bogdugg

The reasoning behind a specific system may not be arbitrary, but why is one system better than another? People have also used 8 day systems, and 10 day systems. It would seem to me that biggest reason it is still in use today is "it's the way we've always done it". The inertia of the 7-day system makes change very hard, though there have been attempts over the last few centuries by both France and the Soviet Union. So, even if you could scientifically prove that some other system would be more productive, you would have a very hard time implementing it.

The idea that I will work a few percentage points more or less over my life, as a direct result of the phases of the moon, is, while perhaps technically correct, a fundamentally silly reason.

I tried to pick ratios that wouldn't cause riots in the streets, haha. Interestingly, 7-3 is still less work overall than the current standard 5-2. I could get behind a 3-1-4-2 system.

I walked into a Games Workshop with some friends to maybe pick up a board game. My friends quickly realized our mistake and promptly left. I stuck around, so they handed me a sample figurine and talked me through the process of painting miniatures for a few minutes before I thanked them and left, because I didn't want to be rude.

This is a tangent, but you ever think about how arbitrary the week structure is? Like, if weeks were 6 or 8 days long, it would be a big shift in work-life balance regardless of how you split the days up. But thousands of years ago we decided on 7 and it just kind of stuck.

Assuming 8 hour days, here are some different splits for on and off:

• 3 on 1 off: working 25% of the time
• 5 on, 2 off: working 23.8% of the time
• 4 on, 2 off: working 22.2% of the time
• 5 on 3 off: working 20.8% of the time
• 4 on 3 off: working 19.0% of the time

A large majority of their player base never uses mods (roughly 92%). They need to serve a minimum viable product to people who don't know about or care about that ecosystem. They tried to bridge that gap with paid mods, but, well, we know how that went.

I got the award for the "most unlucky, anti-lucky, possible player"...

So there's that.

It's because the publisher has put out multiple games in the "ENDLESS" universe, so it's a shared world kind of thing - I agree it's kind of dumb. I haven't played this game, but I did play the 2D "Dungeon of the Endless" which I liked a lot. To my knowledge, that game serves as a kind of blueprint for this higher budget release, so I'm looking forward to this one. Hopefully it's not shit.

Jusant looks sweet, hope it feels good to play.

My entire argument stems from the idea that you can ascertain quality from these ratings, which I am refuting. The rating is "correct" in that it is measuring something, and as long as people keep in mind what that something is, there is no problem. But this article, for example, uses the flood of positive reviews to make the case that it is one of the best of the year, which I believe is faulty reasoning.

What I meant by certain is that the reviews are more clumped together (again if you had a score - even though it isn't present presumably you could attach one to these reviews), so there's more agreement among different people about the quality of the product. If you don't agree that games can be more or less polarizing, you won't agree with this point unless I can back it up with data which I'm not going to spend time doing. You could go through Rotten Tomatoes and compare Critic Score with RT Score because they surface both those values and see how closely they track on different parts of the spectrum.

Why does the ratio become less relevant the more certain people are about the quality of good games? Again, the review is only positive or negative, no actual review number assigned. In which cases do you expect the ratio to drift away from the actual useful information?

It's because there's no review number in combination with varying certainty that makes for bad information regarding judgment calls about quality. If people are certain the game is a 7/10, that could produce a better score than being less certain about an 8/10, because the wider distribution (less certainty) could put more reviews below the positive/negative threshold.

The following reviews: 6/10, 6.5/10 , 7/10, 7.5/10, 8/10 will produce a 100% rating. More certain, less useful.

The following reviews: 4/10, 6/10, 8/10, 10/10, 10/10 will produce an 80% rating. Less certain, more useful.

It's only consistent if you assume all games follow the same distribution, which is not how reviews work in my opinion. There are many websites which do surface score information, and they follow wildly different distribution patterns depending on many different factors.

Again, it is useful for predicting whether you'll like it, but bad for predicting how much you'll like it.

I suck at math, but if the mean is sufficiently over the "positive" threshold, and there's a low standard deviation across reviews, wouldn't this have the problem I describe? The more certain people are about the quality of good games, the less relevant the ratio becomes, which is perhaps the opposite of what you would want.

I loved Swiss Army Man, the directors' previous film, for its weirdness, charm, music, humour and visual flare. Everything Everywhere was an improvement over all of these aspects so I absolutely loved it, such that I can overlook the pacing issues. They never lose the very human story through the madness.