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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - A comparison of the ratios of good games to bad games on 6 consoles

MontanaHatchet on 14 May 2008
sinha said:
naznatips said:
This graph is ridiculous. It shows absolutely nothing. I have no idea what you people are thinking who are agreeing with this, but you should probably take a few seconds to actually read what it's trying to show.

What makes the graph ridiculous, and how does it show absolutely nothing?

 Someone is being a grumpy gus today. The graph shows something. It certainly can't show nothing when it has lines and numbers.



 

 

Around the Network
stranne on 14 May 2008

Review scores are meaningless so the chart is meaningless. An "hours of fun per dollar", that's what I'd like to see.

Or even "sales per metacritic %" or something like that.



naznatips on 14 May 2008
MontanaHatchet said:
sinha said:
naznatips said:
This graph is ridiculous. It shows absolutely nothing. I have no idea what you people are thinking who are agreeing with this, but you should probably take a few seconds to actually read what it's trying to show.

What makes the graph ridiculous, and how does it show absolutely nothing?

Someone is being a grumpy gus today. The graph shows something. It certainly can't show nothing when it has lines and numbers.


Okay, it shows something meaningless... are you people actually reading that?  There is no way that data has any relevance whatsoever.  If that graph were true, the Wii would have less games of every review score, including the bad ones.  It shows no ratio, it has no key.  It is completely nonsensical.  For once I agree entirely with KingofWale.  

Seriously do you people just look at any graph and assume it as meaning? 



LordTheNightKnight on 14 May 2008
naznatips said:
MontanaHatchet said:
sinha said:
naznatips said:
This graph is ridiculous. It shows absolutely nothing. I have no idea what you people are thinking who are agreeing with this, but you should probably take a few seconds to actually read what it's trying to show.

What makes the graph ridiculous, and how does it show absolutely nothing?

Someone is being a grumpy gus today. The graph shows something. It certainly can't show nothing when it has lines and numbers.


Okay, it shows something meaningless... are you people actually reading that? There is no way that data has any relevance whatsoever. If that graph were true, the Wii would have less games of every review score, including the bad ones. It shows no ratio, it has no key. It is completely nonsensical. For once I agree entirely with KingofWale.

Seriously do you people just look at any graph and assume it as meaning?


Is the X axis supposed to be percentiles? 



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

MontanaHatchet on 14 May 2008
naznatips said:
MontanaHatchet said:
sinha said:
naznatips said:
This graph is ridiculous. It shows absolutely nothing. I have no idea what you people are thinking who are agreeing with this, but you should probably take a few seconds to actually read what it's trying to show.

What makes the graph ridiculous, and how does it show absolutely nothing?

Someone is being a grumpy gus today. The graph shows something. It certainly can't show nothing when it has lines and numbers.


Okay, it shows something meaningless... are you people actually reading that? There is no way that data has any relevance whatsoever. If that graph were true, the Wii would have less games of every review score, including the bad ones. It shows no ratio, it has no key. It is completely nonsensical. For once I agree entirely with KingofWale.

Seriously do you people just look at any graph and assume it as meaning?


 We went over this in the PM Naznatips, which you would know if you had read it...



 

 

Around the Network
naznatips on 14 May 2008
MontanaHatchet said:
naznatips said:
MontanaHatchet said:
sinha said:
naznatips said:
This graph is ridiculous. It shows absolutely nothing. I have no idea what you people are thinking who are agreeing with this, but you should probably take a few seconds to actually read what it's trying to show.

What makes the graph ridiculous, and how does it show absolutely nothing?

Someone is being a grumpy gus today. The graph shows something. It certainly can't show nothing when it has lines and numbers.


Okay, it shows something meaningless... are you people actually reading that? There is no way that data has any relevance whatsoever. If that graph were true, the Wii would have less games of every review score, including the bad ones. It shows no ratio, it has no key. It is completely nonsensical. For once I agree entirely with KingofWale.

Seriously do you people just look at any graph and assume it as meaning?


We went over this in the PM Naznatips, which you would know if you had read it...


I did... your PM said to explain why it was meaningless.  So I did.



rudyrsr8 on 14 May 2008

Nice way to come back man.



"Like you know"

LordTheNightKnight on 14 May 2008

The mods are fighting! Grab the popcorn!

I kid, I kid.*

Seriously, aside from percentiles of which games got what scores, I don't see what those graphs say.

I say it's meaningless because it only measures reviews, which only proves it has fewer games that appeal to reviewers.



* I am kidding. Yet if that's inappropriate, I will edit that part out.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

catprog on 14 May 2008
Nintendo Zealot said:
catprog said:
Latest comparison is 10 games per year.

Spreading the games over 100 values.
Then dividing the difference by 100.

Console,Avg,Highest to 0

PS2 -0.01 0 PS3 -1.94 -1.83
GC -2.37 -2.36 Wii -3.13 -3.02
Xbox -1.21 -1.2 Xbox360 -0.11 0

^ I have no idea what this means.

Thanks for the graphs they are interesting.


I get the best 10 games times the number of year the console has been out.

I stretch it out so that each console has 100 values.

I take the max review score at each values and subtract each console score from that.

I then take the average and add so that the higest is at 0.

 

For all the people wondering about the graphs.

I am not measuring the amount of games that got which score.

 

Y axis is the metacritic score.

X axis is the games. (GTA,Zelda are at the left : Yaris, Balls of Fury & Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire are on the right



My websites

http://catprog.org

Online games that I play:

http://www.animecubed.com/billy/?Catprog

 

MontanaHatchet on 14 May 2008
naznatips said:
MontanaHatchet said:
naznatips said:
MontanaHatchet said:
sinha said:
naznatips said:
This graph is ridiculous. It shows absolutely nothing. I have no idea what you people are thinking who are agreeing with this, but you should probably take a few seconds to actually read what it's trying to show.

What makes the graph ridiculous, and how does it show absolutely nothing?

Someone is being a grumpy gus today. The graph shows something. It certainly can't show nothing when it has lines and numbers.


Okay, it shows something meaningless... are you people actually reading that? There is no way that data has any relevance whatsoever. If that graph were true, the Wii would have less games of every review score, including the bad ones. It shows no ratio, it has no key. It is completely nonsensical. For once I agree entirely with KingofWale.

Seriously do you people just look at any graph and assume it as meaning?


We went over this in the PM Naznatips, which you would know if you had read it...


I did... your PM said to explain why it was meaningless. So I did.

Yeah, but you keep on saying "you people". Plus you quoted my post...

*Breaks chair*

Mod fight!!!

Sorry, this thread needs some decent entertainment.