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

Forums - Sony - 1up reviews Overlord:Raising Hell (enhanced RPG from 360 line up)

starcraft on 28 June 2008
tombi123 said:
starcraft said:

Actually I didn't say anywhere that we should invalidate comparisons between  two scores from one site, I just happen to believe that an aggregate of a far wider range of opinions is a far better yardstick for game quality, a belief that is only supported when the main example you used for PS3 superiority had different reviewers.

Do I "know" how this game will trend?  No.  Can I make a reasonable and likely prediction?  Yes.  Do you honestly think that after 30/40 reviews this game will be higher than it is now?

As for the final point that you tried to invalidate by pre-empting my bringing it up?  I was going to demonstrate why it is perfectly relevant to this debate until I realised that Gobias and Windbane, in their usual rush to try (and fail) to discredit me, have in fact simply rebutted you.

At the end of the day, the poor and tremendously subjective "analysis" that you're seeking can be found in the thread title, not in my first post.

Bolded: No you don't know how this game will trend, but you claimed that you did in the first post. Can you make a reasonable prediction? No you can't. Not based off of twelve reviews. Ideally you need a minimum of thirty reviews before you can start analysing the trend. If the next four reviews gave it 9/10, that pushes up the average to 77. The average score can quickly change with so few reviews. 

Do I honestly think that after 30/40 reviews that the score for his game will be higher than it is now? Well, I don't know, it is too early to tell.

OF course you can make a reasonable prediction off 12 reviews.  Metacritic claims you can gain a reasonable aggregate off of just 5 reviews.  What makes you say thirty reviews should be the standard?  For a ported, late-comer game like this, there isn't much chance of it getting much more than thirty reviews.  Thirty reviews won't be the trend, it will be the end.

Please don't start being ridiculous.  Do you actually think this title will get ninety per cent from its next four reviews?  Don't be a fence-sitter, make a prediction.  Do you think this game will trend upwards substantially enough that it will overtake its Xbox 360 counterpart?

 



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network
mrstickball on 28 June 2008

How is Overlord an RPG again?



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

starcraft on 28 June 2008
mrstickball said:
How is Overlord an RPG again?

Lol.

It's almost more of a hack-n-slash but with you're minions doing most of the work.

 



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

SpartanFX on 28 June 2008
starcraft said:
tombi123 said:
starcraft said:

Actually I didn't say anywhere that we should invalidate comparisons between  two scores from one site, I just happen to believe that an aggregate of a far wider range of opinions is a far better yardstick for game quality, a belief that is only supported when the main example you used for PS3 superiority had different reviewers.

Do I "know" how this game will trend?  No.  Can I make a reasonable and likely prediction?  Yes.  Do you honestly think that after 30/40 reviews this game will be higher than it is now?

As for the final point that you tried to invalidate by pre-empting my bringing it up?  I was going to demonstrate why it is perfectly relevant to this debate until I realised that Gobias and Windbane, in their usual rush to try (and fail) to discredit me, have in fact simply rebutted you.

At the end of the day, the poor and tremendously subjective "analysis" that you're seeking can be found in the thread title, not in my first post.

Bolded: No you don't know how this game will trend, but you claimed that you did in the first post. Can you make a reasonable prediction? No you can't. Not based off of twelve reviews. Ideally you need a minimum of thirty reviews before you can start analysing the trend. If the next four reviews gave it 9/10, that pushes up the average to 77. The average score can quickly change with so few reviews. 

Do I honestly think that after 30/40 reviews that the score for his game will be higher than it is now? Well, I don't know, it is too early to tell.

OF course you can make a reasonable prediction off 12 reviews.  Metacritic claims you can gain a reasonable aggregate off of just 5 reviews.  What makes you say thirty reviews should be the standard?  For a ported, late-comer game like this, there isn't much chance of it getting much more than thirty reviews.  Thirty reviews won't be the trend, it will be the end.

Please don't start being ridiculous.  Do you actually think this title will get ninety per cent from its next four reviews?  Don't be a fence-sitter, make a prediction.  Do you think this game will trend upwards substantially enough that it will overtake its Xbox 360 counterpart?

 

it already has according to the reviewers,,,they say the game has everything the 360 lacked ,,on top of that all of the DLC for the 360 is also included standard in the disk.

A number doesn't change the fact that the game has improved/enhanced for the PS3.don't believe it?read the review of this game on that garbage website called Edge.they clearly state that it's infact better than 360 version as it adds stuff thatb the 360 lacks (not DLC ,,casue those are also included)

 

anyways I don't care for this game so arguing over it is just waste of time.

 



 

 

 

tombi123 on 28 June 2008
starcraft said:
tombi123 said:
starcraft said:

Actually I didn't say anywhere that we should invalidate comparisons between  two scores from one site, I just happen to believe that an aggregate of a far wider range of opinions is a far better yardstick for game quality, a belief that is only supported when the main example you used for PS3 superiority had different reviewers.

Do I "know" how this game will trend?  No.  Can I make a reasonable and likely prediction?  Yes.  Do you honestly think that after 30/40 reviews this game will be higher than it is now?

As for the final point that you tried to invalidate by pre-empting my bringing it up?  I was going to demonstrate why it is perfectly relevant to this debate until I realised that Gobias and Windbane, in their usual rush to try (and fail) to discredit me, have in fact simply rebutted you.

At the end of the day, the poor and tremendously subjective "analysis" that you're seeking can be found in the thread title, not in my first post.

Bolded: No you don't know how this game will trend, but you claimed that you did in the first post. Can you make a reasonable prediction? No you can't. Not based off of twelve reviews. Ideally you need a minimum of thirty reviews before you can start analysing the trend. If the next four reviews gave it 9/10, that pushes up the average to 77. The average score can quickly change with so few reviews. 

Do I honestly think that after 30/40 reviews that the score for his game will be higher than it is now? Well, I don't know, it is too early to tell.

1) OF course you can make a reasonable prediction off 12 reviews.  Metacritic claims you can gain a reasonable aggregate off of just 5 reviews.  What makes you say thirty reviews should be the standard?  For a ported, late-comer game like this, there isn't much chance of it getting much more than thirty reviews.  Thirty reviews won't be the trend, it will be the end.

2) Please don't start being ridiculous.  Do you actually think this title will get ninety per cent from its next four reviews?  Don't be a fence-sitter, make a prediction.  Do you think this game will trend upwards substantially enough that it will overtake its Xbox 360 counterpart?

 

 

1) Umm... My A level in Mathematics (part of which was statistics) says 30 is the bare minimum. It is irrelevant whether this game will get 30 reviews or not. 30 is still the bare minimum. If the game doesn't get 30 reviews, it just means the average is very unlikely to be representative of the general public (gamers) as a whole. Which makes it a very inaccurate average. The vast majority of averages on metacritic (and gamerankings) are a mathematical joke. 

2) 90 from the next four reviews is unlikely but possible. Of course it could also get 60, 55, 62, 65, from the next four reviews, bringing the average down. 

I think it deserves to be ahead of the 360 overlord, because it comes with a free expansion pack, not as buggy etc. It is to early to tell where it will end up though. Again, your use of the word trend is mathematically wrong. I have shown that all it would take is a couple of high scores (anomalies) to put the PS3 version ahead of the 360 version, and anomalies don't make a trend. So it is (far) to early to say how it is 'trending'.  



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 28 June 2008

Overlord was the Pikmin ripoff right?  Not that interested... i'm not a big fan of those types of games.



starcraft on 29 June 2008
tombi123 said:

1) Umm... My A level in Mathematics (part of which was statistics) says 30 is the bare minimum. It is irrelevant whether this game will get 30 reviews or not. 30 is still the bare minimum. If the game doesn't get 30 reviews, it just means the average is very unlikely to be representative of the general public (gamers) as a whole. Which makes it a very inaccurate average. The vast majority of averages on metacritic (and gamerankings) are a mathematical joke. 

2) 90 from the next four reviews is unlikely but possible. Of course it could also get 60, 55, 62, 65, from the next four reviews, bringing the average down. 

I think it deserves to be ahead of the 360 overlord, because it comes with a free expansion pack, not as buggy etc. It is to early to tell where it will end up though. Again, your use of the word trend is mathematically wrong. I have shown that all it would take is a couple of high scores (anomalies) to put the PS3 version ahead of the 360 version, and anomalies don't make a trend. So it is (far) to early to say how it is 'trending'.  

Well since you started the pissing contest........

1)  My major in statistics (not a maths course that has a statistics component, an actual statistics major) in my third year of university says that you would struggle to reasonably apply any statistical theory to the current situation.  If you WERE going to then you wouldn't be dealing with 12 reviews.  You would be dealing with twelve reviews plus EVERY SINGLE significant correlation and predictor you could find in every single game's (on Metacritic) review aggregate and the way in which every single game has trended after twelve reviews.  But unless you want to spend days putting every single game with all of its trending statistics and aggregates into a statistics program like SPSS, or at least hours developing and correlating an appropriate sample of a few hundred games, perhaps we should just leave professional statistics out of this?

2)  "Unlikely but possible."  That is exactly my point.  Metacritic states that based on the only reasonable indicator, the Xbox 360 version is superior.  To use your words, that is "unlikely" to change.

Finally.  Any demographical data set can have anomalies, but you have not made any argument suggesting that this game's score is at this point in time, an anomoly.  All you have said is that it "could" become an anomaly.  That of course, is perfectly true, but in you're own words "unlikely."

Really, unless you want to spend weeks with a full statistics team developing a structure that can give us a more mathematically sound model for charting review aggregates, only to find that its still full of anomalies, Metacritic is the best we have (and arguably Famitsu for Japanese games).

 



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

windbane on 29 June 2008

So, in summary, this game is better than the 360 version and is only rated lower because it came out later.



Loud_Hot_White_Box on 29 June 2008
starcraft said:
Torillian said:

I love your use of Metacritic Starcraft since you just blindly take the end number and don't care about how the two are different. If you'd looked you'd know that the PS3 version has far fewer reviews (obviously) and those sites that reviewed both are only 3, Eurogamer (same score) IGN (360 better) 1up (PS3 better). So the PS3's lower score won't really mean much until the sites that gave the original game it's higher scores (Play, G4, Cheatcodecentral) weigh in on the new version.

I also love your assertion of "and dropping" as though you can see trends based on this one number you've looked up.

editted edition: I just wanted to add that I'm not interested in this game and don't really give a crap which one ends up better. I simply wanted to call into question Starcraft's extremely basic and flawed analysis.

Actually I did look at the number of reviews.

IN my opinion (and in Metacritic's opinion) a dozen reviews is enough to get a first impression of where a game will go. Also, there are exceedingly few titles who's aggregate scores trend upwards after the first ten or so reviews are out. This is due to the fact that publishers generally stipulate that lower scoring reviews cannot be released until after the release of a game.

As for my "flawed analysis?" I offered no analysis. I tend to think that an aggregate is more important than direct reviewer by reviewer comparisons. Especially when you consider (and you clearly did not) that some publications (like 1UP) have DIFFERENT reviewers scoring each version.

No apology necessary Torillian, you're stunned silence will suffice.

 

 

Your error is to assume that the metacritic number is any indication that the PS3 version is inferior to the 360 version, when we have actual words, actual statements indicating that the PS3 version is superior in most if not all ways.

Puts the lie to your use of metacritic generally.

Face it, the PS3 version is better, and this episode points out that metacritic cannot be trusted uncritically, if at all.



Loud_Hot_White_Box on 29 June 2008
windbane said:
So, in summary, this game is better than the 360 version and is only rated lower because it came out later.

That's half of the summary.  The other half is that starcraft shouldn't have posted in this thread and is trolling and should be banned again.  God that guy pisses me off.