What the fuck is going on at RPGdot?

[obediah]

I am a man and she's not 'higher' than me. She's a 'crone', a wise elder. I have a high priest as well. Unlike secular Humanists, we don't ignore or abandon our elders, we respect and learn from them. We celebrate all cycles of life because they are like the changing of the seasons within each of us.

In my belief, regardless of gender, nationality, race, (And yes, even religion) we are all equal children of the Earth. (And I'm sure you were just joking.)

God, I fucking hate larpers.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

That's a Biblical belief. A Christian guy I talked to once said: "We can't have a female president!(US) It's against scripture!"

It's more against common sense than anything else.

 

[bryce777]

Kristophe and Corwin are really pathetic dicksuckers. I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Spazmo]

It's more against common sense than anything else.

"*Won't* have a female president" is common sense. "Can't" is misogyny.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

"Can't" is misogyny.

aka common sense. Git 'er done!

 

[Calis]

No, I don't expect it to be instant, but at least I'm making a conscious effort to correct my behaviour without resorting to the kind of childish nonsense that goes on in these parts.

Well, keep trying. Good luck, and all that.

How is it hypocrisy to decide that enough is enough? I can't go through any thread these days without some stranger popping up and posting some inane remark that has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread.

Because you're actually keeping it going like that, and any pretense that your reaction is more mature than the original post is just that - a superficial pretense. You say poh-tay-to, I say poh-tah-to, he says "flipflopper", you say "childish bandwagon-hopper". Replying in a condescending manner covered with the superficial mantle of a "mature" post hardly means that they are actually more mature , and lends credibility to the argument that you're nothing more than an attention whore (a view I've never ascribed to).
As for the underlying reasons why people like to pick on you, I'm not gonna get into that again, but you can rest assured that there is no giant conspiracy to keep people biased against you. (alright, so maybe that part isn't entirely true)

 

[Sol Invictus]

I don't like how you're making me out to be a "victim", Calis. There's a big difference between getting beaten up (which I'm not) and having simply to deal with annoying fools. The internet is not serious business.

I'm not "trying" to do anything, Calis. If people want to persist on being asinine towards me there's really nothing I can do to stop them besides defend myself against libel (I'm referring to Ave saying that I'm not responsible for CO8 even though I took money out of my own pocket to do it).

You say poh-tay-to, I say poh-tah-to, he says "flipflopper", you say "childish bandwagon-hopper"

If I'm called out by someone I don't even know who's confrontational with me for the sole reason that a few other people are doing it, too, how is he anything but a bandwagon hopper looking for a clique to be amongst? If you had any reason left in you, you would see the poor logic contained within your statement.

You seem to think that responding in a mature manner is the exact opposite of maturity. It is a kind of logic that I can't even begin to grasp because it makes absolutely no sense.

Your assertion implies that the people who are 'against' me (or rather acting like little children) are more mature than I am because they're willing to "get amongst it" with the retarded "humor" that seems to have no point other than to infuriate others for their own amusement.

As for the underlying reasons why people like to pick on you, I'm not gonna get into that again,

Does there need to be a reason to 'pick' on someone? It's this kind of logic that governs the minds of children. Adults should have the maturity to agree to disagree without turning every single one of their reactions into an inflammatory response, but I'm supposing that the majority of these people aren't even adults, hence their behaviour.

I don't suppose there's any point with trying to reason with overgrown adolescents.

 

[syKo]

 

[Athame]

God, I fucking hate larpers.

Haha. We are ALL larpers; every last man, woman and child.

As You Like It

Act 2, Scene VII

JAQUES:

”All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts…”

Who hasn't wanted to kick a teacher in the coochie but given her an apple instead? Who hasn't bid their boss good night when you really want to tell him to go fuck himself and drop dead in the most dramatic and violent way possible. Life is a LARP (stage) and You and I and everyone else are just the players (actors). Want my autograph? :D

 

[spacemoose]

If I'm called out by someone I don't even know who's confrontational with me for the sole reason that a few other people are doing it, too, how is he anything but a bandwagon hopper looking for a clique to be amongst?

I assume a part of that post is directed at me.

You misunderstand Exitium, I truly do dislike you, I give you my word on that. My opinion of you is based on browsing these forums for a long time before I registerd. And I'm not going to gather specific posts as evidence. The fact that you are a pompous asshole seethes from the majority of your posts like the stink from shit.

When I saw the signature thing going on, I hopped in to have a bit of fun at the expense of your enormous ego. I am not trying to 'belong' or find a clique here. I am not a frequent poster at all. As you yourself have noticed, most of my posts have been directed at ridiculing you, just because you irritate me so much.

I do not plan to become a regular here so I have no use for a clique.

If you had any reason left in you, you would see the poor logic contained within your statement.

Very professional, beginning your argument by calling the other person a dumbass.

 

[Sol Invictus]

You certainly have some double standards. Apparently, it's okay for you to insult and called me a cunt and say that my posts 'stink of shit' but it's not okay for me to call you a petulent little child in response. That's nice.

How sad it must be for you that I have an effect on you (e.g. I irritate you so much!). The internet is truly serious business.

 

[spacemoose]

I immagine that with 9000 posts the internet becomes something more than serious.

And I think the fact that a ton of people here dislike you is a bit sadder :D

 

[LlamaGod]

I dunno if its been mentioned, but I've always liked how RPGDot hasnt given anything lower then a 64%, which was FOBOS. So yeah, EVERYTHING IS ABOVE AVERAGE!11111111

 

[Sol Invictus]

I'd actually defend RPGDot by saying that they tend not to review bad games deserving of low scores... ah, but then there's Sudeki.

 

[aboyd]

If I'm called out by someone I don't even know who's confrontational with me for the sole reason that a few other people are doing it, too, how is he anything but a bandwagon hopper looking for a clique to be amongst?

But they're not doing it for the sole reason that a few other people are doing it. That's maybe what you're telling yourself -- maybe you don't like the real reason they're doing it, so you're attributing to them a fake, weaker reason.

Look, you posted on the Internet. People can read, and your posts are public. People who are complete strangers can judge the quality of your posts as easily as they judge the quality of a book. Maybe you're different from your posts, but we're here, on the forums, surrounded by these posts. They are what matters here.

Your assertion implies that the people who are 'against' me (or rather acting like little children) are more mature than I am because they're willing to "get amongst it" with the retarded "humor" that seems to have no point other than to infuriate others for their own amusement.

Your comment wasn't directed at me, but I'll toss out my opinion. And that is, I think his assertion is merely that people have formed opinions, and their opinions are not groundless. Sure, creating a silly signature to make fun of your signature is very low-brow, but your posts engender such responses. The fact that someone would have to point this out to you only makes it more likely that it will happen again in the future. I can almost guarantee there is some lurker reading this even now who is snickering and thinking to himself that he almost can't keep quiet anymore. In another week or month, he'll pop up and you'll think he came from nowhere and has no history with you.

I understand that you think people have no grounds to form an opinion unless they know you personally. But I just don't hold that view. I think -- and I suspect others think -- that reading a few hundred of your posts is enough to form an opinion.

Personally, although I have made very few posts and I suspect I've never conversed with you online or offline, I've been around long enough to see your rants not only here, but spilling over into other boards. I've seen you do the flip-flop multiple times. And I've seen you in your "reasonable" mode before, and I know from experience that it doesn't last. For all of these reasons, it's nearly impossible to take you seriously now. I know that a month from now, when this topic is forgotten, you'll go off half-cocked on some rant that defies logic or at least any sense of normalcy.

I know, I know. People shouldn't lump all your posts together -- when you're serious, they ought to take you seriously. Except that they are breaking your rule even now, quietly watching this topic, noting yet another crazy thread, and moving on. They probably think I'm crazy too, for getting involved. You can't control what people think, nor can you control what they say about you. The best you can hope for is to maintain your "reasonable" mode for the rest of your life, and after many many months, you will influence people to think differently about you. People keep score, even if you don't want them to.

 

[Dhruin]

I dunno if its been mentioned, but I've always liked how RPGDot hasnt given anything lower then a 64%, which was FOBOS. So yeah, EVERYTHING IS ABOVE AVERAGE!11111111

That depends on what you mean by "average", and if you define the average score as 50%.

 

[Sol Invictus]

The average score should be at 50%, otherwise, what's the point of the scores if you're going to set up an arbitrarily high average?

Moving on:

I know, I know. People shouldn't lump all your posts together -- when you're serious, they ought to take you seriously. Except that they are breaking your rule even now, quietly watching this topic, noting yet another crazy thread, and moving on. They probably think I'm crazy too, for getting involved. You can't control what people think, nor can you control what they say about you. The best you can hope for is to maintain your "reasonable" mode for the rest of your life, and after many many months, you will influence people to think differently about you. People keep score, even if you don't want them to.

You seem to think that my entire life revolves around the RPG Codex (or Duck and Cover, even though I don't post there, or even lurk). That might be true for you, but it isn't true for me. I do post in a "reasonable" mode elsewhere, as is my norm, and I can assure you that I am taken both seriously and maturely based on the validity of my statements there, which lack the stupidity, arrogance and childishness that I bring to the RPG Codex at times as you have so evidently marked in your memory, overriding everything else I've ever said or done.

Don't get me wrong, your advice is sound, and rest assured, I will cherish it, so you shouldn't get the impression that I'm trying to pretend to be innocent in all of this. However, it still doesn't excuse the immaturity displayed by a few of the posters here. I would not even refer to them as the majority, because it's clearly evident that there are but a few bad apples whose sole purpose on these forums and probably elsewhere is to promote a setting of aggression and needless disagreement. They're certainly not contributing with posts like these that serve no purpose other than to derail a conversation about game mechanics and linearity.

 

[Dhruin]

The average score should be at 50%, otherwise, what's the point of the scores if you're going to set up an arbitrarily high average?

Is it arbitrary? Give me an example of an "average" game (not below average - just average), and then show me a single recognisable site that scored that game at around 50%. Just one example will do.

 

[Screaming_life]

Exactly, when has 50% ever been "average" except in maths?! Average is around 70% in my book.

 

[DarkSign]

You do realize that using %'s requires math, right?

The majority of the world understands that a % system based on 100% has 50% as the average.

The problem is that all these sites try to kiss the ass of the industry that's feeding them. It happens in the movie industry too. Some critic gets wisked off to So Cal for a junket, gets a happy ending at the end of his massage in the hotel that the studio paid for...and if he wants to come back the next time they have a movie...he knows to inflate the score.

But if game sites refuse to actually review bad games (which they should so we know to avoid them) then 50% can become the new 0% and 75% would be average.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Stuff said by Dhruin and Screaming Life

That's the problem! What's the point of using a 100% or 10 point score, if you're not going to actually use the 'mathematics' involved with such a score? I mean no offense to you, Dhruin, in saying so.

Wouldn't it be better to use a scoring system that didn't come with the arbitrary numbers and used instead general, unarbitrary (to a point) terms like "Great, Good, Average, Mediocre, Totally Crap" with criteria like "Longevity/Addictiveness, Visuals, Audio, Gameplay, Overall (short for Overall Feel, or Value)". A game like Quake 3 would score high on Visuals, Audio and Overall but it might plummet in regards to Longevity and Gameplay. A game like Avernum 3 on the other hand would score poorly in Visuals and Audio but rank high in Longevity, Gameplay and Overall. Overall would be the most important criterion but it wouldn't be the 'mathematical result' of adding the other 4 criteria.

After all, how one might rate a book, or a music album would be quite similar, and many magazines do it. Some of them just use stars to represent (as legend) for "poor, mediocre, average, good, great" in each criterion.

When you look at a score for a game these days that says 80% it's hard to tell if it's 'average', 'good' or even if it's 'great' because the score is nothing more than an illusion. It would be much better if specific criteria were listed and specific terms were used to define the actual 'score' of a game. Rating a game's graphics at '60%' when you intend to mean that it's 'utter crap, looks like it belongs in 1997' requires a pointless amount of translation on the reader's part, and the job of the magazine or webzine should be to provide the reader with a specific, and informative review. They shouldn't confuse people. At worst, they end up recommending a poor game to an unwitting gamer who spends his hard earned cash on something that would have been branded as crap if it wasn't for the deceptive practice of %-based review scores.

Just one example will do.

Adrenaline Vault, back in its heyday when Pete Hines used to write for it. They stopped reviewing games and serve as little more than a hardware advertising site these days. In their defense, however, all the hardware that they review is top notch, as they stay away from mediocre hardware.

Edit - examples:

Betrayal in Antara (3/5 stars) reviewed by Pete Hines
http://www.avault.com/reviews/review_te ... bia&page=2

Average game. Nothing special, nothing bad, either.

Arx Fatalis (2/5 stars) reviewed by Jack King
http://www.avault.com/reviews/review_te ... tal&page=3

Nothing bad, but again, nothing special. Has good qualities, but it also has bad qualities in it like the magic system and eating food, too. Regarded as "Average" everywhere else, yet given scores as high as 85% with a minimum of 70% in most places.

 

[LlamaGod]

WELL

I was also just figuring that if everything is higher then 64%, then things are within 36% (and lower) range of the top score, which I said would be an Above Average game rating.

So at RPGDot, every game is rated atleast Above Average, yey. ALL GAMES ARE GOOD!1!

50% is pretty middie-ish, too, i'd say. If a game was below average it wold be in a 20-30% and maybe 40% zone, but at RPGDOt its in the 60s and 70s.

You guys suck at reviewing.

 

[ichpokhudezh]

Attention class: "%" is a "unit of measure", roughly translated as "1/100th" or "1/100th of X" where X is the reference measurement. As such "X%" (31.4%, 50%, 75%) has no direct relationship with an average of any kind.
Please, carry on with the discussion now.

 

[Sol Invictus]

% refers to percentages. See the word: percent which is short for the Latin term "Per Centum"

Translation: Out of each hundred.

50 is the average of the numbers 1 to 100. Hence, 50% is "average".

 

[Dhruin]

You do realize that using %'s requires math, right?

The majority of the world understands that a % system based on 100% has 50% as the average.

It's not that simple. And you still haven't defined "average".

If I check the test scores in a class of students, the mathematical average of the scores might be anything - 20%, 80% - whatever. It's also not how most of the world sees it - they see it as "barely a pass", which most people would think is worse than "average". But all that depends on your definition, which noone has spelled out.

The score has to communicate something to gamers, and they know 70-75% is average. Scoring a game at 50% tells them it' s bad, because that's the convention.

Again, give me one average game (preferably an RPG) and one site that scored it at 50%. And no, Extitium, once upon a time at Adrenaline Vault with no game example doesn't answer the question. You've also confused "median" and "average", btw.

@llamagod, you suck at making intelligent arguments. I'd challenge you to the same thing as Exitium but I already know you'd fail. !!!11111!!