Using Gamespot user ratings, it is possible to determine the games with highest interpersonal valuation indeces, in other words, the best games of the PC platform. The methodology of this process is consistent with the conditions necessary to establish objective truth. That is, the claims made regarding the subject at hand are arrived at through strict The process view of the procedure of rating is purely a stable, non-feedback system. This must be the case because of the lack of alternative ends of actions whose subject the process is, due to no stable entry cost, excessive uptime and total length of process.
Omitting games below 100 votes, compilations(Baldur's Gate: 4 in 1 Boxset notably had 9.5 rating and Orange Box 9.4) the results are as follows:
Ranks 1-8:
Grim Fandango, User Score 9.4 3509 votes Cave Story, User Score 9.4 229 votes Master of Magic, User Score 9.4 261 votes EVE Online: Dominion, User Score 9.4 107 votes Half-Life 2, User Score 9.4 39650 votes Twinsen's Odyssey, User Score 9.4 500 votes UT 2004: Editor's Choice (PC), User Score 9.4 776 votes X-COM: UFO Defense (PC), User score 9.4 1832 votes
Rank 9-10 tiebreakers:
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, User Score 9.3 32524 votes Starcraft, User Score 9.3 14060 votes Rome: Total War User Score 9.3 15090 votes Fallout 2 User Score 9.3 6060 votes Planescape:Torment User Score 9.3 3105 votes The Curse of Monkey Island, User Score 9.3 2764 votes FreeSpace 2 User Score 9.3 2107 votes Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn User Score 9.3 6509 votes Star Wars TIE Fighter: Collector's CD-ROM, User Score 9.3 917 votes Transport Tycoon Deluxe User Score 9.3 579 votes Starcraft: Brood War User Score 9.3 9878 votes Unreal Tournament User Score 9.3 5715 votes Half-Life User Score 9.3 14278 votes Minecraft User Score 9.3 691 votes
The question remains, how does the interpersonal aggregation of data, being objectively true, act as a feedback to consumer preference at the individual level, perhaps among TeamLiquid users?
what? I don't even. Pretty bad list, IMO. My real top 10 list:
1) Super Mario Bros 2) Tetris 3) Starcraft: Brood War 4) Doom 5) Final Fantasy VII 6) Counter Strike: Source 7) The Sims 8) Shadow of the Collosus 9) Minecraft 10) DotA
On July 20 2011 04:42 xarthaz wrote: TOP 10 PC games, objectively
Using Gamespot user ratings, it is possible to determine the games with highest interpersonal valuation indeces, in other words, the best games of the PC platform. The methodology of this process is consistent with the conditions necessary to establish objective truth. That is, the claims made regarding the subject at hand are arrived at through strict The process view of the procedure of rating is purely a stable, non-feedback system. This must be the case because of the lack of alternative ends of actions whose subject the process is, due to no stable entry cost, excessive uptime and total length of process.
TRANSLATION: I looked at gamer site review rankings and because there is no subjective driving force we can pretend it's objective
The question remains, how does the interpersonal aggregation of data, being objectively true, act as a feedback to consumer preference at the individual level, perhaps among TeamLiquid users?
On July 20 2011 04:48 Jonas wrote: what? I don't even. Pretty bad list, IMO. My real top 10 list:
1) Super Mario Bros 2) Tetris 3) Starcraft: Brood War 4) Doom 5) Final Fantasy VII 6) Counter Strike: Source 7) The Sims 8) Shadow of the Collosus 9) Minecraft 10) DotA
On July 20 2011 04:48 Jonas wrote: what? I don't even. Pretty bad list, IMO. My real top 10 list:
1) Super Mario Bros 2) Tetris 3) Starcraft: Brood War 4) Doom 5) Final Fantasy VII 6) Counter Strike: Source 7) The Sims 8) Shadow of the Collosus 9) Minecraft 10) DotA
The methodology of this process is consistent with the conditions necessary to establish objective truth.
Lol?
I don't see how this is any different from a thread like this. Your epistemological backing for the term "objective truth" is uh... non-existent and there is no rigorous methodology. It's just a list of people's favorites games based on Gamespot voting. It's purely subjective and completely inconsistent.
You can PM me with how you think your thread differentiates itself from that other thread, or all the other "What's your favorite game...?" threads.
One of the top 7 games has less than 10 times the amount of votes of one of the lower ranked tie breakers...
Not only that, but a game review site like gamespot is (lol) spotty at best. There's so many different sites to choose from, how does this in any way make an objective standpoint?
Also, man...OP...you're trying way too hard with all the flowery language here. It's video games and all...it just comes off haughty as all hell. Besides, the Smithsonian's exhibit on video games already would make a much better case for "objective" top games, if that's what you're looking to do.
Personally, even after you said everything, I wouldn't even begin to fathom what would prompt you to make this...it's nowhere near anything close to being objective
The point is, when i look at the list. I cant help but agree with it. I dont like some of the choices it has, but i cannot help but acknowledge that they are objectively better. when you play the games that are top ranked in high sample size user ratings, as opposed to "expert" rating and whatnot, you can feel how every game is completely polished, developed to the fullest in its genre, has orgasmic beauty from start to finish.
The sensation is so strong, and has not once given false signals (same case with music user ratings, fwiw), that it must be true. The common argument against it is the appeal to praxeology and its offshoots like subjective value theory etc. But it must be remembered that at the very bottom of things, valuation is an implication of behaviorist concepts, like panphysicalism and human machinism. As such, it is necessarily true that indeed the sensation is objectively true, and must be cherished.
On July 20 2011 05:41 xarthaz wrote: The point is, when i look at the list. I cant help but agree with it. I dont like some of the choices it has, but i cannot help but acknowledge that they are objectively better. when you play the games that are top ranked in high sample size user ratings, as opposed to "expert" rating and whatnot, you can feel how every game is completely polished, developed to the fullest in its genre, has orgasmic beauty from start to finish.
The sensation is so strong, and has not once given false signals (same case with music user ratings, fwiw), that it must be true. The common argument against it is the appeal to praxeology and its offshoots like subjective value theory etc. But it must be remembered that at the very bottom of things, valuation is an implication of behaviorist concepts, like panphysicalism and human machinism. As such, it is necessarily true that indeed the sensation is objectively true, and must be cherished.
Passing the smell test does not mean objective truth. It could just be confirmation bias. Besides, you're saying it "feels" right and correlating that with objectivity. You mean something else.
The OP is full of 'big words' which add nothing to the meaning and stuffy sentences. This is not intelligent/good writing. It just leaves me with a strong desire to 'TL;DR'.
If we take Gamespot user ratings as objective, should we also take IMDB's movie user rankings (which were notoriously manipulated by 4chan)?
The methodology of this process is consistent with the conditions necessary to establish objective truth.
Lol?
I don't see how this is any different from a thread like this. Your epistemological backing for the term "objective truth" is uh... non-existent and there is no rigorous methodology. It's just a list of people's favorites games based on Gamespot voting. It's purely subjective and completely inconsistent.
You can PM me with how you think your thread differentiates itself from that other thread, or all the other "What's your favorite game...?" threads.
Exactly what I was about to say. This is far from objective. This is merely a bunch of subjective viewpoints averaged together. You might want to relook at the definition of objective again.
The problem with the list is that the game's skewed by niche games that have under 1000 votes, I think if we removed those games, we'd have a list that's much closer to the average idea of "best PC games"
Grim Fandango, User Score 9.4 3509 votes Half-Life 2, User Score 9.4 39650 votes The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, User Score 9.3 32524 votes Starcraft, User Score 9.3 14060 votes Rome: Total War User Score 9.3 15090 votes Fallout 2 User Score 9.3 6060 votes Planescape:Torment User Score 9.3 3105 votes The Curse of Monkey Island, User Score 9.3 2764 votes FreeSpace 2 User Score 9.3 2107 votes Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn User Score 9.3 6509 votes Starcraft: Brood War User Score 9.3 9878 votes Unreal Tournament User Score 9.3 5715 votes Half-Life User Score 9.3 14278 votes
seems pretty reasonable for a PC top 10 now to me (never heard of grim fandango tho)
On July 20 2011 06:02 Kupon3ss wrote: The problem with the list is that the game's skewed by niche games that have under 1000 votes, I think if we removed those games, we'd have a list that's much closer to the average idea of "best PC games"
Grim Fandango, User Score 9.4 3509 votes Half-Life 2, User Score 9.4 39650 votes The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, User Score 9.3 32524 votes Starcraft, User Score 9.3 14060 votes Rome: Total War User Score 9.3 15090 votes Fallout 2 User Score 9.3 6060 votes Planescape:Torment User Score 9.3 3105 votes The Curse of Monkey Island, User Score 9.3 2764 votes FreeSpace 2 User Score 9.3 2107 votes Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn User Score 9.3 6509 votes Starcraft: Brood War User Score 9.3 9878 votes Unreal Tournament User Score 9.3 5715 votes Half-Life User Score 9.3 14278 votes
seems pretty reasonable for a PC top 10 now to me (never heard of grim fandango tho)
pretty sweet! add doom and system shock 2 and we are done.
About half the top 7 there is LOLWUT?! Some of them I am okay with (although the only I consider arguably top 7 is HL-2), but others are not even top 100.
I have to say also, I'm surprised that the ratings are not weighted. 107 votes is enough to 0.1 lower with 35000 votes? Really? :/ Wut a crappy ranking system.
Also, the words "objective" and "feeling" do not belong in the same sentence unless they are related by a word of negation.
When trying to determine which games is worth playing just looking at a grade from 1-10 is rarely useful. You should at least read or watch a review of the game to get a better impression of it, or maybe even play a demo. Even then, it just comes down to taste at some point.
Grades are only useful for seeing what the voters would grade the game, while that might sound a bit obvious, people still confuse it with a completely objective and honest view of the game.
So close but no cigar, not quite the top class of games that when you play, you know its the best. Because as i elaborated, the behaviorist premise is the real root of valuation, not the teleological concept of preference as elaborated by the misesians. That too invalidates free will and choice however, hence it being somewhat of a dark horse which people dont want to accept.
Nevertheless, the universality, low standard deviation of rating which is necessary for such high ratings to exist in the first place, also implies that the causal factor between people and top game ratings exists, and hence is direct evidence of objective top game existing. This is a fork of the original argument, however it is a clever and self sufficient argument, wholly contained within the data set that is being investigated, hence its complete relevance to the matter which concerns the debate.
On July 20 2011 06:23 xarthaz wrote: So close but no cigar, not quite the top class of games that when you play, you know its the best. Because as i elaborated, the behaviorist premise is the real root of valuation, not the teleological concept of preference as elaborated by the misesians. That too invalidates free will and choice however, hence it being somewhat of a dark horse which people dont want to accept.
Nevertheless, the universality, low standard deviation of rating which is necessary for such high ratings to exist in the first place, also implies that the causal factor between people and top game ratings exists, and hence is direct evidence of objective top game existing. This is a fork of the original argument, however it is a clever and self sufficient argument, wholly contained within the data set that is being investigated, hence its complete relevance to the matter which concerns the debate.
I seriously hope this is a joke in the spirit of Sokal.
On July 20 2011 06:13 Mortality wrote: About half the top 7 there is LOLWUT?! Some of them I am okay with (although the only I consider arguably top 7 is HL-2), but others are not even top 100.
I have to say also, I'm surprised that the ratings are not weighted. 107 votes is enough to 0.1 lower with 35000 votes? Really? :/ Wut a crappy ranking system.
Also, the words "objective" and "feeling" do not belong in the same sentence unless they are related by a word of negation.
I challenge you to show how the games in the list are such that they dont deserve to be what they are. Remember, it is behaviorist premise that is the root of rating, and the causal link between rating and game in interpersonal game is strong, as otherwise ratings as high as are visible could not exist due to standard deviation of rating being significant. Which it isnt.
Wait, you don't present enough data points to say that game ratings have low standard deviations. You'd have to pull up enough reviews of each game and show us that, for the most part, they fall within two standard devs. That isn't on us. That's on you.
Also, you give this gem in the OP:
The question remains, how does the interpersonal aggregation of data, being objectively true, act as a feedback to consumer preference at the individual level, perhaps among TeamLiquid users?
My God, who are WE to question the interpersonal aggregation of data? Especially since it is objectively true? I'd like the sun to rise in the west but the universe doesn't care, it's an objective truth that it rises in the east.
On July 20 2011 06:13 Mortality wrote: About half the top 7 there is LOLWUT?! Some of them I am okay with (although the only I consider arguably top 7 is HL-2), but others are not even top 100.
I have to say also, I'm surprised that the ratings are not weighted. 107 votes is enough to 0.1 lower with 35000 votes? Really? :/ Wut a crappy ranking system.
Also, the words "objective" and "feeling" do not belong in the same sentence unless they are related by a word of negation.
I challenge you to show how the games in the list are such that they dont deserve to be what they are. Remember, it is behaviorist premise that is the root of rating, and the causal link between rating and game in interpersonal game is strong, as otherwise ratings as high as are visible could not exist due to standard deviation of rating being significant. Which it isnt.
lawl, using big words and still failing logically- "don't deserve to be what they are". If only 100 people reviewed vs 35000, I'd say that a game with 35k reviews and 94 % is waaay better than a game with 100 reviews and 95% rating. Behaviorist premise...do you realize that having an SAT vocabulary book on hand doesn't correspond to intelligence? Rating has to do with quality, not a behaviorist premise.
Also, if your sentences utilize grammar incorrectly and in such a way that their meanings are obscured by way of phrasing, it doesn't make you look smarter or more objective. It makes you look like a dumbass. Really.
djbhINDI, it utilizes the misesian framework of praxeology to describe actions. Note that this concept is a synthetic a priori in Kantian epistemology, and hence necessarily true. I only elaborated it further through the substitution of action axiom as a teleological premise for behaviorism as a root of action, due to justifications of panphysicalism and machinism that Mises himself touches upon, too.
By the way, I challenge you to play through Cave Story and still call it a bad game, or worse than HL2 at least. You see, from the premises i elaborated it follows that you will most likely be lying when making such a statement unless indeed - you are a statistical anomaly, something outside the tight grouping of data suggesting low standard deviation.
On July 20 2011 06:33 slyboogie wrote: Wait, you don't present enough data points to say that game ratings have low standard deviations. You'd have to pull up enough reviews of each game and show us that, for the most part, they fall within two standard devs. That isn't on us. That's on you.
The question remains, how does the interpersonal aggregation of data, being objectively true, act as a feedback to consumer preference at the individual level, perhaps among TeamLiquid users?
My God, who are WE to question the interpersonal aggregation of data? Especially since it is objectively true? I'd like the sun to rise in the west but the universe doesn't care, it's an objective truth that it rises in the east.
EDIT: I'm thinking Sokal too.
Hell yes, slyboogie.
interpersonal aggregation of data, being objectively true
Is this a troll, or what?
Your question: Hey guys, opinions become objectively true so long as you get enough of them. So, do you guys have subjective, individual opinions that differ from these objective ones?
Also, by your logic, Justin Bieber is one of the best musicians of all time, due to the interpersonal aggregation (which is of course objective truth) of music sales/fan numbers. Not saying he isn't, because who am I to question other's objective opinions with my own subjective ones?
djbhINDI, the logic is sound. Your application of it to Bieber isnt, however. It is a tangent though, but the implications of the concepts are visible from ratings site. My favourite in music is RateYourMusic due to massive sample size, but Pick your poison. Indeed, it is hard to imagine one not agreeing with the ratings in the music site given knowledge of genre, as mathematical nature of music closely relates it to the behaviorist justification of objective values - the algorithms in that case being more straight forward due to lack of asymmetries of consumption of the content.
On July 20 2011 06:55 xarthaz wrote: djbhINDI, it utilizes the misesian framework of praxeology to describe actions. Note that this concept is a synthetic a priori in Kantian epistemology, and hence necessarily true. I only elaborated it further through the substitution of action axiom as a teleological premise for behaviorism as a root of action, due to justifications of panphysicalism and machinism that Mises himself touches upon, too.
Still failing to communicate anything -> still failing to properly utilize English -> still not smart, though he thinks he is.
Hey, check out the second sentence of the Wikipedia article on Praxeology:
"Praxeology rejects the empirical methods of the natural sciences."
This is what you call "necessarily true?"
This is what I call a fail. A massive fail.
Do you do fast debate, or what? Because you don't seem to know what you're saying.
A priori in Kantian epistemology = something that comes before the argument/accepted as true in ONE man's view of the interpretation of knowledge -> necessarily true. No. Wrong. Totally wrong.
"substitution of an action axiom as a teleological premise for behaviorism"
Okay. Everyone here understands that the standards you used, as well as the aggregation of many opinions, does not make for objectivity. You're utilizing a framework which "Rejects empirical methods". You're throwing around increasingly complex vocabulary in order to distract us from your failed rigorousness and more failed logic. Just give up.
You have succeeded in straw-manning praxeology. But that is common, hardly any of its "critics" make it through the 1000 pages of obsfuscated austro-english vocabulary of mises. The man is a genius though, and the argument is sound. Though it is not so important to this debate as the conclusions are made from the behaviorist substitution which rejects the conclusions, though the acceptance of its framework is necessary per Mises' criticism.
On July 20 2011 06:55 xarthaz wrote: By the way, I challenge you to play through Cave Story and still call it a bad game, or worse than HL2 at least. You see, from the premises i elaborated it follows that you will most likely be lying when making such a statement unless indeed - you are a statistical anomaly, something outside the tight grouping of data suggesting low standard deviation.
Unfortunately for you, there is objective proof that Cave Story is a bad game. Suppose otherwise. According to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle implies that communism accelerates progress towards the technological singularity. This contradicts the central limit theorem. QED.
On July 20 2011 07:01 xarthaz wrote: djbhINDI, the logic is sound. Your application of it to Bieber isnt, however. It is a tangent though, but the implications of the concepts are visible from ratings site. My favourite in music is RateYourMusic due to massive sample size, but Pick your poison. Indeed, it is hard to imagine one not agreeing with the ratings in the music site given knowledge of genre, as mathematical nature of music closely relates it to the behaviorist justification of objective values - the algorithms in that case being more straight forward due to lack of asymmetries of consumption of the content.
You said literally nothing, and went on a massive tangent yourself. The mathematical nature of music isn't even close to the topic at hand.
"My logic is good. Your logic is bad. Also, it is off topic." Nothing more is even said regarding the argument at hand. If you're relying on a behavioral framework, then you should look at the biggest demonstration of behavioral action - music sales. Under this demonstration, it is "objectively true" that Bieber, who prompts more of a behavioral aggregate reaction than, say, Beethoven, is "objectively better". You don't offer a single reason that this is off topic. You randomly give an example of "RateYourMusic.com", which:
a) Is qualified only in your opinion b) Doesn't even contradict my argument c) Has a massive sample size...so?
It is hard to imagine disagreeing with other people's musical tastes? What the fuck are you talking about? The mathematical nature of Bach's music is massively superior to that of Rhianna's, but I know a hell of a lot of people who prefer her music to his (or is this addressed in the opaque "knowledge of genre" statement?). In any case, the nature of music ratings and game ratings is the same; simply aggregating mass ratings doesn't provide objective truth, and even if it did, the way you're doing it fails anyhoo.
Why?
Basically, what you did in your "experiment" was look at what a bunch of people did (rate games). You didn't consider the massive discrepancy in the number of votes - 107 votes is barely above your deviation safety cutoff. You arbitrarily chose Gamespot, for no reason whatsoever, and your data is just a reflection of the opinions of a lot of unqualified, unknown people. Even so, 94% of 39K is so much more of an indication of behavioral action than 94% of a measly 100 that even by your own, flawed framework, it's undeniable that a game like Half Life is much more qualified as a Top 10 than something like EVE: Dominion.
Consider the fact that around 37,500 people found half life 2 so good that they felt compelled to go and rate it positively, for no gain, at gamespot. Consider that only around 100 people felt similarly compelled to do the same thing for EVE Dominion. Behavioral framework? By a factor of almost 400, this favors HL2. And yet, it is ranked lower than the other game. Makes much sense? Not really. Find it somewhat weird that your "top 4 games" all have less than 5000 rankings, in 3 cases, less than 500? That's because they appeal to less people.
Maybe you'll argue that even if a game has only 100 ratings, it's because it's newer or isn't as popular. Do you realize that to be one of the "greatest of all time" a game doesn't just need favorable reviews? That it needs to revolutionize, to blaze a new path? If a game manages to please 38 K people, it's more general. If you make a very specific kind of game, it might get a 100% approval by the few hundred who play it, but if you make a general kind of game that around 40,000 people both play and like, it means that you
a) Did more general stuff, making this game appeal to more audiences (and therefore making a better game) b) Did this stuff better (as pleasing a variety of audiences is harder to do)
Therefore, even straight up ignoring the sheer weight difference between HL and, say, Cave Story, we can still see that HL2 is a better game by looking at the implications of the numerical difference. You didn't take anything like this into account.
Look, if only a hundred people found a game good enough to go and review it well, it's not a bad game, but it sure as hell ain't one of the best of all time. If 30,000 (elder scrolls) on just one site did, that's a hell more of a vote.
On July 20 2011 07:14 xarthaz wrote: You have succeeded in straw-manning praxeology. But that is common, hardly any of its "critics" make it through the 1000 pages of obsfuscated austro-english vocabulary of mises. The man is a genius though, and the argument is sound. Though it is not so important to this debate as the conclusions are made from the behaviorist substitution which rejects the conclusions, though the acceptance of its framework is necessary per Mises' criticism.
Man is a genius? No proof for that. Argument is sound? No proof for that either.
If I only have to read for 5 seconds to see that something "rejects" the scientific empirical principles of the last two millenia, I straight up know that as far as "objective truth" it's trash. Just trash.
EDIT: Probz not going to post in this thread anymore, so if not, just wanted to squeeze in the fact that even if your logic was fail, at least you weren't an asshole.
Maybe you'll argue that even if a game has only 100 ratings, it's because it's newer or isn't as popular. Do you realize that to be one of the "greatest of all time" a game doesn't just need favorable reviews? That it needs to revolutionize, to blaze a new path? If a game manages to please 38 K people, it's more general. If you make a very specific kind of game, it might get a 100% approval by the few hundred who play it, but if you make a general kind of game that around 40,000 people both play and like, it means that you
Again, this claim ignores my central premise of low standard deviation, suggesting the concept you are attempting to present, Cannot exist. Your a) and b) optiions ignore it, as well. The choice of Gamespot is a choice of reasonable conditions, im sure you are able to comprehend the thought path. While it is so that the satistical significance is less certain in smaller samples like the Space games, this very argument assumes my framework to be true and hence does nothing but prove my point. hell its still one helluva game.
Also, Deus ex ( http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/deusex/index.html ) Scores a respectable 9.1, which by itself can be considered in the very top of PC games (top 50 i guess, though i havent quite counted all the games), but the question at hand is the very best.
The problem with user ratings is you always have two large groups of people who will vote 0/10 for any game not on their platform of choice, and then those who rate every game on their platform of choice 10/10. They have a tendency to really skew the result.
Also, if a game has some missing feature that everyone makes a big deal about, that could lead to massive low score voting as a result regardless of the quality of the actual game (see Starcraft 2 on Amazon).
djbhINDI, it utilizes the misesian framework of praxeology to describe actions. Note that this concept is a synthetic a priori in Kantian epistemology, and hence necessarily true. I only elaborated it further through the substitution of action axiom as a teleological premise for behaviorism as a root of action, due to justifications of panphysicalism and machinism that Mises himself touches upon, too.
Get outta here with your simplicity, peon. It's the goddamn misesian framekwork of praxeology, a fuckin synethic a priori in Kantian episemology you fuckin cro magnon. PANPHYSYICALISM MAN.
I can see why every game is up there, except for oblivion... that game haunts me to this day with it's fucking über ratings and TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE gameplay, most disgusting game ever made it's so fucking bad.
WTF is all this pretense of objectivity bullshit? All you are proving (and not even just that, since the conclusion is rendered faulty via the volunteer-bias factor and tons of lurking variables, along with a statistically indeterminate hypothesis/goal) is that they are the highest rated, not necessarily "the best." The best =/= most popular (this problem overlaps with the indeterminate nature of a "best" game).
Lots of games get low user scores due to things unrelated to gameplay like DRM. Also a lot of games are different now than on release due to patches. If you play Fallout: New Vegas or Vampire: Bloodlines (both excellent games marred by bugs) now you'll have a much less buggy experience than if you played them at release.
Obscurantism is the post-modernist's best friend. Xarthaz apparently caught the drift, and somehow wanted to apply that to video game rankings. Unfortunately, it was still too easy to cut through the crap.
The OP sounded like some noobs I would run into from the philosophy department, having just read Being and Time, and wanted to apply "hermeneutical phenomenology" to some random bullshit while stringing up non-related concepts together. Not saying I'm necessarily more knowledgeable or intelligent, but this is just too hilarious.
In the darts game example the middle or correct rating is defined seperately from darts. In the case of game rating the location of the rating itself is the rating by definition. There exists no dichotomy between measured rating and assumptions made about correct rating that the darts example attempts to show. Osama, the low deviation of scores implies your hypotheses being incorrect.
I think he just wants us to acknowledge that he's read Hayek and Menger.
Also, in the OP, he states that the methodology is "purely a stable, non-feedback system." But then, proceeds to ask how this objective truth acts as "feedback to consumer preference at the individual level." The data is already consumer preference at an individual level. There is no reason to ask any questions, the answer is already presented. Many individual's who gave reviews on the site you cited prefer the games you listed. This does not require deconstruction.
I've been trolled into responding in this thread 4 times.
On July 20 2011 08:59 Qaatar wrote: Obscurantism is the post-modernist's best friend. Xarthaz apparently caught the drift, and somehow wanted to apply that to video game rankings. Unfortunately, it was still too easy to cut through the crap.
The OP sounded like some noobs I would run into from the philosophy department, having just read Being and Time, and wanted to apply "hermeneutical phenomenology" to some random bullshit while stringing up non-related concepts together. Not saying I'm necessarily more knowledgeable or intelligent, but this is just too hilarious.
Hey everyone, Austrian economics is post-modernist now.
On July 20 2011 08:59 Qaatar wrote: Obscurantism is the post-modernist's best friend. Xarthaz apparently caught the drift, and somehow wanted to apply that to video game rankings. Unfortunately, it was still too easy to cut through the crap.
The OP sounded like some noobs I would run into from the philosophy department, having just read Being and Time, and wanted to apply "hermeneutical phenomenology" to some random bullshit while stringing up non-related concepts together. Not saying I'm necessarily more knowledgeable or intelligent, but this is just too hilarious.
Hey everyone, Austrian economics is post-modernist now.
You would actually find many people who would argue as such. Google around.
I'm not one of them. I was merely stating that the OP, in trying to combine wholly disparate ideas into this "objectivity framework", IS post-modernist in nature. You would disagree?
On July 20 2011 06:02 Kupon3ss wrote: The problem with the list is that the game's skewed by niche games that have under 1000 votes, I think if we removed those games, we'd have a list that's much closer to the average idea of "best PC games"
Grim Fandango, User Score 9.4 3509 votes Half-Life 2, User Score 9.4 39650 votes The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, User Score 9.3 32524 votes Starcraft, User Score 9.3 14060 votes Rome: Total War User Score 9.3 15090 votes Fallout 2 User Score 9.3 6060 votes Planescape:Torment User Score 9.3 3105 votes The Curse of Monkey Island, User Score 9.3 2764 votes FreeSpace 2 User Score 9.3 2107 votes Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn User Score 9.3 6509 votes Starcraft: Brood War User Score 9.3 9878 votes Unreal Tournament User Score 9.3 5715 votes Half-Life User Score 9.3 14278 votes
seems pretty reasonable for a PC top 10 now to me (never heard of grim fandango tho)
this makes sense to me Although I still haven't heard of Grim Fandango o.o
On July 20 2011 09:07 xarthaz wrote: In the darts game example the middle or correct rating is defined seperately from darts. In the case of game rating the location of the rating itself is the rating by definition. There exists no dichotomy between measured rating and assumptions made about correct rating that the darts example attempts to show. Osama, the low deviation of scores implies your hypotheses being incorrect.
My hypotheses? I didn't present one, I was commenting on how broken yours was. You're still not answering why deviation doesn't matter given that your hypothesis is bunk in the first place, even if your methodology is sound (which it isn't).
First, you didn't address my point about the terrible concept of "the best game." Maybe your goal was to ascertain the "highest rated game" or "the most popular game," but best and popular are NOT synonymous, nor do you clarify a definition of that that does so. As a result, when you claim that "In the case of game rating the location of the rating itself is the rating by definition" (regarding the target example) this rests on the assumption that best = popular, which is not the case. Because of that, popularity only attempts to approximate the "best" game, which make it the dart, making that target analogy very apt.
Second, even if you rectify that issue and produce a reasonable framework for why "best" should be defined in terms of popularity, you haven't answered the fact that lurking variables and volunteer-bias distort your sample, making standard deviation irrelevant, since your low deviation only creates a conclusion about that particular segment of society's understanding of the best game, rather than a truly representative sample of all PC gamers' rating of the best game.
Here's an example: if you open up a response poll in a Louisiana district that has a particular vocal far-right wing group, given that they'll be the main sample, they'll all agree on conservative options, making it a low deviation, but that clearly wouldn't represent the entirety of the US. There's nothing that establishes a valid sample in the OP besides "well I didn't have anything else," which is nothing but a bad copout.
in what way is a game review objective? Game reviews are always subjective. Ratings at the end of reviews are not worth the paper/website they are printed on. The only thing reviews are useful for is the actual things the journalist specifically says, which still requires some independent thought to decide if you agree with his complaints or not. Nearly every review for the PC port of The Force Unleashed, for example, gave it a poor score and cited it to be a horrible port. I had no such experience with it on PC.
The only truly objective ranking for top games is sales figures, and even those are a measure of popularity, not quality. I don't think anyone would claim that The Sims or World of Warcraft are the best computer games ever...very good games, certainly, but not the best. yet both appear consistently on top sales lists for the last five years.
Using Gamespot user ratings, it is possible to determine the games with highest interpersonal valuation indeces, in other words, the best games of the PC platform.
Sigh. I guess I shouldn't expect a great amount of intelligence from you after seeing your thread about Somalia. Although you threw a lot of... cool... jargon in your post anyone who can read through it will see that it is full of shit. This list is far from objective. This list is based on the opinions of a select user base that frequent one website. Most people that play a game do not rate it on Gamespot and this is obvious if the number of sales is compared to the number of votes. This isn't even a good statistical list. It only encompasses the opinions of the target audience that Gamespot pulls in who actually decide to rate the game. This list is the best games according to the opinion of the Gamespot user base that actively rates games.
The problem with picking "Gamespot" (isn't Gamespot literally Gamefaqs? I mean literally), of all the sources you could have picked, is that the people who venture to that website are likely younger or are "gamers". Basically, with a lot of these games you end up getting people who vote extremely high or extremely low - a lot of games that don't enter these lists either have a fanbase that doesn't really bother to vote or a fanbase that tends to give more sensible scores.
The fact that there is no Doom, a game that is still extremely popular to this day and has a fairly strong modding community still, within that list is enough to suggest that the voting base is likely to choose. Objectively, Doom is one of the few FPS, heck PC games, that has stood the test of time yet its not within this list. Presumably no one there cares about Doom, people who played Doom don't post there, and people who still mod/play Doom don't care about stupid userbase scoring systems.
Similarly, Planescape:Torment scoring so high is bizarre because everything but the story was utter rubbish. It may have an extremely strong story but even during its time the interface was pathetic and its combat was miles behind its Infinity Engine predecessor, Baldur's Gate/Tales of the Sword Coast. This is the case with basically all RPGs (Final Fantasy, Baldur's Gate, Fallout, etc): people who vote in these things either vote very high or very low - Placescape: Torment especially seems to suffer from huge amounts of nostalgia glasses.
I mean this has been repeated a billion times within this very thread but a lot of these games were pretty bad to play, even back in the day. They rank high because of nostalgia, cognitive dissonance, and that fact these scores were sourced from Gamespot. Anyone familiar with the Fallout series might know the forum, No Mutants Allowed. Not sure about now but a while ago people there literally thought Fallout had the best tactical combat system of all RPGs. This isn't true today nor was true back in 1990 - if you so much touched Jagged Alliance 1/2 or the XCOM series, this would be obvious to you - but they've seem to have convinced themselves Fallout 1 was the perfect game in every single way.
These are the sort of people who vote on these polls...I mean there is no way you can "prove" why so and so doesn't deserve to be on the list through pure figures (which is why this thread is dumb). The only thing you can prove is that everyone really, really hated Fallout 2's beginning temple.
Based purely on the amount of time I've spent playing them 1. Starcraft II - BEST GAME EVER 2. Shadowbane - Best MMO ever 3. Counter-Strike - Best FPS ever 4. Age of Kings & The Conquerors 5. Warcraft III & Frozen Throne 6. Diablo II & Lord of Destruction 7. Age of Empires 8. Starcraft & Brood War 9. World of Warcraft - I'M ASHAMED GOD DAMNIT 10. Team Fortress Classic
Wom, Planescape has the most developed dialogue of any video games - ever. It is widely recognised the most adult game out there. The problem with Doom is that it didnt demonstrate maturity in its genre, fpses were very young. in such lists the games that get rated highly tend to be the "culmination" or artistic high point of the genre, not a high point of an era.
It doesn't matter if it has "developed" dialogue, its a terrible game. Its literally one of those visual novels with half baked combat elements and I really, really hate that defense. Its the old Final Fantasy 13* defense when people say that the story gets so good that it invalidates the horrible linear monotonous auto-attack system, sometimes amazingly bad cutscnes, and 20 hours of tutorials.
It doesn't mean I don't enjoy Planescape. I agree its one of the few well written RPGs out there but I'm not blinded enough to admit that its actually a good, well-rounded computer game and certainly doesn't deserve close to a 10.
Whether or not Doom is in the list is irrelevant. The point is that it isn't in there for a good reason: its fanbase probably doesn't post on Gamefaqs, a website that shares its boards and viewer base with Gamespot. Which is why you can't just take any single source, add up some figures, and claim its objective. Because it isn't and statistically it isn't interesting.
*Side note: What will be interesting is to see the reaction to Final Fantasy 13-2 with the huge amount of backlash Final Fantasy 13 got. Will the brand name of a flagship product carry it to success or will it suffer from the same amounts of used game sales?
this makes sense to me Although I still haven't heard of Grim Fandango o.o
It's hilarious but old. Have you ever played Curse of Monkey Island? It's kinda like a predecessor to that, like a walk around puzzle-ly kinda game.
Grim Fandango was actually made after Curse of Monkey Island. It's basically the last hurrah for the adventure genre in the 90s, and IMO absolutely a work of genius and the pinnacle of the genre. For me my personal favorite three PC games are Deus Ex, Grim Fandango, and Planescape: Torment. If you ever get a chance to play Grim Fandango, do it.
Regarding Oblivion's high rating: It's tough to judge Oblivion, because while vanilla it is extremely flawed and not a classic by any means, modded it easily would get in my top 10 list. So if mods are included then I think Oblivion's score is well-deserved and understandable.
I'm suprised to see 2 of the real classics on the Top 8 list. Master of Magic was one of the best fantasy strategy games ever created, it's successor age of wonders was far inferior (though still a good game, just don't talk to me about age of wonders 2... it doesn't exist).
The other is X-Com: Ufo Defense... Unique Art style, extremely hard but was a lot of fun (including the dwarven fortress type of fun... chrysalids still cause me nightmares).
Still, the list isn't really that good since the number of votes variies a lot and it favours games with less votes. As for the 9-10 list, i agree with most of them (I played SW:Tie Fighter for weeks, spent days creating a perfect transport system in transport tycoon (no deluxe at that time) and burnt a thousand gnolls as a mage in baldurs gate 2 (and tried to steal drizzt do'urdens swords... unsuccessfully :p)).
Maybe I'm not good with riddles or something, but I'm pretty sure 1000 people voting 9.1 on average for something fails to prove anything except that 1000 people voted 9.1 on average for something.
I don't see how this conversation, as started by the OP and continued by others, is suitable for this forum. The conversation at this point involves the nature of reason, the meaning of objectivity and of subjectivity, the nature of evaluation, the purpose and value of video games, among other things. Men have written entire books on these subjects; how could any of this be resolved in any way on TL?
I'm even more confused as to how some rambling, disjointed, pseudo-philosophy applied to a meaningless opinion poll has even created such an unnecessary and fruitless debate.
Other than the fact that the OP talks like a huge douche, I like the post and the list. I'm going to have to play through some of those older ones again someday.
Nice to see Oblivion up there too, 4-5 years and I still love the game to no end. (mods ofc make the game truly lasting)
EPT
wrote:
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/High_precision_Low_accuracy.svg)
