-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dear Gaming Forum:
- Thread starter Matlock
- Start date
Tritroid
Member
Do you even think before posting?Wellington said:
I realize you might not be using your brain at all, but I'll try to keep it short and to the point so you can understand. Try to follow along ok?
First of all, I myself said that the scores of MP and Halo don't really matter since they're so close. I just want to get that out of the way. I was just taking someone's bait earlier about MP's controls ruining the overall game.
Secondly, and back to my original point that you failed to grasp, think about how a game is reviewed and scored. It's multiple categories that are averaged for a total score(other than IGN, where totals come straight from the ass). Now, if one of those categories scores relatively low, it's obviously going to reflect the overall score.
So let's say for example that Metroid Prime's control scheme outright sucked, and it scored an average of 6.8 from most reviewers. That in itself is going to knock down the overall total.
Now let's apply that to the point I was making about scores reflecting a game's control scheme. Control scheme is a huge factor in the FPS genre, probably more so than any other genre out there. And if the control scheme turns out to be shit, you can bet that the overall game score is going to be considerably low because of that single factor.
So taking MP's score and Halo's score from gamerankings in context; Both scores are relatively in the same ballpark: high. Meaning that reviewers found the controls for each to be pretty damn good, otherwise those high scores would have been considerably lower.
Get it now flunky?
EDIT: btw Mat, fuck you for creating this thread.
Review #1: "In summation, I would have given Metroid Prime 2 a 10.0, but at the end of the day, the control problems were too much to overlook. 9.6"
Review #2: "In summation, I would have given Halo 2 a 10.0, but the fact that the game didn't come with a special attachment so that Cortana could give me a virtual blowjob during play was too much to overlook. 9.6"
Same score, totally different evaluations of MP2's control scheme.
(BTW, those are my real reviews.*)
* not really. Do you really think I'd waste my time debating the merits of two games which AREN'T OUT YET?
Review #2: "In summation, I would have given Halo 2 a 10.0, but the fact that the game didn't come with a special attachment so that Cortana could give me a virtual blowjob during play was too much to overlook. 9.6"
Same score, totally different evaluations of MP2's control scheme.
(BTW, those are my real reviews.*)
* not really. Do you really think I'd waste my time debating the merits of two games which AREN'T OUT YET?
Wellington
BAAAALLLINNN'
Tritroid said:
Well, let me start off by saying that a quick glance at your name (Triforce, Metroid... hur hur yer so clever), and a check of your post history outlines exactly why you even brought the gamerankings score into question. But hey they don't matter do they.
Thanks for the math lesson, but I think my engineering degree hanging on the wall says I don't need one from the likes of you. Since you're so high on the whole average thing though, let me give you your own lesson. Say I give Control 10, Gameplay 5, Graphics 8, Sound 7. Average of 7.5. And another game Control 6, Gameplay 8, Graphics 7, Sound 9... oh holy shit... also an average of 7.5. Clearly control is on par for both games, as is gameplay, right?
But besides that, show me all of these reviewers outside of IGN (and maybe Gamepro) that average their scores and use control scheme as a mitigating factor. Here, I'll help you.
Gamespot:
Gameplay: 10, Graphics: 10, Sound: 8. Value: 9. Average = 9.25. Factor in the 10 tilt and you get a 9.4 average.
Here's how Gamespy reviews work: http://archive.gamespy.com/reviews/ratingsystem/ Notice not even one mention of control scheme. In fact, they barely gloss over the control schem in the MP review itself.
The Next Level:
Graphics 10, sound 8, gameplay 9, replay 4. Where's control? And by your basis this would lead me to believe MP is not the game it was billed out to be. 7.75 average, jeez.
I could go on, and on... and on, but I'm sure you could check Game Rankings database yourself. PS they don't have print mag reviews in there either, but EGM doesn't use averages.
I realize that you weren't using your brain at all, but try and follow along. Don't make stupid comments like:
Ahem:
5. Metroid Prime GC Nintendo 103 8.9 95.6% 95.9%
6. Halo: Combat Evolved XBOX Microsoft 99 8.9 95.0% 95.7%
Not that it matters much anyway. But I'm just pointing out that MP2's control scheme is on par (if not better than) Halo's.
When you know full well that there are factors other than control scheme that contribute to a games overall score. Don't try and reply to a baseless assumption with baseless arguments. Do make sure you at least know basic math if you plan to engage me in a posting debate such as this one. And don't introduce Gamerankings scores if they, by your own admission, aren't important.
Got it now, chump? I know all those five and six letter words make your head hurt, go have a carton of milk when you go back to elementary school to learn basic mathematics.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
This thread makes baby jesus cry all night.
SantaC
Member
Wellington said:Well, let me start off by saying that a quick glance at your name (Triforce, Metroid... hur hur yer so clever), and a check of your post history outlines exactly why you even brought the gamerankings score into question. But hey they don't matter do they.
Thanks for the math lesson, but I think my engineering degree hanging on the wall says I don't need one from the likes of you. Since you're so high on the whole average thing though, let me give you your own lesson. Say I give Control 10, Gameplay 5, Graphics 8, Sound 7. Average of 7.5. And another game Control 6, Gameplay 8, Graphics 7, Sound 9... oh holy shit... also an average of 7.5. Clearly control is on par for both games, as is gameplay, right?
But besides that, show me all of these reviewers outside of IGN (and maybe Gamepro) that average their scores and use control scheme as a mitigating factor. Here, I'll help you.
Gamespot:
Gameplay: 10, Graphics: 10, Sound: 8. Value: 9. Average = 9.25. Factor in the 10 tilt and you get a 9.4 average.
Here's how Gamespy reviews work: http://archive.gamespy.com/reviews/ratingsystem/ Notice not even one mention of control scheme. In fact, they barely gloss over the control schem in the MP review itself.
The Next Level:
Graphics 10, sound 8, gameplay 9, replay 4. Where's control? And by your basis this would lead me to believe MP is not the game it was billed out to be. 7.75 average, jeez.
I could go on, and on... and on, but I'm sure you could check Game Rankings database yourself. PS they don't have print mag reviews in there either, but EGM doesn't use averages.
I realize that you weren't using your brain at all, but try and follow along. Don't make stupid comments like:
When you know full well that there are factors other than control scheme that contribute to a games overall score. Don't try and reply to a baseless assumption with baseless arguments. Do make sure you at least know basic math if you plan to engage me in a posting debate such as this one. And don't introduce Gamerankings scores if they, by your own admission, aren't important.
Got it now, chump? I know all those five and six letter words make your head hurt, go have a carton of milk when you go back to elementary school to learn basic mathematics.
So you are basicly saying that the control scheme was not important at all in all those reviews?
That's a good one.
Wellington
BAAAALLLINNN'
SantaCruZer said:
No shit it's important but there are other important factors as well. The hive mentality of you Nbots is sickening.
Hey guess what, DS is doomed. :lol
Hitler Stole My Potato
Banned
For all those that are arguing about Metroid Prime and Halo in this thread, I'd like to rip your balls off with my teeth.
SantaCruZer said:
No, he's obviously pointing out that a game's overall rating or score isn't the sum of its parts, but rather how they all tie together. What this means is that while a game could have less than perfect controls, case in point, the rest of it can make up for it. Simple as that.
He's not trolling, he's trying to explain (dare I say in vain to an audience like the usual nbots) that a game's score/rating can't be used as a blanket statement to cover all its parts.
I can't fathom how people can't even grasp that. It's just incredible such a simple concept can get lost in the rubbles of some people's minds.
Tritroid
Member
Wow, you actually got that 'Tri' stands for 'Triforce' and 'Troid' stands for 'Metroid? You must be fucking brilliant. Really. And what does my post history have to do with anything? Oh my god! I think Metroid Prime actually had a good control scheme and it's on par with Halo's! (God forbid). I must be nothing more than a Ninbot without a single logical opinion under my belt who you shouldn't even waste your time with, right?Wellington said:Well, let me start off by saying that a quick glance at your name (Triforce, Metroid... hur hur yer so clever), and a check of your post history outlines exactly why you even brought the gamerankings score into question. But hey they don't matter do they.
Maybe you shouldn't have opened your mouth originally then eh?
Wow, your engineering degree! Bragging about that in a GAMING FORUM is gonna get you real far. (Notice how I used bold for those two words. Yeah, I thought you'd enjoy that.) But that's besides the point now isn't it.
Let me see if I can run my initial point past you one more time. (Hopefully you'll get it this time right?) Here was my original statement that you somehow forgot to incorporate in your rushed response:
And if the control scheme turns out to be shit, you can bet that the overall game score is going to be considerably low because of that single factor.
So taking MP's score and Halo's score from gamerankings in context; Both scores are relatively in the same ballpark: high. Meaning that reviewers found the controls for each to be pretty damn good, otherwise those high scores would have been considerably lower.
Read over that once more. Do you get it now? Yes the multiple categories averaged in affect what the overall total is going to be, and it's low OR HIGH depending upon what the individual categories' scores are. A fucking 5 year old understands that. However, since both MP and Halo have HIGH scores (again, I bolded just for you) that means that all the other categories INCLUDING CONTROL scored high as well, now doesn't it.
Your example doesn't exactly apply here because that isn't a situation that's relative to this one. Both games scored HIGH, and were .5 off of a perfect 10. And even if one game's control (and btw, the control issue is often times included in the Gameplay score, you seemed a bit confused on that) was slightly lower than the other, it isn't enough of a difference to try and dispute the claim that MP has just as good a control scheme as Halo does.
Do you think highly of yourself or what? Dude, I don't give a flying fuck who you are. If I feel like debating someone in a forum, yeah, I'm gonna do it. (If it's within the TOS of course : ) ) Your SUPAR MATH SKILLZ aren't going to stop me from calling someone on smart ass remarks, which is what you attempted to do originally.
And by the way, I said the fact that the two scores were so close together means that it isn't relatively that important that one is better in any area than the other. I wasn't saying that the gameranking scores in general aren't important. Jesus, do you have trouble comprehending what you're reading?
Oh shit, did I not bold enough words in those two paragraphs? Hmm, let me go back and fix that...There!
(Request #125 to bring back the rolleyes icon)
:ROLLEYES
SantaC
Member
IJoel said:
well seems ok to me that you are free to bash everything Nintendo does, but god forbid us if we try to defend it.
the debate about metroid prime control has reached ridiculous heights and is basicly mentioned in every metroid prime thread.
As matlock said #4:
Appearently we are not allowed to think that. Because it's said in the holy gaming bible that thou must use dual analog in every first person view game.
Hitler Stole My Potato
Banned
Can you fucking retards just give it a rest already?
You all win. Happy?
You all win. Happy?
Tritroid said:
Damn, and you had to pull me back in?
I'm just so sick of this debate because so many goddamn people argue in favour of the original control scheme when what a lot of us want is just a goddamn OPTION to use dual analog instead of the original. It's not as if putting in dual analog control would have ruined the game for the rest of you guys. So why the fuck is it so hard for you people to understand and agree that putting in a dual analog option would have been the best thing for EVERYONE?
Retro/Nintendo is being retarded by not giving it to us.
Maybe, Retro/Nintendo don't like money? Or maybe they just don't like MY money. Well, it does not matter since they are not getting it anyway. I have money for plenty of games this holidays but Metroid Prime 2 is not part of the plans anymore.
Oh, and one more thing, when sales figures are out, don't fucking whine that Metroid Prime is not getting the attention it so apparently fucking deserves. That's because Retro/Nintendo screwed themselves.........
Tritroid
Member
I actually agree with pretty much everything you just said.ElyrionX said:
I too am sick of this debate, and it seems like the only solution WOULD be for Retro to include a control option. I mean hell, they've got 4 going for Metroid Prime Hunters, why not for MP2?
I guess all it boils down to though is time and money, the former being what they were probably short on. (Although according to them they had more than enough time to polish).
My problem though is when people like you who try to say that Halo has a better control scheme than Prime just because you favor the dual analogue over the original control. I'm just trying to say that they're equally as good, and for some reason I'm getting blasted for it. (And also being called a fanboy in the process, which is kinda ironic imo.)
I will be disappointed that MP2 won't sell as much as Halo 2, simply because it's probably going to be an awesome game. And yes, if Retro had included the control option it might sell more than it is going to...but still not nearly on par with Halo 2.
Wellington
BAAAALLLINNN'
Well, you goddamned idiot, where do I begin.
Your post history and name obviously indicate where your bias lies, A man, sorry, a boy as smart as you claim to be should have noticed that right off the bat. I tried to help you out by pointing it out to you, but you seem to struggle with grasping that concept. Hopefully you understand that at least. For the record I enjoyed Metroid Prime a lot more than I did Halo. Though I disliked the control scheme in MP, I loved the environment, the puzzles, the level design, the boss encounters, the enemies, and the integrated special skills (all of which goes into gameplay, and not just control as you imply later on in this sickly little diatribe), as opposed to Halo which had a beautiful control scheme, but shitty level design, shitty enemies, a non-sensical storyline (without the books), and a borderline boring climax. But that's neither here nor there, because the only thing that matters is the control scheme, according to you.
It will when you're talking mathematics and science. Try and keep up with your own arguments here.
Your initial point was:
Followed by:
And then:
But hey I'll respond to what you said anyway. As Jinx and IJoel both mentioned, yet it still didn't get into your skull, a game is more than just the sum of it's parts. There are no reviews out there which plainly average up the scores for each component, they offer up a subjective value to the game out of four/five/ten/one hundred which they feel it deserves. Did Halo PC get significantly higher scores than Halo on Xbox? Surely the control scheme is better, and other than that the game is exactly the same. Get it through your skull and into that peanut sized brain of yours, while control scheme is important, it's ultimately judged with a myriad of other, more important factors. If a control scheme is passable, it won't affect the game's overall score as much as a control scheme that's horribly flawed. To some, the MP control scheme is passable at best, while the Halo control scheme is what we are used to and feels more like a natural extension of the human body. Moving both your head and your body? What an ingenious concept. Last I checked, pretty damned good was not the same as a control scheme that just got the job done.
No, you are wrong, I clearly showed you that the facets of the gameplay aren't fucking averaged together to give an overall score. As I said and I showed in my example above (which you conveniently ignored) it's possible to have a game deficient in some areas and have it pick up the slack in others. Because both games were so highly rated, you should be able to see how the rest of the issues stack up within the game, but you're so fixated on the control schemes that you're missing the point of a review on the overall game. They both have high scores because of ingenius gameplay, graphics, sound, and overall incredible experiences.... oh, and then control later on. Who gives a fuck? Like I said above a passable control scheme works well enough to keep a game from getting bad marks, but you really can't seem to understand that.
Only one that really seems confuse here is you, bucko. Earlier you said:
So now it doesn't get it's own score? Now it's lumped with gameplay which as I mentioned contains things like level design, enemy AI, puzzles, boss encounters, etc? You're right, control is the most important facet of having fun with a game that has superb gameplay.
Well 1, yeah I do think highly of myself. The fact that you resorted to ad hominem attacks from the get go to undermine my argument supports that. And no, you haven't been within the TOS from the get go with baseless name calling. You made a DUMB argument, got called out, and you are now trying to save face by trying to drag my name throught the mud.
Wrong, you said:
Not only did you imply that both specific areas of control were important, but that they were on the same footing. You seem to have trouble comprehending and remembering what you yourself wrote. And you also DID say that they don't matter, implying gamerankings scores aren't important in general. Jesus that's twice you crossed yourself up within two sentences. Who's the one with reading comprehension issues?
You might want to quit before you keep shoving your foot in your mouth.
But to drive the point home, yet again, it is not just a matter of control scheme that merited the -0.5 from the scores of Halo and Metroid Prime, rather, it was an amalgamation of all facets of the game. I'm clearly not the only one that sees this:
They clearly see what I am saying, are you too dense to see you are wrong?
Tritroid said:
Your post history and name obviously indicate where your bias lies, A man, sorry, a boy as smart as you claim to be should have noticed that right off the bat. I tried to help you out by pointing it out to you, but you seem to struggle with grasping that concept. Hopefully you understand that at least. For the record I enjoyed Metroid Prime a lot more than I did Halo. Though I disliked the control scheme in MP, I loved the environment, the puzzles, the level design, the boss encounters, the enemies, and the integrated special skills (all of which goes into gameplay, and not just control as you imply later on in this sickly little diatribe), as opposed to Halo which had a beautiful control scheme, but shitty level design, shitty enemies, a non-sensical storyline (without the books), and a borderline boring climax. But that's neither here nor there, because the only thing that matters is the control scheme, according to you.
It will when you're talking mathematics and science. Try and keep up with your own arguments here.
Your initial point was:
Followed by:
And then:
But hey I'll respond to what you said anyway. As Jinx and IJoel both mentioned, yet it still didn't get into your skull, a game is more than just the sum of it's parts. There are no reviews out there which plainly average up the scores for each component, they offer up a subjective value to the game out of four/five/ten/one hundred which they feel it deserves. Did Halo PC get significantly higher scores than Halo on Xbox? Surely the control scheme is better, and other than that the game is exactly the same. Get it through your skull and into that peanut sized brain of yours, while control scheme is important, it's ultimately judged with a myriad of other, more important factors. If a control scheme is passable, it won't affect the game's overall score as much as a control scheme that's horribly flawed. To some, the MP control scheme is passable at best, while the Halo control scheme is what we are used to and feels more like a natural extension of the human body. Moving both your head and your body? What an ingenious concept. Last I checked, pretty damned good was not the same as a control scheme that just got the job done.
No, you are wrong, I clearly showed you that the facets of the gameplay aren't fucking averaged together to give an overall score. As I said and I showed in my example above (which you conveniently ignored) it's possible to have a game deficient in some areas and have it pick up the slack in others. Because both games were so highly rated, you should be able to see how the rest of the issues stack up within the game, but you're so fixated on the control schemes that you're missing the point of a review on the overall game. They both have high scores because of ingenius gameplay, graphics, sound, and overall incredible experiences.... oh, and then control later on. Who gives a fuck? Like I said above a passable control scheme works well enough to keep a game from getting bad marks, but you really can't seem to understand that.
Only one that really seems confuse here is you, bucko. Earlier you said:
So now it doesn't get it's own score? Now it's lumped with gameplay which as I mentioned contains things like level design, enemy AI, puzzles, boss encounters, etc? You're right, control is the most important facet of having fun with a game that has superb gameplay.
Well 1, yeah I do think highly of myself. The fact that you resorted to ad hominem attacks from the get go to undermine my argument supports that. And no, you haven't been within the TOS from the get go with baseless name calling. You made a DUMB argument, got called out, and you are now trying to save face by trying to drag my name throught the mud.
Wrong, you said:
Ahem:
5. Metroid Prime GC Nintendo 103 8.9 95.6% 95.9%
6. Halo: Combat Evolved XBOX Microsoft 99 8.9 95.0% 95.7%
Not that it matters much anyway. But I'm just pointing out that MP2's control scheme is on par (if not better than) Halo's.
Not only did you imply that both specific areas of control were important, but that they were on the same footing. You seem to have trouble comprehending and remembering what you yourself wrote. And you also DID say that they don't matter, implying gamerankings scores aren't important in general. Jesus that's twice you crossed yourself up within two sentences. Who's the one with reading comprehension issues?
You might want to quit before you keep shoving your foot in your mouth.
But to drive the point home, yet again, it is not just a matter of control scheme that merited the -0.5 from the scores of Halo and Metroid Prime, rather, it was an amalgamation of all facets of the game. I'm clearly not the only one that sees this:
-jinx- said:
IJoel said:
They clearly see what I am saying, are you too dense to see you are wrong?
Mike Works
Member
After dissecting Wellingbox 2 and SamusLinkMcWario's posts, I have reached the following conclusion;
CK is biased against Nintendo.
The other guy is biased for Nintendo.
YET ANOTHER CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATION GOES DOWN IN GAMING AGE HISTORY
CK is biased against Nintendo.
The other guy is biased for Nintendo.
YET ANOTHER CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATION GOES DOWN IN GAMING AGE HISTORY
Mr_Furious
Member
Sega sucks
Hitler Stole My Potato
Banned
What this thread needs now are some Forza and GT4 comparison pics, then your path to the dark side will be complete.
Wellington
BAAAALLLINNN'
Mike Works said:
Problem is, I'm not biased against Nintendo, just their fans .
aperfectt00l
Member
Goddamn plz tell me that you were being sarcastic because if you honestly think that not having dual analog will ruin this game you are fucking retarded. I would like to see someone easily go around in that game and do all that jumping and shit with Dual analog controls thats like saying hey lets give frogger dual annalog controls---- retarded.Nerevar said:
Tritroid
Member
God, I was hoping when I got up this morning that this thread would be dead already.
And by the way, making assumptions on a personal level is retarded, especially for a fucking forum. I'm 22. Not a boy. I'm currently studying market philosophy as a junior and will hopefully earn my degree in 1 year. But hey, you wouldn't know anything about that because to you, everyone who likes Nintendo automatically equals 12 or younger, right? What an intelligent assumption for someone who has a degree in engineering.
Also for the record, I never said that only the control scheme matters. But I guess you enjoy putting words in my mouth so I won't focus too much on that. It's interesting however that you liked Halo's controls, but disliked MP's controls. Personal opinion wouldn't be entering into your argument here would it? No, of course not.
You keep spouting the same things over and over without even trying to incorporate what I've already said into your response. It must be the reading comprehension you're having trouble with again.
As I already said, yes, a game's score is a balance or average of multiple components. However (And again), since both game scores were high, it's pretty damn obvious that the control/gameplay/whatever scores weren't low enough to cause the overall score to be dropped by much. And even if, for example, MP's controls were a low factor in one review and enough to drop it, that obviously didn't happen enough for the gamerankings score to be dropped below Halo's. The same goes for other issues with Halo outside of the controls. The game score components were still high enough that it kept overall scores high as well, and that then averaged a 95% on gamerankings.
So I say again, even if there was slight differences in the control-portion of some reviews that had MP score lower in that area than Halo, the differences weren't enough to argue the fact that MP's controls are still on par with Halo's. Sure, saying one is better is fine, but that's a personal opinion, and I think that's what you're trying to factor into this argument.
While some reviewers may have found issues with MP's controls, it wasn't enough take an overall category score (like gameplay) or an overall total score down to the point that someone could argue that MP doesn't have as good a control scheme as Halo.
Please tell me you get it this time. If not, just say "I liked Halo's controls better than MP's" and be done with it, because it's pretty obvious that's what you're wanting to factor in.
I'm having trouble understanding what is so wrong with saying that MP's control scheme is on par with Halo's. You're looking through my post history for points that indicate mybias, but I'm the one trying to say the two games both have good controls. See the irony in that?Wellington said:
And by the way, making assumptions on a personal level is retarded, especially for a fucking forum. I'm 22. Not a boy. I'm currently studying market philosophy as a junior and will hopefully earn my degree in 1 year. But hey, you wouldn't know anything about that because to you, everyone who likes Nintendo automatically equals 12 or younger, right? What an intelligent assumption for someone who has a degree in engineering.
Also for the record, I never said that only the control scheme matters. But I guess you enjoy putting words in my mouth so I won't focus too much on that. It's interesting however that you liked Halo's controls, but disliked MP's controls. Personal opinion wouldn't be entering into your argument here would it? No, of course not.
Cute. But hopefully you realize by 'initial point' I meant the point I made when the MP/Halo debate sparked. If you're too slow to understand that, next time I'll be sure to be more specific.
You keep spouting the same things over and over without even trying to incorporate what I've already said into your response. It must be the reading comprehension you're having trouble with again.
As I already said, yes, a game's score is a balance or average of multiple components. However (And again), since both game scores were high, it's pretty damn obvious that the control/gameplay/whatever scores weren't low enough to cause the overall score to be dropped by much. And even if, for example, MP's controls were a low factor in one review and enough to drop it, that obviously didn't happen enough for the gamerankings score to be dropped below Halo's. The same goes for other issues with Halo outside of the controls. The game score components were still high enough that it kept overall scores high as well, and that then averaged a 95% on gamerankings.
So I say again, even if there was slight differences in the control-portion of some reviews that had MP score lower in that area than Halo, the differences weren't enough to argue the fact that MP's controls are still on par with Halo's. Sure, saying one is better is fine, but that's a personal opinion, and I think that's what you're trying to factor into this argument.
Wow, talk about spin. First of all, you were the one that started this because earlier it was between ElyrionX and me, until you suddenly jumped in with:
Yeah, so laughing at someone's position isn't basically the equivalent of calling them stupid? Me jumping back at you with insulting comments was because of how you originally responded to my posts. So don't try to spin this around and make it seem like you're the victim here, having your precious 'name' dragged through the mud.Wellington said:
Maybe you should look more closely at jinx's post before you try to apply it to your own point. Besides the fact that he made up that situation, by using his example you'd assume that Halo's controls were so good that they wouldn't affect the overall score at all. Ok, fine. Also, MP's controls were an issue, but it wasn't something would considerably drop the overall score, since it actually only dropped by .4. This is backing up my point.
While some reviewers may have found issues with MP's controls, it wasn't enough take an overall category score (like gameplay) or an overall total score down to the point that someone could argue that MP doesn't have as good a control scheme as Halo.
Please tell me you get it this time. If not, just say "I liked Halo's controls better than MP's" and be done with it, because it's pretty obvious that's what you're wanting to factor in.
Duck of Death
Member
Titroid and Wellington are those two guys on Crossfire, and Matlock is John Stewart. Matlock started the topic to show them how much they and others like them suck, but they shrugged him off and continued to assault each other with worthless banter.
Civilized discource is doomed.
Civilized discource is doomed.
Mike Works
Member
When you're willing to say stuff like MARIO _____ SUCKS YOU FAG over and over again, you're either biased against the developer/company or lying. It's up to you I guess.Wellington said:Problem is, I'm not biased against Nintendo, just their fans .
For the record: I made my post explicitly to back up Wellington's position.
Let me pare this down to its simplest form: Two things with the same overall "rating" are not necessarily equal in all aspects. It is not logically inconsistent to state that "A and B, overall, are equivalent" but also to state "subpart n of A is better/worse than subpart n of B." If you want to argue against that premise, feel free...but you're going to be wrong.
Here are some concrete examples, since I think you need some:
* Two students take the same ten-question exam, each question being worth ten points, and both score an 85. Does that necessarily mean that they both got the same score on problem #7?
* Two cars are reviewed by a major magazine, and each is judged to earn a B+ grade overall. Does that necessarily mean that both cars have equally powerful engines?
* Two games are reviewed by a magazine, and each scores a 9.5. Does that necessarily mean that each of them has equally good graphics?
(The answer in all cases is NO.)
Going back to your specific case, the best that you can do is to argue that the merits of Metroid Prime outweigh the limitations in the control system...and it would probably be an argument that Wellington might agree with, since I believe he said that he liked the game. However, that does NOT mean that the controls are "as good" as Halo's, and no amount of pointing to overall review scores is going to back up your claim.
Got it?
Let me pare this down to its simplest form: Two things with the same overall "rating" are not necessarily equal in all aspects. It is not logically inconsistent to state that "A and B, overall, are equivalent" but also to state "subpart n of A is better/worse than subpart n of B." If you want to argue against that premise, feel free...but you're going to be wrong.
Here are some concrete examples, since I think you need some:
* Two students take the same ten-question exam, each question being worth ten points, and both score an 85. Does that necessarily mean that they both got the same score on problem #7?
* Two cars are reviewed by a major magazine, and each is judged to earn a B+ grade overall. Does that necessarily mean that both cars have equally powerful engines?
* Two games are reviewed by a magazine, and each scores a 9.5. Does that necessarily mean that each of them has equally good graphics?
(The answer in all cases is NO.)
Going back to your specific case, the best that you can do is to argue that the merits of Metroid Prime outweigh the limitations in the control system...and it would probably be an argument that Wellington might agree with, since I believe he said that he liked the game. However, that does NOT mean that the controls are "as good" as Halo's, and no amount of pointing to overall review scores is going to back up your claim.
Got it?