rating for yourself if you're going to tailor and influence the results.

Do you accept me to accept ratings where people are saying ``game does not work`` and giving it between a 0-3 even though it works for majority of the people. Or people like yourself or neglect the strongest component of this game. I feel there should be some level of moderation or there would be no difference between this and the overly biased metacritic user scores. But I agree, I should defintley update the OP saying that if you give any video game below the user score of 50 or much below the average score it should be very well explained just so the score can stay as free from trolling as possible.

There is no way to weed out bias, because everybody has a bias.

Your only choice is whether or not to tamper with the results.



Around the Network
dsage01 on 17 January 2014
curl-6 said:
dsage01 said:
curl-6 said:
dsage01 said:
I didn't count in a couple scores due to being waay to unreasonable and giving it a zero or a one..or not playing the full component of a game

What's the point of asking for ratings if you're going to arbitrarily decide which ones you accept? Might as well just decide the rating for yourself if you're going to tailor and influence the results.

Do you accept me to accept ratings where people are saying ``game does not work`` and giving it between a 0-3 even though it works for majority of the people. Or people like yourself or neglect the strongest component of this game. I feel there should be some level of moderation or there would be no difference between this and the overly biased metacritic user scores. But I agree, I should defintley update the OP saying that if you give any video game below the user score of 50 or much below the average score it should be very well explained just so the score can stay as free from trolling as possible.

There is no way to weed out bias, because everybody has a bias.

Your only choice is whether or not to tamper with the results.

I`m not saying I can completly get rid of the bias in the scores. However I can make it significantly less with not accpeting scores that are extremely low without a reasonable explanation.



MoHasanie on 17 January 2014
curl-6 said:

There is no way to weed out bias, because everybody has a bias.

Your only choice is whether or not to tamper with the results.


People who gives 0's as a score are clearly being unfair and biased and will ruin the average score. I mean, he's asking us to rate some of the most popular games most have played. 



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

curl-6 on 18 January 2014
dsage01 said:
curl-6 said:
dsage01 said:
curl-6 said:
dsage01 said:
I didn't count in a couple scores due to being waay to unreasonable and giving it a zero or a one..or not playing the full component of a game

What's the point of asking for ratings if you're going to arbitrarily decide which ones you accept? Might as well just decide the rating for yourself if you're going to tailor and influence the results.

Do you accept me to accept ratings where people are saying ``game does not work`` and giving it between a 0-3 even though it works for majority of the people. Or people like yourself or neglect the strongest component of this game. I feel there should be some level of moderation or there would be no difference between this and the overly biased metacritic user scores. But I agree, I should defintley update the OP saying that if you give any video game below the user score of 50 or much below the average score it should be very well explained just so the score can stay as free from trolling as possible.

There is no way to weed out bias, because everybody has a bias.

Your only choice is whether or not to tamper with the results.

I`m not saying I can completly get rid of the bias in the scores. However I can make it significantly less with not accpeting scores that are extremely low without a reasonable explanation.

Isn't the point to get people's opinions though? If their opinion is that they absolutely despise the game, shouldn't the final score reflect that? If not, then it's not really an accurate average of VGChartz's opinion, just an average of the ones you find agreeable.



Pemalite on 18 January 2014
dsage01 said:
curl-6 said:
dsage01 said:
I didn't count in a couple scores due to being waay to unreasonable and giving it a zero or a one..or not playing the full component of a game

What's the point of asking for ratings if you're going to arbitrarily decide which ones you accept? Might as well just decide the rating for yourself if you're going to tailor and influence the results.

Do you accept me to accept ratings where people are saying ``game does not work`` and giving it between a 0-3 even though it works for majority of the people. Or people like yourself or neglect the strongest component of this game. I feel there should be some level of moderation or there would be no difference between this and the overly biased metacritic user scores. But I agree, I should defintley update the OP saying that if you give any video game below the user score of 50 or much below the average score it should be very well explained just so the score can stay as free from trolling as possible.


If that's your frame of thought... Then you should remove scores which are 10/10 because the game is far from perfection.
A game that deserves 10/10 are those with a gripping and engaging story/campaign compounded via a perfect multi-player experience with no bugs or issues, has the best possible image quality and sound and brings with it new innovative ideas and gameplay mechanics never seen before.

Which simply hasn't occured, the game is an iterative refinement over Battlefield 3 and restores lost features/functionality that was available in Bad Company.




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

dsage01 on 18 January 2014
Pemalite said:
dsage01 said:
curl-6 said:
dsage01 said:
I didn't count in a couple scores due to being waay to unreasonable and giving it a zero or a one..or not playing the full component of a game

What's the point of asking for ratings if you're going to arbitrarily decide which ones you accept? Might as well just decide the rating for yourself if you're going to tailor and influence the results.

Do you accept me to accept ratings where people are saying ``game does not work`` and giving it between a 0-3 even though it works for majority of the people. Or people like yourself or neglect the strongest component of this game. I feel there should be some level of moderation or there would be no difference between this and the overly biased metacritic user scores. But I agree, I should defintley update the OP saying that if you give any video game below the user score of 50 or much below the average score it should be very well explained just so the score can stay as free from trolling as possible.


If that's your frame of thought... Then you should remove scores which are 10/10 because the game is far from perfection.
A game that deserves 10/10 are those with a gripping and engaging story/campaign compounded via a perfect multi-player experience with no bugs or issues, has the best possible image quality and sound and brings with it new innovative ideas and gameplay mechanics never seen before.

Which simply hasn't occured, the game is an iterative refinement over Battlefield 3 and restores lost features/functionality that was available in Bad Company.


Fair enough, how about this if a game has metacritic scores above 75 they don`t have to give an explanation for a rating above 95, however if it is below 75 they don`t have to give an explanation for the zero. How does that sound.