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

Forums - Gaming - GTA is falling from the top 2 places in gamerankings

ItalianBoyPhil on 13 May 2008

Oh and another thing, Why are nintendo fanboys always angry at the PS3/X360?
Why are they angry at GTA IV??
If it was shit then why did 5/6m People buy it??
Its a brilliant game, loads of people think so, apart from the Nintendo Fanboys.



    

Justice is always Right... Oh wait... that was Wright...

Around the Network
TheGameFather on 13 May 2008

If it had naked boobies it'd stay #1 forever.

stick that up your objective journalism. 

 



Final-Fan on 13 May 2008
ItalianBoyPhil said:
Oh and another thing, Why are nintendo fanboys always angry at the PS3/X360?
Why are they angry at GTA IV??
If it was shit then why did 5/6m People buy it??
Its a brilliant game, loads of people think so, apart from the Nintendo Fanboys.
Please either point out someone who has called it shit in this thread (hell, in VGChartz!) or GTFO.

Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

SilentWolf on 13 May 2008
Picko said:
Firstly, in statistical terms OoT does not really have enough reviews for those reviews to be a reliable indicator of the games quality. Worth noting that basically no game does but the like ot OoT are particularly bad and no real meaning can be obtained by looking at the "average".

Secondly, even looking at the "raw" scores there is very little difference between any of the top ten. This is particularly so given the first point I made, there is no statistically significant difference between their raw scores and no conclusions can be made about which game is better. Sad I know.

I thought that in statistics you only needed 31(random..ish) samples to be able to safely say that you have enough to represent the whole.  If true that would put OoT at (barely) enough reviews to say that its current percentage is a good representation.

LordTheNightKnight on 13 May 2008

So Nintendo fans are desperate for thinking the scores are conspiracies, but it's okay to try to twist the numbers to keep GTA IV on top. [/sarcasm]

Just enjoy your damn games.



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

Around the Network
Picko on 13 May 2008
SilentWolf said:
Picko said:
Firstly, in statistical terms OoT does not really have enough reviews for those reviews to be a reliable indicator of the games quality. Worth noting that basically no game does but the like ot OoT are particularly bad and no real meaning can be obtained by looking at the "average".

Secondly, even looking at the "raw" scores there is very little difference between any of the top ten. This is particularly so given the first point I made, there is no statistically significant difference between their raw scores and no conclusions can be made about which game is better. Sad I know.

I thought that in statistics you only needed 31(random..ish) samples to be able to safely say that you have enough to represent the whole.  If true that would put OoT at (barely) enough reviews to say that its current percentage is a good representation.

You can get by with that number but you'd rather not have too. Ideally you'd have at least 120 reviews (If I recall correctly, I don't have my books with me at the minute). The lower the number of reviews the wider the confidence intervals must be. My analysis was flawed because I applied an identical confidence interval to all games (95% confidence interval, represented by +- 1.96 standard deviations from the mean). Had I not done that the OoT result would've been a lot weaker (and so would the other games but not to the same extent).



 
Debating with fanboys, its not
all that dissimilar to banging ones
head against a wall 
Viper1 on 13 May 2008
ItalianBoyPhil said:
Oh and another thing, Why are nintendo fanboys always angry at the PS3/X360?
Why are they angry at GTA IV??
If it was shit then why did 5/6m People buy it??
Its a brilliant game, loads of people think so, apart from the Nintendo Fanboys.

 I bolded your keyword.  There is a marked difference between a fan and a fanboy such that a fanboy, regardless of console, will have irrational animosity towards competing consoles and games.

I find just as many Sony/MS fanboys railing on Nintendo for last gen graphics, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, etc...  you just have to rember that fanboys are a vocal minority.   They tend to speak often and the loudest while actual fans engage in respectful debate or are actually busy playing their console to begin with.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Nintendo Zealot on 13 May 2008
ItalianBoyPhil said:
Oh and another thing, Why are nintendo fanboys always angry at the PS3/X360?
Why are they angry at GTA IV??
If it was shit then why did 5/6m People buy it??
Its a brilliant game, loads of people think so, apart from the Nintendo Fanboys.

As a Nintendo Fan (not fanboy), I have no problem with GTAIV in general, just its ridiculously high review scores. Reviews should be based on more than just hype. The game is really fun but really hasn't brought anything new to video game industry that justifies it as the best game ever. Everything in the game has been done before and better. It isn't the best for graphics, driving or shooting. The story is better than previous GTAs but still isn't that amazing. The shooting is especially flawed and that is like half the game.

GTAIV is definitely a good game, and it belongs above 90% but just not above 97%. The 360 version is really close to dropping below OoT, it is now just a matter of time.



^Guy pissing on Microsoft Sign

UBISOFT BOYCOTT

SilentWolf on 13 May 2008
Picko said:
SilentWolf said:
Picko said:
Firstly, in statistical terms OoT does not really have enough reviews for those reviews to be a reliable indicator of the games quality. Worth noting that basically no game does but the like ot OoT are particularly bad and no real meaning can be obtained by looking at the "average".

Secondly, even looking at the "raw" scores there is very little difference between any of the top ten. This is particularly so given the first point I made, there is no statistically significant difference between their raw scores and no conclusions can be made about which game is better. Sad I know.

I thought that in statistics you only needed 31(random..ish) samples to be able to safely say that you have enough to represent the whole.  If true that would put OoT at (barely) enough reviews to say that its current percentage is a good representation.

You can get by with that number but you'd rather not have too. Ideally you'd have at least 120 reviews (If I recall correctly, I don't have my books with me at the minute). The lower the number of reviews the wider the confidence intervals must be. My analysis was flawed because I applied an identical confidence interval to all games (95% confidence interval, represented by +- 1.96 standard deviations from the mean). Had I not done that the OoT result would've been a lot weaker (and so would the other games but not to the same extent).

I got the 31 sample requirement from my stats textbook, and that is the bare minimum to be able to fairly safely say that one should be close to the whole with an estimation.

By what you said then, no game(according to gamerankings) has enough reviews to have an ideal representation; The 360 version of GTA IV doesn't even have half of 120.  I know that you said 120 was just the ideal number, but having less than half of the ideal number, to me, would imply that there just isn't enough information(# of samples) to get a very reasonable and probable answer.

I do have to ask though to anyone who may know; about how many reviewers were there when OoT was released as compared to now?  I ask this because if there were simply not many reviewers then as compared to now, I don't really think it would be fair to count the small number of reviews against OoT as much since more reviewers just weren't there.  This doesn't completely excuse OoT for 32 reviews, but it would explain why.

 



Nintendo Zealot on 13 May 2008
SilentWolf said:
Picko said:
SilentWolf said:
Picko said:
Firstly, in statistical terms OoT does not really have enough reviews for those reviews to be a reliable indicator of the games quality. Worth noting that basically no game does but the like ot OoT are particularly bad and no real meaning can be obtained by looking at the "average".

Secondly, even looking at the "raw" scores there is very little difference between any of the top ten. This is particularly so given the first point I made, there is no statistically significant difference between their raw scores and no conclusions can be made about which game is better. Sad I know.

I thought that in statistics you only needed 31(random..ish) samples to be able to safely say that you have enough to represent the whole. If true that would put OoT at (barely) enough reviews to say that its current percentage is a good representation.

You can get by with that number but you'd rather not have too. Ideally you'd have at least 120 reviews (If I recall correctly, I don't have my books with me at the minute). The lower the number of reviews the wider the confidence intervals must be. My analysis was flawed because I applied an identical confidence interval to all games (95% confidence interval, represented by +- 1.96 standard deviations from the mean). Had I not done that the OoT result would've been a lot weaker (and so would the other games but not to the same extent).

I got the 31 sample requirement from my stats textbook, and that is the bare minimum to be able to fairly safely say that one should be close to the whole with an estimation.

By what you said then, no game(according to gamerankings) has enough reviews to have an ideal representation; The 360 version of GTA IV doesn't even have half of 120. I know that you said 120 was just the ideal number, but having less than half of the ideal number, to me, would imply that there just isn't enough information(# of samples) to get a very reasonable and probable answer.

I do have to ask though to anyone who may know; about how many reviewers were there when OoT was released as compared to now? I ask this because if there were simply not many reviewers then as compared to now, I don't really think it would be fair to count the small number of reviews against OoT as much since more reviewers just weren't there. This doesn't completely excuse OoT for 32 reviews, but it would explain why.

 


 If you look at old games they all have fewer reviews:

FF IIV - 38

MGS - 35

Gran Turismo - 25

Super Mario 64 - 22  



^Guy pissing on Microsoft Sign

UBISOFT BOYCOTT