Jade Raymond wants to be left alone.

[Hoax]

This thread sucks now, wtg Stray, fagged up another one!!!




Btw, is it officially ok to use fag as a verb there?  I mean I wouldn't except it seems like its sort of an official f13 term.  Since the thread is already fagged to hell and back I figured this would be a good place to have this discussion. 

[schild]

lol.

[stray]

Much obliged.

[Signe]

The kitty in your avatar is adorable, Stray, but I have to ask:  Does it cry blood tears?

[squirrel]

What I don't understand is how a demographic with the most on-demand access to porn in the entire history of humanity can get so worked up about a single pretty girl. Yes, she's attractive. Ok. And OMFG she's in gaming. Ok. Get some porn. The good stuff. And forget about it.

Regardless of anything else it's the fucking audience that caused this tea-pot tempest and I'm ashamed to be a gamer. Please let this die.

EDIT: Signe - your avatars are so pleasantly provocative. Thank You. (Irony - where is thy bite?)

[stray]

The kitty in your avatar is adorable, Stray, but I have to ask:  Does it cry blood tears?

Couldn't tell ya! I own the corn, not the cat.

[UnSub]

I asked my buddy the other day if he'd heard about all the Jade Raymond shit going on. He responded with "who?"

This is an avid gamer who would know the names Wright, Miyamoto, Garriott, etc. He's watched every demo and trailer for AC he could find, likely including the ones hosted by Jade. He had no fucking clue who she was.

I saw a stack of people during TR's PR campaign / launch run-up go "Richard Garriott who? Oh, he's Lord British? Who?".

95%* of gamers know nothing about a game other than its title, its genre and its publisher. The only people who care to learn such things are journalists / commentators (who need those people for their interviews) and the few gamers who feel that knowing such things is useful.

* I made this number up, but it feels true.

[schild]

Considering the number of gamers, 5% might as well be famous. At least internet famous.

[stray]

If I saw LordBritish and M Emmet Walsh at a party, I'd talk to Walsh first. That's how "famous" he is.

[ahoythematey]

Probably is her real name. She's half Chinese, and has green eyes. Her parents probably thought it'd be clever.

[Azazel]

Probably is her real name. She's half Chinese, and has green eyes. Her parents probably thought it'd be clever.

A former friend and his wife named their son Jade. Neither of them is asian. Yes. Son.


With a name like that, once the kid gets past 12 years of being teased mercilessly in school, he has a bright future as either a stripper, or an elderly Jewish woman.

[stray]

I plan on having a son named Butch. Not sure how that'll work out.

[Megrim]

I plan on having a son named Butch. Not sure how that'll work out.

[Ironwood]

I mean, come on.

Oh, you are fucking kidding me here ?

Jesus Wept.

[WindupAtheist]

I mean, come on.

Oh, you are fucking kidding me here ?

Jesus Wept.

God, I wish it had forums.

[Ironwood]

Sorry, got fed up scrolling back to page 3.

[Wolf]

thank you

[murdoc]

holy shit

[Signe]

Why would any one make fun of someone because their name is Jade?  I could understand if it was Lardy Arse or Signe, but Jade?

[Ironwood]

I'd take the piss outta them if their surname was Gate tho.

[Mrbloodworth]

Why would any one make fun of someone because their name is Jade?  I could understand if it was Lardy Arse or Signe, but Jade?

Wellllll..... I can think of one. Take a ride to a strip bar some time. Ii wasn't making fun, i was questioning if thats was her real name, or part of the PR package she created for herself. How many people have "Edited" there name to enter some form of public, celebrity space?

[Joey]

It's a stretch to go "Jade is pretty, so Assassin's Creed got a good score". It's more like the reviewer runs through the game and thinks that it was a bit different and fun enough. Plus the whole use of a 10 point scale that sees a score of 7 as a poor result.

That is something that always bothered me.   I never understood what the point was in having a scale of something like 1 to 10 when the bottom half (or more) of the scale was pretty much ignored.  I figured lots of other folks probably felt the same way, so when we started doing "proper" reviews at TJG, I made the decision to use a scale of 1 to 100 that used EVERY point in the scale.  In other words, a score of 50 would indicate that a game was mediocre; with the positives and negatives kinda canceling each other out.

Whether due to people not being able to shake the school-grade system that they grew up with (where anything under 60 or 70 is a failure) or whatever, hardly anybody understood the concept of what we were doing.  I can't tell you how many times I had to explain how our scoring system worked.  And even then, most people still didn't get it and thought that we were totally slamming a game if we scored it anything under 70.  Hell, I even had some whiny letters from a couple of publishers who were disappointed that we "hated" their games and scored them in the high-60s / low-70s.

Oh yeah, and back when I first started the site as a solo effort, I used a Siskel & Ebert "Thumbs Up/Down" approach with my reviews that I thought was fairly groovy.  Unfortunately, it didn't go over too well, so I dropped it.  Seemed like everybody had to have a damn score attached.  (Nobody should have to actually read  the content in a review, right?)

I'm glad we eventually switched over to the more free-form "blog" format; dropping the typical review outline, scores and other such bullshit.  Sharing opinions on games isn't so much of a hassle anymore.

[Phildo]

At my school, anything under 75 is a failure.  High standards for dumb people.

[CmdrSlack]

It's a stretch to go "Jade is pretty, so Assassin's Creed got a good score". It's more like the reviewer runs through the game and thinks that it was a bit different and fun enough. Plus the whole use of a 10 point scale that sees a score of 7 as a poor result.

That is something that always bothered me.   I never understood what the point was in having a scale of something like 1 to 10 when the bottom half (or more) of the scale was pretty much ignored.  I figured lots of other folks probably felt the same way, so when we started doing "proper" reviews at TJG, I made the decision to use a scale of 1 to 100 that used EVERY point in the scale.  In other words, a score of 50 would indicate that a game was mediocre; with the positives and negatives kinda canceling each other out.

Whether due to people not being able to shake the school-grade system that they grew up with (where anything under 60 or 70 is a failure) or whatever, hardly anybody understood the concept of what we were doing.  I can't tell you how many times I had to explain how our scoring system worked.  And even then, most people still didn't get it and thought that we were totally slamming a game if we scored it anything under 70.  Hell, I even had some whiny letters from a couple of publishers who were disappointed that we "hated" their games and scored them in the high-60s / low-70s.

Oh yeah, and back when I first started the site as a solo effort, I used a Siskel & Ebert "Thumbs Up/Down" approach with my reviews that I thought was fairly groovy.  Unfortunately, it didn't go over too well, so I dropped it.  Seemed like everybody had to have a damn score attached.  (Nobody should have to actually read  the content in a review, right?)

I'm glad we eventually switched over to the more free-form "blog" format; dropping the typical review outline, scores and other such bullshit.  Sharing opinions on games isn't so much of a hassle anymore.

Reviews in general are like that. Take a look at some wine or beer mags. Beer Advocate's print mag (loads of ads, way too thin, but good content....when they learn to spell "coarse salt" properly -- protip it's not course salt) uses a letter grade system. The average rating is a B. I've seen one F. But really, when I read the reviews, anything less than a B- or C+ is best avoided. Their website uses a 5 point system, and most stuff still clocks in at a 3.7 at best...anything less than a 3 is best avoided.

For some reason, people always ignore the bottom end of those scales. I blame advertising. The wine mags that don't accept ads from vineyards are generally better and more accurate in their reviews than those that do take ads. A 90 from Wine Advocate seems to mean more than a 90 from Wine Spectator, IMO.

[Joey]

At my school, anything under 75 is a failure.  High standards for dumb people.

Back when I was in public school, anything under 60 was failure.  I'm pretty sure they've since made it a little more challenging.  (I graduated from high school in '88.)

[UnSub]

Why would any one make fun of someone because their name is Jade?  I could understand if it was Lardy Arse or Signe, but Jade?

Wellllll..... I can think of one. Take a ride to a strip bar some time. Ii wasn't making fun, i was questioning if thats was her real name, or part of the PR package she created for herself. How many people have "Edited" there name to enter some form of public, celebrity space?

Jade, circa 1990: "I want to become a big celebrity, so the best way to do this is to become a video game producer and name myself like I'm a stripper! Plus I'll join SOE and work on the Jeopardy game. That's bound to make me famous!" 

[Margalis]

A school grading scale is totally different, because it's an objective measure of how much you got right. If you get a 60% on a test it means you got it 60% right.

In game reviews a 6 out of 10 doesn't indicate anything, nothing is actually being measured. The game didn't do 6 things well and 4 poorly.

The academic system makes sense in that you measure how much they got right then compare it to the bar that says how much they *should* get right. In game reviews the scale is meaningless outside of whatever meaning the individual review site assigns.

[rk47]

I think people are being too harsh or too critical on the 1-100 pt scale. I am against using this system, how do you justify 69 is worse than a 70 game? The thing that matters is the number in front of it.

59
69
79
89

I'd rather have a 1-10 or 5 star system to grade a game at least I understood:
1 star = fail , you don't need to read our review.
2 = small redeeming value under all that crap. might not be worth your time, try to read the review slowly.
3 = might be worth your time if this is your favorite genre. read our review more to find out if it's your cup of tea.
4 = has a small or several flaws but not that noticable. Good game. Highly recommended, if still unsure, read our review.
5 = safe purchase. worth the money. skim through the review if you wish, i'm fucking playin it !

[Azazel]

Why would any one make fun of someone because their name is Jade?  I could understand if it was Lardy Arse or Signe, but Jade?

In her case, I can't see an issue.

In the case of a male called Jade, they'd get made fun of because it's a girl's name. The kind usually found on strippers or elderly jewish women. Like naming a boy "Ruby".

[UnSub]

A school grading scale is totally different, because it's an objective measure of how much you got right. If you get a 60% on a test it means you got it 60% right.

In game reviews a 6 out of 10 doesn't indicate anything, nothing is actually being measured. The game didn't do 6 things well and 4 poorly.

The academic system makes sense in that you measure how much they got right then compare it to the bar that says how much they *should* get right. In game reviews the scale is meaningless outside of whatever meaning the individual review site assigns.

Ding ding! We have a winnar!

... but the numerical scoring system is so deeply ingrained in game reviewing that even otherwise smart reviewers tend to fall back on it.

[Roac]

In game reviews a 6 out of 10 doesn't indicate anything, nothing is actually being measured. The game didn't do 6 things well and 4 poorly.

Same for any rating of anything.  Say, wine, to pick an example from above.  Or food quality.  Or car quality.  Or whatever - you're dependant upon the person doing the grading, and the whole thing is an oppinion anyway.  You may love D'orro and loathe a Bordeaux grand cru.  I'd think you're off your rocker, but whatever, stranger tastes abound.  What is important is that any critic have a set of common language they can use; it's not a metric stick exactly, but at least it allows for fuzzy shapes in all that fog.  Now you can talk about differences in the nose, or how this game's multiplayer stacks up to other leaders in the genre.  That's some sort of rough comparison that allows for points to be assigned - shitty, bad, mediocre, good, fucktastic if you like your five point scale.  Double to ten if you like to add a little tilt to the scale. 

The only point to the "7 is average" bit is that everyone is so used to that from school for any 10 or 100 (7.5, etc) based system.  The five star ratings for movies tend to do better about this; 2.5 stars is probably "entertaining, but with noticable flaw" whereas a 5.0 game would "hahaha, you bought that shit?  With YOUR money?" Less of a built in bias for that system, so it's what worked.  If you tried to center a ten point rating system around 5.0, readers would balk.  The downside is that it really narrows your *actual* measure; you're not on a 10 point rating system, but more of a 3 point system.  Having 7 more ranks below that is like talking about what kind of flail you'd prefer to be beaten with. 

[Margalis]

Same for any rating of anything.  Say, wine, to pick an example from above.  Or food quality.  Or car quality. 

Which is why I compared to school grading, which is not a rating but an actual objective measure.

To me the best rating system is percentile based. If you get a 9/10 it means you are better than 90% of games. Simple.

[Nevermore]

Why would any one make fun of someone because their name is Jade?  I could understand if it was Lardy Arse or Signe, but Jade?

In her case, I can't see an issue.

In the case of a male called Jade, they'd get made fun of because it's a girl's name. The kind usually found on strippers or elderly jewish women. Like naming a boy "Ruby" Sue.

[Typhon]

Which is why I compared to school grading, which is not a rating but an actual objective measure.

To me the best rating system is percentile based. If you get a 9/10 it means you are better than 90% of games. Simple.

My experience in school was that the only objective test is one in which a human isn't determining whether you are right or wrong.  Example:  If you were a kid that "got it", and the test wasn't a computer-scored bubble test, you're teacher graded differently for you then they did for everyone else.  This worked even in math classes where the teacher wanted to see you working out the problem.  You could get the wrong answer, but because your work looked like you knew what you were doing, you got a significant portion of partial credit.  Kids that were in the "they get it" category were given credit for short-handing a problem.  Kids that the teacher wasn't sure about weren't.  This type of subjectivity often resulted in very different grades depending on where you fell.

Putting a % after the score doesn't magically make it non-subjective.

[Roac]

Putting a % after the score doesn't magically make it non-subjective.

Good point.  Also, include almost anything in an english class.