Article: Five Things I Didn’t Get About Making Video Games (Until I Did It)

[Gorbles]

Also, most gamers aren't young males, nevermind penniless young men. Stop perpetuating disproven stereotypes.

 

[JokerJace]

Also, most gamers aren't young males, nevermind penniless young men. Stop perpetuating disproven stereotypes.

Of course they are. It varies from genre to genre, yes. What's relevant in our case is that 3 out of 4 players of strategy games are male:
http://blog.apptopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Demo-Graph-1.png

And I also talked about people that get passionate about games in particular. Those are mostly young males, too.

I'll just ignore most of the nonsense that you've written there, but this here:

Cool, then let's start ignoring each other in general. ;-)

A significant majority of people dislikes the game? What "majority" are you talking about? 53% of the ratings for Civ 5 on Steam are positive, so there's no majority that dislikes the game. Metacritic displays 365 positive and 312 negative (as well as 205 neutral) votes, so there's no majority that dislikes the game. Overall the majority (not a big majority, but certainly a majority) of people seems to like the game.

Are you saying the game is broken because a minority doesn't like the mechanics, although the majority of people seem to think the game is fine? Or do you have some hidden statistics that render those available to the public meaningless? Or are you just pulling this stuff out of your ass? It's almost as if you don't care about reality and think that your lies will become true if only you repeat them often enough.

This forum is the only place I ever heard anything positive about the game beyond 1 month after release. Apart from the occasional person fighting the negativity on the steam forums. You also realize that the ratio of positive / negative reviews is not as important as the weighted ratio? I.e. the number of total upvotes for negative reviews versus the number of upvotes for positive reviews, ignoring all reviews below a certain threshold. If you want to I can educate you about the reasons for this, but I guess you will be ignorant and call it nonsense, so I won't waste my time on you.

 

[Joch]

well a lot of the negative comments on Steam do seem to have been written by 12 year olds....

 

[Acken]

The beauty of a 50:50 split is that you can match any of these negative comments with an equally poor positive one.

 

[Ryika]

Cool, then let's start ignoring each other in general. ;-)

You're probably one of the few persons that I actually should ignore, yes.

This forum is the only place I ever heard anything positive about the game beyond 1 month after release. Apart from the occasional person fighting the negativity on the steam forums. You also realize that the ratio of positive / negative reviews is not as important as the weighted ratio? I.e. the number of total upvotes for negative reviews versus the number of upvotes for positive reviews, ignoring all reviews below a certain threshold.

Yes, because a system where a single person can only give ONE vote is obviously less likely to give a neutral view than a system where a single person can downvote all reviews he doesn't like. These votes are obviously less likely to be subject of "manipulation" by the extremists on both sides who feel very strongly about the game ("I will downvote every positive review regardless of what it actually says, just because I disagree!"/"This game is great, and I'll downvote anyone who says otherwise!") than the actual reviews are.

I really wonder if you actually believe this nonsense or if you just can't accept that your view is extreme and nonsensical.

 

[JokerJace]

Yes, because a system where a single person can only give ONE vote is obviously less likely to give a neutral view than a system where a single person can downvote all reviews he doesn't like. These votes are obviously less likely to be subject of "manipulation" by the extremists on both sides who feel very strongly about the game ("I will downvote every positive review regardless of what it actually says, just because I disagree!"/"This game is great, and I'll downvote anyone who says otherwise!") than the actual reviews are.

I really wonder if you actually believe this nonsense or if you just can't accept that your view is extreme and nonsensical.

That's one of the reasons to use a threshold. Besides, if this would happen, we wouldn't have so many reviews with 0 to 1 upvotes / downvotes. Which are the ones that should be ignored in the first place. And one review does not necessarily equal one person. How high (in your opinion) is the percentage of manipulation / mandatory voting in a review that's been upvoted 3k times? Also there is money in positive manipulation, which is not true for negative manipulation. So the former is much more likely to happen.

 

[Ryika]

That's one of the reasons to use a threshold. Besides, if this would happen, we wouldn't have so many reviews with 0 to 1 upvotes / downvotes. Which are the ones that should be ignored in the first place. Also, one review does not necessarily equal one person. And how high (in your opinion) is the percentage of manipulation / mandatory voting in a review that's been upvoted 3k times?

First of all: http://store.steampowered.com/app/65980#app_reviews_hash

Click on the Positive/Negative Tabs, both have reviews with very many upvotes and the majority of BOTH categories seem to be reviews that tend to be rather neutral views ala "This game has it's flaws, but overall it's okay..."/"This game isn't completely broken, but it's also not what I had hoped for." - so no, even that statistic doesn't match up with the nonsense that you're trying to sell it as.

Then: How would I know how high that percentage is? In contrast to some other people I don't just make up stuff when I don't know. Fact is: It's not unreasonable to assume that a certain percentage of people would, after writing their review, also go through the comment section and make sure to up-/downvote reviews that match/dont match their opinion. It's also not too much of a stretch to assume that people, who feel very strongly about the game are more likely to do that.

So no, again, why would we EVER say a system, where a person that is on one of the extreme ends, is more likely to influence the overall rating than the average person, would tell us more about the average person than a system where each buyer gets exactly one vote? Your mental gymnastics just don't make any sense when you look at them from a neutral position instead of going in with the agenda of making it match your own perception of the game.

/edit - To answer the part that you've edited in:

Also there is money in positive manipulation, which is not true for negative manipulation. So the former is much more likely to happen.

Assuming manipulation when there's not a pinch of evidence that such a thing is happening is worthless. Once again you're making up nonsense because you don't like the actual data that is available.

 

[JokerJace]

First of all: http://store.steampowered.com/app/65980#app_reviews_hash

Click on the Positive/Negative Tabs, both have reviews with very many upvotes and the majority of BOTH categories seem to be reviews that tend to be rather neutral views ala "This game has it's flaws, but overall it's okay..."/"This game isn't completely broken, but it's also not what I had hoped for." - so no, even that statistic doesn't match up with the nonsense that you're trying to sell it as.

What statistic? You know what a statistic is? I didn't even use the word btw. I just implied that the number of negative upvotes is higher than the number of positive ones. And if you take your time and scroll through the first pages, you will have to agree with me.

Assuming manipulation when there's not a pinch of evidence that such a thing is happening is worthless. Once again you're making up nonsense because you don't like the actual data that is available.

You started to talk about manipulation... I didn't talk about any numbers in this context or even that it's happening. As a response TO YOU I said the former is much more likely, IF any manipulation is happening. It seems to me that you are unable to lead a conversation without high amounts of missplaced polemic if the other person is not agreeing with you.

Then: How would I know how high that percentage is? In contrast to some other people I don't just make up stuff when I don't know. Fact is: It's not unreasonable to assume that a certain percentage of people would, after writing their review, also go through the comment section and make sure to up-/downvote reviews that match/dont match their opinion. It's also not too much of a stretch to assume that people, who feel very strongly about the game are more likely to do that.

No, it's not unreasonable. But if you check the number of reviews with 0 upvotes in relation to all reviews, you will realize this is not happening in any significant scale. And even then, you would have to explain to me why this happens more to negative reviews than positive ones. It is, in fact, too much of a stretch. For constantly accusing me of making arbitrary assertions, this one is pretty imprudent.

So no, again, why would we EVER say a system, where a person that is on one of the extreme ends, is more likely to influence the overall rating than the average person, would tell us more about the average person than a system where each buyer gets exactly one vote? Your mental gymnastics just don't make any sense when you look at them from a neutral position instead of going in with the agenda of making it match your own perception of the game.

How does your description relate to a system that weights the quality of a review? Mental gymnastics ... lol ... basic understanding of statistical pattern recognition I would call it.

 

[Ryika]

There is a strong difference between "manipulating" the system by voting for stuff you agree with and actually manipulating a system by creating a ton of fake reviews to push the sales of your product. The former is something that ALWAYS happens and that is not against any rules, the ladder is something that is illegal in most countries.

I should probably have known that you would use that word to make up more nonsense and just called it "distorting" instead of "manipulating" though. My bad.

/edit - *sigh* ...you edited stuff in again! I think I wasted enough time though. Let's just agree that you're wrong and trying way to hard to make your nonsense look like it has anything to do with reality.

 

[JokerJace]

Of course there is a difference, but don't blame me for articulating yourself badly. Also regarding your last sentence: Thanks for that, no need to respect anything you say anymore. ;-)

 

[Minor Annoyance]

A significant majority of people dislikes the game? What "majority" are you talking about? 53% of the ratings for Civ 5 on Steam are positive, so there's no majority that dislikes the game. Metacritic displays 365 positive and 312 negative (as well as 205 neutral) votes, so there's no majority that dislikes the game. Overall the majority (not a big majority, but certainly a majority) of people seems to like the game.

It would have been safer to say a significant portion are dissatisfied with the game. I like it but am dissatisfied and could like it far more.

Are you saying the game is broken because a minority doesn't like the mechanics, although the majority of people seem to think the game is fine? Or do you have some hidden statistics that render those available to the public meaningless? Or are you just pulling this stuff out of your ass? It's almost as if you don't care about reality and think that your lies will become true if only you repeat them often enough.

I think this speaks to a definition of BS, edited for language:

On Bulls*** (2005), by Harry G. Frankfurt, is a philosophical essay that presents a theory of bulls*** that defines the concept and analyses the applications of bulls*** in the contexts of communication. As such, bulls*** either can be true or can be false; hence, the bulls***ter is someone whose principal aim — when uttering or publishing bulls*** — is to impress the listener and the reader with words that communicate an impression that something is being or has been done, words that are neither true nor false, and so obscure the facts of the matter being discussed.[1] In contrast, the liar must know the truth of the matter under discussion, in order to better conceal it from the listener or the reader being deceived with a lie; while the bulls***ter’s sole concern is personal advancement and advantage to his or her agenda.

 

[JokerJace]

It would have been safer to say a significant portion are dissatisfied with the game. I like it but am dissatisfied and could like it far more.
I think this speaks to a definition of BS, edited for language:

Maybe point at the exact spot that's BS then. I know how that post sounds, but that's the problem with arguing semantics in the first place. (and the point I was making, but I guess not every one got it) People before me said it's not okay to say it's broken. People before me said it IS in fact broken. But that whole discussion is obsolete in the first place, because arguing semantics is nonsense, as a word is defined by it's usage. As shown, you can find a justification to use a word in almost any context. And the way I did it was not wrong. It just examplified something. (If you got it, that is)

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: This has become fully personal and is now lacking in substance. The thread made a great point that you all managed to turn into personal insults and pointless arguments. Thread closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889