| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 42 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:21:26 |
| Calls: | 220 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 824 |
| Messages: | 121,522 |
| Posted today: | 6 |
On 02/09/2024 18:33, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:49:29 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:<snip>
So first up is 'we' in this context refers to gamers in general and not
this group. So with that out of the way, this comes from Spall's
'Favourite Era of Gaming' thread and something I watched (don't worry
about the video as most of it is irrelevant). Something that was talked
about was is the current gaming industry really that bad or is our
perception of games skewed by information available to us.
My two cents:
I don't think that the gaming public is too negative. Rather, I think
it's a negative reaction to some awful trends in the industry. There
are lots of examples of gamers being extremely positive about games,
after all. Gamers WANT to love their games, but they're too often
being disappointed by the people selling those games.
I do agree that there are real problems, especially with the big budget
game segment, but this was more focused on is 'our' perception of how
bad the games industry is biased due to the likes of social media, and
I'll probably also add that the hype that publishers push, and indeed
games journalists*, then meets the reality of the actual game. I've
still not got over just how disappointed I was when my pre-order of Bio
Shock arrived and I thought oh this is just a shooter in an underwater
city. At least the metal case was nice!
If I look at my YouTube feed for games then a lot of it is quite
negative even if this is due to where a lot of the problems occur, big budget, also happen to be those that will generate clicks. Another way
of looking at it is, if there was less focus on negativity for clicks
would the overall perception be better or to put it simply is the gaming industry as a whole really that bad?
*I still get irritated by the steady march of the score an average game
can get. 70% is a game that's kinda ok and 80% is good but nothing to
write home about?
On 9/4/2024 2:13 AM, JAB wrote:
On 02/09/2024 18:33, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:If you want to start getting really meta about it this is part of a much larger trend that has been ongoing for many decades. More and more
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:49:29 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:<snip>
So first up is 'we' in this context refers to gamers in general and not >>>> this group. So with that out of the way, this comes from Spall's
'Favourite Era of Gaming' thread and something I watched (don't worry
about the video as most of it is irrelevant). Something that was talked >>>> about was is the current gaming industry really that bad or is our
perception of games skewed by information available to us.
My two cents:
I don't think that the gaming public is too negative. Rather, I think
it's a negative reaction to some awful trends in the industry. There
are lots of examples of gamers being extremely positive about games,
after all. Gamers WANT to love their games, but they're too often
being disappointed by the people selling those games.
I do agree that there are real problems, especially with the big
budget game segment, but this was more focused on is 'our' perception
of how bad the games industry is biased due to the likes of social
media, and I'll probably also add that the hype that publishers push,
and indeed games journalists*, then meets the reality of the actual
game. I've still not got over just how disappointed I was when my pre-
order of Bio Shock arrived and I thought oh this is just a shooter in
an underwater city. At least the metal case was nice!
If I look at my YouTube feed for games then a lot of it is quite
negative even if this is due to where a lot of the problems occur, big
budget, also happen to be those that will generate clicks. Another way
of looking at it is, if there was less focus on negativity for clicks
would the overall perception be better or to put it simply is the
gaming industry as a whole really that bad?
*I still get irritated by the steady march of the score an average
game can get. 70% is a game that's kinda ok and 80% is good but
nothing to write home about?
money, and therefore power, being concentrated in a smaller percentage
of the population. It isn't just computer games, its society as a whole.
On 09/09/2024 16:13, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
No as it's done nationally so everyone in the entire country who
took the exam at the same time is included regardless of who their
classmates were i.e. your grade was dependent on how thousands and
thousands of other students did in the entire country.
So they actually grade the entire country on the curve?
Yep that's how it was done, nationally although there were several
different exam boards who controlled their own grading and in theory
they all had to stick to the same overall standard. I suppose it's
technically possible that if you did a horribly obscure* subject with
the right exam board they may be some deviation as all you peers are
dimwits/Mr. Spocks.
*There weren't a lot of them as schools were generally quite
conservative so ours was considered a bit avant garde as it offered
commerce (business studies). Even then they then played it safe by
you had to be in the bottom stream to take it.
Somehow that sounds very ... British. :P
Probably the most British part of it was how it entrenched the class
system. So years 1 -3 (11 - 13 years old) classes were mixed ability but
in years 4 - 5 everything was split into the top and bottom streams*.
That pretty much put you on to a path of either your going to college to
do A levels and then possibly onto to University or we'll keep you
amused for a couple of years until you're old enough to get a job. Let's
just say there was somewhat of a correlation between class and which
stream you were in.
It wasn't until the mid-90's they they really tried to shake it up and provide access to all and not just some.
*Yes they really were called the top and bottom streams just in case you didn't realise were you sat in the pecking order of life.
On 9/11/2024 1:42 AM, JAB wrote:
On 09/09/2024 16:13, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
No as it's done nationally so everyone in the entire country who
took the exam at the same time is included regardless of who their >>>>>> classmates were i.e. your grade was dependent on how thousands and >>>>>> thousands of other students did in the entire country.
So they actually grade the entire country on the curve?
Yep that's how it was done, nationally although there were several
different exam boards who controlled their own grading and in theory
they all had to stick to the same overall standard. I suppose it's
technically possible that if you did a horribly obscure* subject
with the right exam board they may be some deviation as all you
peers are dimwits/Mr. Spocks.
*There weren't a lot of them as schools were generally quite
conservative so ours was considered a bit avant garde as it offered
commerce (business studies). Even then they then played it safe by
you had to be in the bottom stream to take it.
Somehow that sounds very ... British. :P
Probably the most British part of it was how it entrenched the class
system. So years 1 -3 (11 - 13 years old) classes were mixed ability
but in years 4 - 5 everything was split into the top and bottom
streams*. That pretty much put you on to a path of either your going
to college to do A levels and then possibly onto to University or
we'll keep you amused for a couple of years until you're old enough to
get a job. Let's just say there was somewhat of a correlation between
class and which stream you were in.
It wasn't until the mid-90's they they really tried to shake it up and
provide access to all and not just some.
*Yes they really were called the top and bottom streams just in case
you didn't realise were you sat in the pecking order of life.
So the point wasn't to objectively determine how much the students had learned but to identify the proper social strata everyone should be in.
JAB wrote:
On 04/09/2024 15:52, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 9/4/2024 2:13 AM, JAB wrote:
On 02/09/2024 18:33, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:49:29 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com>
wrote:
I am algorithm free, to the point my brother asked how can I enjoy
youtube with anonymous clients that only give me what I asked for in the search, no algorythm. "What's the point of youtube if they don't tell
you what to watch?"
Blame American school system.
Once upon a time, it was decided that an "average" student should be
able to answer 70% of the problems on a test. If they answered fewer correctly, that meant the student was struggling; more meant the
student was 'above average'. This decision rapidly codified into the
grading system every American child becomes familiar with. A grade of
60% or less was a sign of failure.