Yuku free message boards

That's not really true. It's a lot easier to justify a 5/10 as being average than a C. It's just that game reviewers wasted their chances to establish 5/10 as average.

A C in many contexts is a failing grade. It's a failing grade in graduate school. You can lose many scholarships if you get too many C's. Some kids might get disciplined if they get too many C's.

I also doubt that if you averaged every student's GPA (in highschool or college or whatever) that you'd get 2.0, but I can't find any data on that.


What they're actually doing is the exact opposite. They're not establishing C as average, they're establishing an A as not very special. Every year, thousands of kids get A's. So, how can you complain about a magazine giving out too many A's?

Any examples of their scores?

Another issue is the stigma against being average.

I've seen some people say they don't want to play average games, but in actuality, what they don't want is to THINK they're playing average games. People like to think of their experiences as special, no surprises there.

But, look, if you play so many new games a year, you will play average games. If you want to seriously beat a lot of games for one system, you will play a lot of average games. If you want to beat a lot of games for a not-especially-popular system (eg., Turbo Grafx), you will definitely play a lot of average games. If you want to play a lot of games in a particular genre (eg., RPGs), you will play a lot of average games.

Why don't people like to think of what they do as average?

Take an example. It's a big election year, so one job that comes to mind is city councilman (/person). If you're a city councilman, you probably make a decent amount of money*, you probably get decent benefits. Since you got elected, you probably have the respect of hundreds if not thousands of people. You have some power. You can control and influence some things. There are probably lots of people who would change places with you.

On the other hand, you aren't the President. You aren't a senator. You aren't even the mayor. Outside of your city, probably few know your name. 100 years after you die, few will probably even remember your name.

So, you're not that far above average. But is that such a terrible thing?



*-(I did a Google on this, and, depending on the city, some city councilmen make surprisingly low salaries -- maybe even low enough to be poverty level if that's their only source of income! On the other hand, some cities give salaries many times that. In any case, I think it's likely that councilmen are still getting by okay -- either they independently have money, or something)

That's exactly what I said above; did you read it?

You might just enjoy average games.

Here's a quote from David Lee Roth from a Rolling Stone interview on the subject of people telling him to not follow his dreams:

When you're back in school, saying, "I want to go onstage; I want to go on the road," all your friends, your family, keep telling you you're crazy: "You're sacrificing your education, your financial security, your social background. You're not going to be a family man in the Christian sense of the word. What if you don't make it? After all, only one in a zillion do. Man, you're crazy."

I can *kind of* see what you're saying, though.

If all you ever read are comic books or all you ever watch is anime, then you're probably going to end up making the same mistakes and relying on the same cliches that are evident in those things.

Come on. That's obviously what he meant by saying there's no rising above your influences.

That's exactly what it's saying.

If he phrased it, "If you experience great art, you can make great art. If all you seek out and are satisfied with is crappy art, you're probably just gonna make crappy art," maybe that would please you more, but it's just wordier.

Making great art after only being exposed to crappy art would be "rising above your influences."

Sentences say what they mean. The English language is not like a computer program, where there is only one possible meaning for a phrase, and you can test it by running it. It depends on context, and the ability of the reader to decode meaning. Sentences can have metaphor, irony, overstatement, and other figures of speech. If the reader knows what the writer is saying but decides to ignore that because some alternate reading is also possible, then the reader is acting in bad faith. It is IMPOSSIBLE to construct sentences in English with unambiguous meanings. If you want to read sentences like that, then these sentences would also be meaningless:

-Turn the other cheek.

(How do you turn a cheek? By pinching it and twisting?)

-To be, or not to be.

(Sentence has no subject, so is meaningless)

-Wind the clock.

-Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name.

(So, I guess my biological father is in heaven, painting or something)

I'm sorry if I'm running this topic into the ground, but FO misinterprets me so often, and I think she does it on purpose when she knows what I'm trying to say, and it gets so frustrating.