After careful consideration I believe I have finally found a truly scientific and objective means to review games. Scales of number “out of 5” or “out of 10” were not nearly scientific enough for our needs, as gamers, to adequately define how good a certain game is. Thus the “out of 19” scale was born.
Yes gone are the days of “4.5 out of 5” or “7 out of 10” that are so arbitrary. With this article you’ll finally learn how to artfully, yet objectively, classify and taxonize any game you find.
19 is the last prime number before 20. It combines the seriousness of an odd number like 5 with the depth and scope of a number like 20, however it isn’t as absurd as the miopic 100 some reviewers use.
Yes 19 not only gives us a chance to really measure the salience of a person’s reviewing skills. Traditional reviewers seem to give a scale, say out of 5, and place somewhere in the middle the middle ground of “acceptable games.” Nobody really wants to play a game that’s a “5 out of 10.” Nobody.
Thus our system will stretch forward, to 19, but also backwards to -19. Yes if a game is merely “good enough” it would land around 0 on our scale, and nobody wants to play a game that got a 0, especially out of 19.
“So,” I hear you asking “how is this so scientific?”
Letting a person give a game a score out of 19 would seem an easy enough task, but we need to court the scientific feeling of a review by a court of respected and knowledgeable gamespeople. For each section of the game, say single player, multiplayer, cooperative, New Game +, we’ll add an entirely different reviewer who also is using the 19 scale. So the new Call of Duty game is a story, it’s also co-op, then there’s traditional multiplayer, and of course zombies mode. You, the prime reviewer, or ur-Reviewer, will give a copy of the game to 4 other people who will rate the game, out of 19 of course.
However that’s only for one system, this game is coming out for 4 different game consoles and PC, so have each reviewer find 5 other reviewers to review the game, then they find 5 different reviewers to also review the game. Unlike Famitsu which gives the entire series of 4 reviews as a score we’re going to now take those numbers and break them back to an out of 19 system. Simplicity is important, but also spreading the blame out among a logarithmic function of reviewers.
I’m glad you said that, because it is. The out of 19 system is designed to be simple but scalable to any sort of game. But we need to make sure we check our math on the back end. You’ll want to pull out your protractor and Ti-93 calculat that came with this post now. We’re going to list the scores into several sub groups, the highest half on one side and the lowest half on the next. We’re looking for the median of the two groups. This will allow us to find the range of the two groups.
Well we’re not there yet. This is only the first of 5 different numbers we need to find out the score. We now need to look at the size of each game, in kilobytes. If it’s hard for you to figure out the number of kilobytes fo a game multiply the number of gigabytes times a billion, then divide that number by a thousand. Now take out your protractor, we need to graph the size of each version of the game as an integer equal to itself times 19, over 19 times X, where X is a number greater than 1.
So now we have a graph of our score, this is something we can work with. At this point we need to use the random number generator of the calculat to create another series of numbers where x is a number greater than -1.
I’m sorry, we’re still working on the first number. But don’t worry this work is really going to pay off when we need to use calculus for the 4th and 5th numbers.
We really don’t need to go over all of the math right now. It’s really strong math. Virile. It’s basically Viking math.
Sadly nobody is using this metric yet. They laughed at me. The fools, it is I who will have the last laugh. The last 19 laughs. When my plans come to fruition we shall shake the very pillars of the review formatting industry. No longer will big game review cast aspersions towards newer, some might say more mathematically rich, ideas for review formats. It’s been along road coming to this format.
In October of ‘43 the US Navy carried out the codenamed “Philadelphia Experiment” where they forced several hundred sailors to live in Philadelphia for a number of years and track their findings. Later, with the advent of Project Paperclip, the best and brightest of Nazi scientists were brought in to work on the Manhattan Project and later NASA-however the more interesting story is really of the several scientists added to the Philadelphia Experiment.
Eventually nuclear tests were used as a cover story for moving the operation to the American Southwest, though it was now in fact a multinational project funded by a variety of interests. Their goal was nothing less than a perfect review system. But they weren’t interested in reviewing games, games didn’t even exist at the time, Their plan was to change the world by reviewing vehicles.
Yes, the mode of transportation people use is actually profoundly imoprtant to the way the world is run. However when the reviews were in the automobile industry used their might to make sure this new review system was discredited and never heard from again. They funded groups intent on arguing all reviews were subject. Meanwhile their cars pushed the earth closer and closer to an environmental collapse.
So it was. However, the basic math of the review system was kept in a safety deposit box inside a bank, and eventually passed on from one deceased relative to the next until the key finally ended up in the hands of someone who was willing to open the box and follow the information to the truth. This person was killed by Big Review, whose agents were around every corner at this time. The notes were once again placed in a lock box, this time in the back of a Dennys that was actually a front for Big Review.
Yes, it all makes too much sense. However eventually the old guard passed away and so did this particular secret. Now we can finally get to the really interesting part of the story. The year, 1981. The music, revival swing. Kids were finally listening to music with some swing in it and the jitter bug was renamed the butter bug due to the newfound love for cholesterol.
Oh yes, so please invest in this new review system. To claim back objective reviews in an easy to read fashoin for the audience as well.
Yes as a person who reads the review you need to know what number you add to the variable. Simply send away for the variable book and input your important information, age, gender, blood type, representative Hugonaut, et al, and begin the process of finding what number you now get. With these 2 numbers we can now find how closely the reviewers score will align with yours.
There you have it. An outline for a clear and helpful new review format sure to make all other review formats both obsolete and despised as stupid and mean.
Image Header Source: here