Is PC Gamer's 98% rating too low? - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Is PC Gamer's 98% rating too low?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Is PC Gamer's 98% rating too low?

Khan Singh posted 03-15-99 03:44 PM ET
We all agree that Civ2 is one of the greatest games ever made and that it truly deserves the 97% rating PC Gamer gave it. Well, given the great improvements made to the Civ2 model in SMAC, it seems to me that a measly one point ratings increase is just too low.
I think this game is so much better than Civ 2 that it deserves a solid six point boost. That would give SMAC a 103% rating, which I think more accurately reflects the quantative and qualitative gains since Civ2. For those few who have had trouble with the game a slightly lower rating is probably appropriate, perhaps 101%? On the other hand some of the true SMAC enthusiasts might want to give it an even higher score. I think that a score as high as 107% could probably be justified, considering SMAC's excellent interface, intelligent design and superior gameplay.
But what do YOU think?
Gord McLeod posted 03-15-99 03:51 PM ET
Law of diminishing returns. I think 98% is perfectly justified - no game, at any time, ever, by any designer or company, no matter how cool, should ever get a 100% rating, certainly not above. There are *always* things that can be improved. Going from 97% to 98% is a pretty good achievement, and I would expect that to reach 99% would be Herculean in scope.
Aeongusha posted 03-15-99 03:52 PM ET
I think PC Gamer gives weird ratings. I live in Germany and one of the best German computing magazines (Gamestar) gave SMAC 90% (one of the best ratings they ever gave). A game should only achieve 98% if it's near perfection and SMAC is not near perfection, it's simply a very good game.
Freddz posted 03-15-99 04:21 PM ET
Dammit! Yin!!!! Our social experiments are failing... The Techie-subjects are showing signs of humour. Nooooo!!
I must do what I always do at these terrible moments of disbelief: Design a nerve gas pods unit and attack Zakharov of the University. Attack!!!
Rong posted 03-15-99 04:27 PM ET
Well, if you ask me, SMAC should get 441%.
Just like my score.
Bluemax posted 03-15-99 05:33 PM ET
Gord -
So you're saying that if you walked onto the holodeck of the Enterprise in STNG, you would not give Minuet (I think that was her name) a 100%? She would be the ultimate Sim and strategy game of all time.
I do think you have a point though. The grading curve should really ramp up on those last two points. SMAC beats everything else out there, at this point in time. On a relative cuve, it would be 100%, but on a straight grading scale, there must be room for improvement. However, the day may come where virtual reality has got it so knocked that it can't be improved. Meet me on the holodeck (we'll use your holodeck credits) and we'll talk about it.
yin26 posted 03-15-99 05:37 PM ET
Freddz,
You're right. I actually liked this post. I hope this doesn't continue...
Rong posted 03-15-99 05:42 PM ET
Let me get this straight. You liked this post, but you hope this doesn't continue. So what you hope that does continue would be something you don't like.
What's the word? Masochistic?
TheClockKing posted 03-15-99 06:00 PM ET
Rong: I'm not sure Masochistic is the word you are looking for as it means a sexual peversion characterized by pleasure in being subjected to pain and humiliation. Maybe hypocrate is a better word.
Hypocrate I like that word so I will never use it again.
yin26 posted 03-15-99 07:11 PM ET
Rong,
Did you seriously not get that I was joking? You're just trying to bait me, aren't you? O.K.--I hate putting these little frigin' faces in here, but if that's what it takes--

yin26 posted 03-15-99 07:14 PM ET
By the way, what's a hypocrate? Is that something used by moving companies?
Call me a hypocrite if you will, but calling me a hypocrate is just plain mean.

[did I really have to put the faces in?]
Rong posted 03-15-99 07:25 PM ET
Ah, how do I defend this?
A PB made of butter, honey and smileys, that's more dangerous than a real PB. - Chairman Mao
Borodino posted 03-15-99 08:36 PM ET
Gord,
Just a point of correction [I'm sorry, but I have to do this; after two semesters of econ, I've nigh well convinced myself I'm an expert. ]:
There is no such thing as "a law of diminishing returns." It's a convuluted layman's term. The proper technical term is "law of diminishing marginal utility." In econ parlance, "marginal' means "next." Therefore, the wordy expression means that each additional unit utilized for expansion or improvement will produce less than the preceding unit. You are correct, of course, in your application of the law. Again, I apologize for running amok with econ, but I like to be precise.
TheClockKing posted 03-15-99 10:42 PM ET
Sorry about my spelling Yin I meant to say hypocrite, I wrote this in a rush and like always never checked my spelling.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Is PC Gamer's 98% rating too low?
Khan Singh	posted 03-15-99 03:44 PM ET We all agree that Civ2 is one of the greatest games ever made and that it truly deserves the 97% rating PC Gamer gave it. Well, given the great improvements made to the Civ2 model in SMAC, it seems to me that a measly one point ratings increase is just too low. I think this game is so much better than Civ 2 that it deserves a solid six point boost. That would give SMAC a 103% rating, which I think more accurately reflects the quantative and qualitative gains since Civ2. For those few who have had trouble with the game a slightly lower rating is probably appropriate, perhaps 101%? On the other hand some of the true SMAC enthusiasts might want to give it an even higher score. I think that a score as high as 107% could probably be justified, considering SMAC's excellent interface, intelligent design and superior gameplay. But what do YOU think?
Gord McLeod	posted 03-15-99 03:51 PM ET Law of diminishing returns. I think 98% is perfectly justified - no game, at any time, ever, by any designer or company, no matter how cool, should ever get a 100% rating, certainly not above. There are always things that can be improved. Going from 97% to 98% is a pretty good achievement, and I would expect that to reach 99% would be Herculean in scope.
Aeongusha	posted 03-15-99 03:52 PM ET I think PC Gamer gives weird ratings. I live in Germany and one of the best German computing magazines (Gamestar) gave SMAC 90% (one of the best ratings they ever gave). A game should only achieve 98% if it's near perfection and SMAC is not near perfection, it's simply a very good game.
Freddz	posted 03-15-99 04:21 PM ET Dammit! Yin!!!! Our social experiments are failing... The Techie-subjects are showing signs of humour. Nooooo!! I must do what I always do at these terrible moments of disbelief: Design a nerve gas pods unit and attack Zakharov of the University. Attack!!!
Rong	posted 03-15-99 04:27 PM ET Well, if you ask me, SMAC should get 441%. Just like my score.
Bluemax	posted 03-15-99 05:33 PM ET Gord - So you're saying that if you walked onto the holodeck of the Enterprise in STNG, you would not give Minuet (I think that was her name) a 100%? She would be the ultimate Sim and strategy game of all time. I do think you have a point though. The grading curve should really ramp up on those last two points. SMAC beats everything else out there, at this point in time. On a relative cuve, it would be 100%, but on a straight grading scale, there must be room for improvement. However, the day may come where virtual reality has got it so knocked that it can't be improved. Meet me on the holodeck (we'll use your holodeck credits) and we'll talk about it.
yin26	posted 03-15-99 05:37 PM ET Freddz, You're right. I actually liked this post. I hope this doesn't continue...
Rong	posted 03-15-99 05:42 PM ET Let me get this straight. You liked this post, but you hope this doesn't continue. So what you hope that does continue would be something you don't like. What's the word? Masochistic?
TheClockKing	posted 03-15-99 06:00 PM ET Rong: I'm not sure Masochistic is the word you are looking for as it means a sexual peversion characterized by pleasure in being subjected to pain and humiliation. Maybe hypocrate is a better word. Hypocrate I like that word so I will never use it again.
yin26	posted 03-15-99 07:11 PM ET Rong, Did you seriously not get that I was joking? You're just trying to bait me, aren't you? O.K.--I hate putting these little frigin' faces in here, but if that's what it takes--
yin26	posted 03-15-99 07:14 PM ET By the way, what's a hypocrate? Is that something used by moving companies? Call me a hypocrite if you will, but calling me a hypocrate is just plain mean. [did I really have to put the faces in?]
Rong	posted 03-15-99 07:25 PM ET Ah, how do I defend this? A PB made of butter, honey and smileys, that's more dangerous than a real PB. - Chairman Mao
Borodino	posted 03-15-99 08:36 PM ET Gord, Just a point of correction [I'm sorry, but I have to do this; after two semesters of econ, I've nigh well convinced myself I'm an expert. ]: There is no such thing as "a law of diminishing returns." It's a convuluted layman's term. The proper technical term is "law of diminishing marginal utility." In econ parlance, "marginal' means "next." Therefore, the wordy expression means that each additional unit utilized for expansion or improvement will produce less than the preceding unit. You are correct, of course, in your application of the law. Again, I apologize for running amok with econ, but I like to be precise.
TheClockKing	posted 03-15-99 10:42 PM ET Sorry about my spelling Yin I meant to say hypocrite, I wrote this in a rush and like always never checked my spelling.