God, owner of the Universe
God   Germany
 
 
Starting November 2016, I'm using a review score system that scales with my certainty. Imgur album with two images (exported by SlaloM ) showing the concept: https://imgur.com/a/CYdpn

Examples of what this entails (some of which are obviously ridiculous):

[*0*] = ~50% (0%-100%)

[*0* | 1] = ~25% (0%-50%)
[0 | *1*] = ~75% (50%-100%)

[*0* | 1 | 2] = ~17% (0%-33%)
[0 | *1* | 2] = ~50% (33%-67%)
[0 | 1 | *2*] = ~83% (67%-100%)

[*0* 1 | 2 3] = ~12% (0%-25%)
[0 *1* | 2 3] = ~38% (25%-50%)
[0 1 | *2* 3] = ~62% (50%-75%)
[0 1 | 2 *3*] = ~88% (75%-100%)

[*0* 1 | 2 | 3 4] = ~10% (0%-20%)
[0 *1* | 2 | 3 4] = ~30% (20%-40%)
[0 1 | *2* | 3 4] = ~50% (40%-60%)
[0 1 | 2 | *3* 4] = ~70% (60%-80%)
[0 1 | 2 | 3 *4*] = ~90% (80%-100%)

etc.

(The "|" separates the thumbs-down from the thumbs-up half. If there are two "|", that's because there's middle ground (which there isn't when it comes to Steam's either-or reviews).

The *stars* surround the score that was chosen.

The percentage range is a consequence of the coarseness: If we'd grow the scale to [0 ... 100] and mark the 14, the text after the equals would read "~14% (14%-14%)".

The "~30%" is just the middle of (20%-40%). I mean, if I could give a more decisive score here, like e.g. 34%, then this would imply that I could increase the scale in the first place, which I didn't so the ~30% are all I can say and the"~" is very important. "ROUGHLY." Sometimes "VERY ROUGHLY."

It's a coarse scale with variable certainty, and it must also be read as such. It's not useless or whatever, it's instead closer to the truth than just throwing out a "85%!" statement. It also makes it easier for the reviewer, because you don't have to ponder until the end of time until you have the answer that's required for the bottom of the article, you can make and refine the statement as you go.



............................................................................................................



Starting with "Deus Ex: Mankind Divided" (August 2016), every game whose FieldOfView is too low will get a negative review from me. This game itself is a 3 of 4 in my book (1 or 2 of 4 would be negative), so the reason is not quite the game itself.

See my relatively short article here on why exactly.

Too low FOV has been a problem in too many PC games and is unacceptable in light of the fact that it's just a little number that needs to be increased to make the experience of tens of thousands of players significantly better: Via Cheat Engine hack [pcgamingwiki.com], I have been playing DX:MD with proper FOV without crashes, look-through-walls side-effects, low performance, or weird geometry. It just works. The decision to give us low FOV without hard reason is either that of a malicious person , or it is a sign that the developers do not understand the medium they are developing for. It's definitely one of the two.

And due to the fact that large screens become more and more affordable (else I wouldn't be playing on a 16:9 49" at 23" distance) and therefore more prevalent, starting with this game, I draw the vote-line at FOV, period.



............................................................................................................

It's pretty hard to lead by example while invisible.

Btw., just take my name literally, ok.
Offline
Ostatnio online 1 godz. 51 min temu
Ulubiona grupa
SlaloM users - Grupa publiczna
Manage your game library like a pro!
363
Członkowie
54
W grze
133
Online
0
Na czacie
Gablota poradników
about FOV (field of view) in computer games
Od God, owner of the Universe
my "low FieldOfView = thumbs down" policy
Od God, owner of the Universe
Compendium for the perfectionist game developer
Od God, owner of the Universe
Developers, fix your volume sliders!
Od God, owner of the Universe
5
Poradniki
9
Obserwujących

Ostatnia aktywność

0.0 godz. łącznie
ostatnia gra: 23 lutego
0.3 godz. łącznie
ostatnia gra: 23 lutego