Posted by Mattinglyfan on 01/16/94 11:45

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1eb20d7d288ab9e698a494@news.nabs.net...
> Mattinglyfan (nospam@bigmommashouse.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Yes but the fact of the matter is that the lowest composite score on the
>> site is not 50%.
>
> Sorry I didn't do an exhaustive search to find 3 out of several hundred.
>

LOL, an exhaustive search? Any type of search would have revealed that
gamerankings has at least 100's of games below the threshold you describe
for crappy.

>> So a PSP game that receives a 50% is still better
>> than a
>> PS2 game that receives a 40%
>
> "Better than" == "not as crappy as" in this case, because basically 50%
> means "crappy". If you can't see how ratings that are all very high show
> that a 70% game isn't particularly good, then you don't understand the
> concept of relative ratings.
>


No, it is YOU that don't understand the concept. If the highest rated game
on the system is just below 90% wouldn't a game above 70% fall at the
midpoint of the great/horrible threshold you describe? Not trying to
confuse you.

[Back to original message]