Rules: - Rate from 0.1 to 10 (one decimal places is fine, more than that and I'll round for you). I'd prefer if 5 were an average rather than 7. - You may vote for any games you want that have been rated before at any time. You may also change your vote at any time. - No alts, no joke voting, no “purposeful downvoting” - you all know this. - Please only vote if you've played enough of the game to be able to rate it. - You may nominate as many games as you want on any given day. Multiple noms of the same game aren't necessary. Spreadsheet with prior games/ratings: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Ap-Cxjhwem1PdFR5Wk1NUkhDX3NmM3NIU1hVaFFZY2c&hl=en_US#gid=0
Bottom 10: 181. Sonic the Hedgehog (2006) (2.657 / 19 votes) 182. Elf Bowling (2.590 / 11 votes) 183. Shaq Fu (2.134 / 23 votes) 184. FarmVille (2.128 / 49 votes) 185. Lunar: Dragon Song (1.700 / 6 votes) 186. Custer’s Revenge (1.660 / 10 votes) 187. Wii Music (1.500 / 10 votes) 188. Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing (0.770 / 17 votes) 189. Superman 64 (0.742 / 26 votes) 190. E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial (0.311 / 9 votes)
Excitebike finds itself sandwiched between a game about a glove protecting a bunch of balls and a game featuring two toads saving a comrade and a princess
Today's game is a life-simulation game in the popular Sim franchise
@ Lopen: Those games may be point A to point B in terms of level design, but the combat in all those games is deeper than FF13's. Because you actually interact in those worlds, which is key. There's no interaction in FF13 other than walking forward and auto-battling.
@ Advokaiser: 0 is a number and gives an existent value.
--
Genesis does what Nintendon't http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nsBoqJ6s8
but the combat in all those games is deeper than FF13's
Eh shifting paradigms is pretty involved. It's definitely more involved than some of the beat em ups on that list.
But we were just talking linearity, anyway.
Anyway KCF are you going to acknowledge you were wrong on the 0.1-10 averaging/medianing to 5.0 or not. I just want you to realize that there's no mathematical basis for the minimum score change and that you're only doing it to remove low scores in a topic series where 90% of the games rated above 5.0, in spite of the opening post saying "I'd prefer if 5 were the average not 7"
I just want you to think about that for a second.
-- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love!
I once abused the Sims' various add-ons to lock my dog and cat into a doorless house filled with nothing but Oxygen Bars, Fireplaces, Ovens, and eight generic dudes to light the fireplace (or something). THEY BURNED, MWE. THEY BURNED.
I suggest MWE's 10/10 score be removed unless he adjusts it to 9.9. He clearly hasn't completely thought of the game and clearly doesn't think it's 100% flawless.
-- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love!
What is purposeful down voting anyway? Like how would you even make that call? I understand if the person has a reputation of being kind of trolly, you should discount the vote, but if that's their rep, they should just not be able to vote period.
I dunno, the whole thing of not allowing 0's anymore is dumb, imo.
It's preposterous that people make such a big deal about removing the 0 rating. Giving a 0 rating is like giving an un-existing vote. It's like giving a nothing to something, and that is just redundant because, well, it actually represents non-existence. Besides, a 0 to 10 scale makes a space for 101 ratings instead of 100, as Lopen mentioned, so with 101 ratings you can't have an actual exact median of 5 as an average in consequence.
-- SuperNiceDog waggs his tail better than your regular, standard dog.
From: Advokaiser | #032 It's preposterous that people make such a big deal about removing the 0 rating. Giving a 0 rating is like giving an un-existing vote. It's like giving a nothing to something, and that is just redundant because, well, it actually represents non-existence. Besides, a 0 to 10 scale makes a space for 101 ratings instead of 100, as Lopen mentioned, so with 101 ratings you can't have an actual exact median of 5 as an average in consequence.
What? No. The fact that you have 101 ratings is exactly why you can have an exact median of 5. If there were 100 ratings (like it is on 0.1-10) it'd be the average of 50 and 51, or 5.05.
Seriously you guys need to stop talking about math when you don't know what you're talking about
-- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love!
That's besides the point. The point here is that people make such a big deal about not wanting to vote if they can't use a 0 to vote, which is kind of childish considering the problem that was already mentioned about using a 0 to vote.
-- SuperNiceDog waggs his tail better than your regular, standard dog.
That's completely the point because that's the only good reason (if it, you know, made sense) to kill off the 0. Any other argument against 0s can also be applied to 10s, and b8 abuses 10s a lot more than 0.
-- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love!
Advokaiser posted... It's preposterous that people make such a big deal about removing the 0 rating. Giving a 0 rating is like giving an un-existing vote. It's like giving a nothing to something, and that is just redundant because, well, it actually represents non-existence. Besides, a 0 to 10 scale makes a space for 101 ratings instead of 100, as Lopen mentioned, so with 101 ratings you can't have an actual exact median of 5 as an average in consequence.
Big Rigs is a 0/10, it's an unfinished disaster that barely has any gameplay. The only argument against Big Rigs getting a 0/10 is that it shouldn't be considered a game at all (ie not able to be rated). I think it's BS to allow a 10/10 for Custer's but then say people who give Big Rigs a 0/10 are lazy while admitting to never having "played" it. I also don't want to be solicited for my rating and then having it changed for a very poor reason.
--
Donny: Are they gonna hurt us, Walter? Walter: No, Donny. These men are cowards.