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

Forums - Gaming - So does cubed3 thinks rounding 9.9 equals 9, or did they adjust the review?

LordTheNightKnight on 17 May 2008
Onyxmeth said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
onyxmeth, are you arguing why OoT shouldn't be on top indefinitely, or that it shouldn't be on top at all?

The former I agree with, but the latter would put more weight in the review sites than they should have.
It probably should be on top based on the games they have represented there, but any sane person knows there are games in existence that should be up there on the top more than Ocarina of Time that Gamerankings and Metacritic can't track reviews fom. My point was that it doesn't matter whether GTA IV or Ocarina stay on top, because neither really deserve it. Super Mario Bros. deserves the top spot and a handful of other games deserve a spot over both Ocarina and GTA IV.

 


Well as I stated on one of my blog posts, deserving praise and actually getting praise is not the same thing.

That's also why I tried to just discuss the system of that one site, although I am officially dropping it. If they change their mind later, or if they don't, it really doesn't matter. I just wanted to discuss what happened, and it didn't work out that way.



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
twesterm on 17 May 2008
LordTheNightKnight said:
twesterm said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
DKII said:
They cut off all decimals, everything was rounded down, not just OoT.

Then there is a problem. This has nothing to do with the reviews. It has to do with screwing with the math. Rounding is not down or up by your choice.


Actually it is their choice.

 


No. The laws of math don't work that way. If they actually decided that every review was lower than they thought, then okay. If they were just deciding to blanket adjust, based on the numbers, and not their reviews of the games, they are fudging the numbers.

If they had originally decided OoT was close, but no 10, as other suggested, that would not be an issue, but every game with a decimal above 5 are close, but not those numbers? That is just wrong. That is just hacking off the second numbers. That isn't real adjustment, that is being lazy.


You can argue with me on English since I'm only going by what sounds right and vague memories of rules but I minored in math and was only three classes away from the major (ran out of time) so I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about.

The easiest way to explain this is to just think of Excel. If they used =ROUND(score, 0) you would be absolutely right. If they used =ROUNDDOWN(score, 0) (and the fact that function exists proves my point even more) which they did everything gets rounded down.

As long as they do the same thing across the board and don't do some crazy illegal thing like divide by 0 they can do whatever they like.

Now why did they do this? Because they may have given a game an 8.9 because they thought it was a great game but not quite a 9 game. If they just rounded then that game that wasn't quite a 9 game becomes a 9 game. If they round everything down everything stays in the same category it should be in.

/argument



 

LordTheNightKnight on 17 May 2008

I already dropped it, twestern.



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

sinha on 17 May 2008
I thought the fanboys had already jumped to the conclusion (with no real evidence) that it was a Gamerankings conspiracy...


We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that they [developers] want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so the question is what do you do for the rest of the nine and half years? It's a learning process. - SCEI president Kaz Hirai

It's a virus where you buy it and you play it with your friends and they're like, "Oh my God that's so cool, I'm gonna go buy it." So you stop playing it after two months, but they buy it and they stop playing it after two months but they've showed it to someone else who then go out and buy it and so on. Everyone I know bought one and nobody turns it on. - Epic Games president Mike Capps

We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games. - Activision CEO Bobby Kotick

 

LordTheNightKnight on 17 May 2008
sinha said:
I thought the fanboys had already jumped to the conclusion (with no real evidence) that it was a Gamerankings conspiracy...

So you not only didn't read that thread all the way through, you apparently assume I must be a fanboy, even though I wrote very little about the actual games in this thread, and even that one.

So it seems you jumped to conclusions here. 



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
SaviorX on 17 May 2008

Damn, ya'll hounded LordTheNightKnight. I can agree as to the timing being very unfortunate, and why not round .1 up instead of .9 down LIKE THEY TAUGHT US IN SCHOOL. But I can understand to as why they might not have felt the game was perfect. I don't know what that minus 0.1 was for anyway.

You can argue this isn't the best game, but it REDEFINED many things. Saying it didn't define anything makes it just seems like a run-of-the-mill good game. Ocarina of Time is, was, and always be Legendary. Period.



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

sinha on 17 May 2008
That was not directed at you specifically, I don't know why you would think it was.
Fanboys jumping to conclusions = the usual Nintendo defense force feeding frenzy. 
Whether you identify as part of that or not is up to you.


We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that they [developers] want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so the question is what do you do for the rest of the nine and half years? It's a learning process. - SCEI president Kaz Hirai

It's a virus where you buy it and you play it with your friends and they're like, "Oh my God that's so cool, I'm gonna go buy it." So you stop playing it after two months, but they buy it and they stop playing it after two months but they've showed it to someone else who then go out and buy it and so on. Everyone I know bought one and nobody turns it on. - Epic Games president Mike Capps

We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games. - Activision CEO Bobby Kotick

 

soccerdrew17 on 17 May 2008

as long as they are consistent than it doesnt matter. if a game does not deserve a 10, then wont give it. if it doesnt deserve a 9 they dont give it.

and by the way, you can actually make 1/2=0. some binary ways to hold numbers cuts off all decimals. but hey, it shouldnt happen because its a beloved nintendo game.



my pillars of gaming: kh, naughty dog, insomniac, ssb, gow, ff

i officially boycott boycotts.  crap.

LordTheNightKnight on 17 May 2008
sinha said:
That was not directed at you specifically, I don't know why you would think it was.
Fanboys jumping to conclusions = the usual Nintendo defense force feeding frenzy.
Whether you identify as part of that or not is up to you.

That's why I wrote "apparently", since the context of that post made me unsure of what you meant. If you didn't mean me, then okay. 



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

Gnizmo on 17 May 2008
Sqrl said:
@math argument,

I'm beyond certain that there is no defined rounding practice, it all depends on the rounder and what they want to achieve. There are three types of rounding: 1) To the nearest multiple of 'n', 2) Rounding down to a multiple of 'n', and 3) Rounding up to a multiple of 'n'. Normally 'n' is 1 but it can be 0.5 or any other rational number honestly.

As far as I know the only thing you can't choose to do when rounding is round to an irrational number ...well I suppose you could manually but I don't know how you would go about figuring out a formula for it.



 There are a few different defined rounding practices, but none of the are considered the "official" way to round. This is a clear cut case of just truncating the numbers (or rounding down on everything) and moving on. Irrational numbers are rounded all the time though. It is really the only way to make them workable in math equations. If I had to keep Pi accurate to even a few thousand decimal places whnever I used it then I would still be working on my first Trig test I imagine. For irrational numbers you find a spot that is good enough and go from there. So long as you chose a number far enough out that it does not introduce a high level of inaccuracy to the equation it does not matter.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229