There are points of contention in this article that are in fact being revised to make the content more salient to readers. These changes will be posted soon. Please note that my intent to contact activision via customer support is not some form of adolescent rage. As many entertainment journalists reach out to the industry seeking answers this is one of many avenues being attempted. If you feel this is an error on my part then it will be removed from the article. Thank you for all of your insightful opinions. It is good to have such great feed back. I posted this article knowing it would likely create a heated debate, but my error was not further reviewing the article to explain these thoughts further before posting. My appologies.

So, there is some concern from my former blog that I’m not a real person, but I would like to assure you that that is not true. I do have multiple blogs because I would like to interact with as much of the community as much as possible. If I am to earn any of your attention then I would prefer it be through a respectable means though and not just some viral plugging. As some of you may have seen I am interacting on your blogs and intend to join in on discussions on the forums. I am here for real and here to stay! To prove so, here is an exclusive article, to you, the Destructoid community. It was just typed fresh the other day and has been shared with no one else except my sister. The article will only be featured on my website (when it launches), and here:

Black Ops 2 Probation

For some this may still come as a shock, or maybe more know about the issue than I can imagine. All the same, one night past, I was playing with a group of friends when a particular message appeared on my screen after leaving a CoD: Black Ops 2 match. The team we were facing were simply grabbing us by our limbs and waving our bodies around like rag dolls. This isn’t an uncommon occurrence though. As anyone who has played the Call of Duty series online knows, the match making system has degraded pretty far, with matches seeming to be thrown together simply because a match needs players. While it’s a little more complicated than that, the match making system of Black Ops 2 that most players seem to tolerate is atrocious by today’s standards.

The system throws players onto teams that are likely already losing the match or even into a game where the team members appear to not be trying. I, like many, consider this a valid reason to leave, quit, or tactically retreat from the game. Whatever you want to call it, it’s one of a plethora of reasons to back out on matches. Other reasons for backing out of a GAME include, but are not limited to, a friend invites you to play with them, your pet or children need your attention, you have to go to work, you’ve burst into flames and may die. No matter how you look at it, there are a number of reasonable explanations for backing out of a match, even if the match making system wasn’t a hot mess. Apparently the team at Treyarch feels otherwise about leaving.



That night in January, two of us were playing on split screen with the other two connecting from across the state. By most accounts, the match we had entered into was terrible, with bombs dropping on our spawn locations and the team’s deaths more than doubling the number of kills. There was no purpose to staying in that arena, and leaving could allow the lobby to merge with one that would have given the opposing team a challenge. Upon leaving however, I was signed out, and on signing back in I received the message featured on the right taken with my phone.

The message told me I was in probation. While In probation I could not participate in public matches. The time was very short but from what I understand the duration can increase and last for some time. Whether the period of the probation is short or long, it does not matter. As a gamer, for a game that is far from perfect, there is no reason to apply such a penalty. Moreover, it’s a GAME. It’s supposed to be fun and relaxing, and applying such penalties is certainly the wrong direction to be going.

As I do not have the ties and connections in the industry as sites like Destructoid, IGN, and Kotaku have, it will be far more difficult to seek answers on this issue. While I prep the site for launch I will continue to reach out to Activision customer support and update this article accordingly. Are we, as gamers going to be comfortable with our games, which we play for leisure, placing such rules on how we play? Let me know your thoughts about the issue in the comments or via PM!

-SD

"It’s time for something different from our entertainment journalism. It all deserves so much more."

A bold statement, but it’s one I’ve felt for a very long time. I love this community of entertainment connoisseurs and the network of information it has to offer us through its opinions, analytics, videos, images, and much more. Whether you prefer Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony, or if your preferences are the action genre of the psychological thrillers, we are all connected through what entertains us. Whether you’re a member of IGN, Gamespot, 1UP, The Escapist, Blip, Youtube, IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Penny Arcade, Meta Critic and the thousands and likely millions of other sites that cover our beloved hobbies, deep down we should all be happy to share such enjoyment. Sadly for all of the happiness the industry brings us, something seems to have been lost along the way.

The Problem

Our world wide web is growing and expanding at an incredible pace, especially the social side. Unfortunately for all we may know about each other because of sites like Twitter and Facebook, we still lack knowledge about those that critique our movies, games, and Tv shows that we love. Sure, you know some of the names like Greg, Colin, and a couple of the other faces on IGN (or the site of your preference); you may even have a personal connection with a writer on another site. Outside of those few names, however, the majority of readers do not know who is writing the pieces that analyze their favorite works. While there are those who have grown to know a number of writers on sites they frequent, they are a slim minority that took time to find their roots with their preferred critics.

A More Transparent Writer, Editor, and Reviewer

I suggest that it should be much simpler to know the individual that is giving scores on our preferred entertainment journalism websites. We have no idea of their average standard of scoring, and their preferences in the kinds of entertainment they consume. With such information, though some readers may not agree with the score or some of the criticisms made, such transparency could make given scores more widely accepted.

Fullicide is another website that will attempt to put its name in with the ranks of other entertainment journalism websites, but, it’s far from anything ordinary. The first significant difference I’d like to present is the FE Profile, which is displayed below in an image, just as it will look on my website.



An FE profile (FE standing for Fullicide based on the site’s logo), is for any who will professionally work for the website. The profile presents some brief background information on the member of the Fullicide team, what kinds of entertainment they prefer and write about, pictures of the individual, and a bell curve graph that represents their scoring tendencies. The profile will also contain links to articles that help to flush out more details about the FE team member and their works; sometimes even an interview between a senior team lead and the newbie. While I am the only person working on the site at the moment, I hope to expand almost immediately and bring a couple more members on to exponentially increase content generation.

The New Scoring Method

The other big difference that I would like to offer the industry and its many consumers is a new scoring system, which I believe is considerably more advanced than the average system. I've done a piece that reviews the majority of current scoring systems, which can be read in my blog that comes before this one. To sum up what the review of scoring systems concludes: review scores are necessary, the base ten method is a problem, and there should not be a single score for a reviewed item.

The Fullicide Exponential Curve Score (FECS) is my answer to the relevant issues I have identified about current rating methods. Here are some examples of how the system is implemented:



FECS implements an exponential curve to eliminate narrow scoring. If you feel like I do then on a ten point scale, anything good only falls within the 7 to 10 point margin. That leaves 0 to 6 for everything that is bad or worse, which seems more than a little backwards. We should spread out the scores of items that are good or better, mitigating the few scores to items that are of poor quality.

Writing a review that covers what a number of users may or may not like and then arriving at a single score never really made sense to me as well. So, instead of a single numeral score, there is a deviation of one to two points for games and one to three points for Tv shows and movies. Again, you can read more about the Fullicide scoring method in my blog, Fullicide Scoring System "A Review of Scoring Systems".

Entertainment with Entertainment Journalism

Fullicide was initially supposed to be a webcomic and a webcomic only. Even though the web comic will remain a central idea of the website, it has obviously leaned in a different direction. The comic will have a cast of unique characters and will follow no central premise, that way it can remain enjoyable for anyone to pick up at anytime. You’ll be able to read more about the comic at launch.

Upgrades That Work

Once the website launches you’ll notice in the right hand column a box that indicates Site 2.0 plans. These are upgrades that have priority in being implemented, yet they will not be rushed into the sites mechanics. Changes, like the “Wrap Up” upgrade to the closing score (featured below), will be added when they fit just right.



That is why there are no comment boxes, videos, or forums on Fullicide as of yet. The site has a simplistic structure for anyone to access without confusion, and it should remain that way. Upgrades will constantly be applied to the website, but if you visit frequently there will be none that are hard to follow and adapt with.

Much More

I know this was a lot of information all at once. If you have any questions, thoughts, or comments I will happily respond, but do bear in mind that these are only the opening details. There is much more to Fullicide, in fact there’s a whole websites worth of material, ha.

When the site launches its backlog of content will contain 18 comics that satire movies, games, Tv shows, the community, and social situations. There will also be 7 articles and 34 reviews all written on content from the last year and a half. I hope you will come to enjoy the site and I will share much more as I lead up to the launch.

It’s tough to start writing reviews these days, not just for movies or TV shows, but gaming especially. Whether they are correct or not, there are many arguments against most scoring systems being inflated, outdated, needing refinement, biased, or simply inaccurate. One of the prevailing arguments is that scoring systems are arbitrary and more often than not taken out of context. For example: 7 out of 10, even though it may be decidedly “Good” by definition of the reviewer will only be interpreted as intermediate or poor by our cultures standards.

How can you blame anyone for looking at a numbers based scoring system as such? The association, at least in American society, is that 7 out of 10 translates to 70% out of 100%. It’s the way we’ve been raised, and it’s not likely to change until grading systems change. So where does this leave number based scoring systems?

Should scoring systems be abandoned, along with any other arbitrary system? The answer is very simply NO, unless writers don’t mind abandoning a large portion of your user base. The majority of users prefer to simply look at a score, and move on with their day. If they want they delve into the context of the review after that then they have the freedom to read. With that in mind, how should systems be modified so they do not have a correlation with a 0 – 100 score base system?

Any review system relying on numbered scoring or even based on factors of five and ten need to be revamped. First, if the reader is unlikely to play a game rated 5 out of 10, 2.5 out of 5, or lower then why have any ratings below those? Rather, the lowest score or nearest to lowest scores should be those reflecting games that consumers are unlikely to buy. A 0 to 10 scale scoring system incorporating such an idea would look closer to this:

0 Unplayable

1 Terrible

2 Bad

3 Decent

4 Good

5 Great

6 Fantastic

7 Excellent

8 Superb

9 The Best

10 Masterpiece

With more and more time and money being dumped into the development of entertainment products a reimagining of scoring systems similar to the one above is necessary if magazines, websites and writers in general want to make a better attempt at dismissing the insinuations that systems are inflated. Perhaps such an overhaul could even satiate some of the rage of fanboys.

Games, movies, and Tv shows that take longer to produce with more funding naturally receive lots of attention, and more often than not score well. However the expectations of fans are hard to please and when it comes review time it often results in the accusations of improper scoring. With a greater interval of “Good” scores for “Good” products it would be easier to fall on a score that would be appreciated by the audience. What’s then required in a score is a gap to represent a difference in consumer’s opinions.

Reviews are opinionated because they are written by one editor and often the amount of enjoyment the editor has received from the game. They will make notes in the review on how an element, plot point or a certain glitch aggravated them or may get under another player’s skin, yet at the end of the review it’s still only one score. Being that the review is opinionated and open to comments on how some gamers may like or dislike an element of game play the score should cover range representative of different opinions. Instead of scores that are just 95%, 5 out of 5, or 8 out of 10, I believe scores should cover a more like 9 - 10 out of 10, 85 - 95% of 100%, or 7 - 8.5 stars out of 10. This idea of scoring is capable of mirroring the opinions of reasonable gamers interested in purchasing the product.

With these ideas in mind I present the Fullicide scoring system, a method that compensates for the possible biased of the reviewer (me) while still using a scoring system that, while arbitrary, can give a better reflection of how the game may score among readers. This system may simply be called the Fullicide Exponential Curve Score (FECS):



0 -Untouchable

1 -The Worst

2 -Horrible

3 -Playable

4 -OK

5 -Good

6 -Great

7 - Excellent

8 - Fantastic

9 -Profound

10 -A Work of Art

11 -The Best

12 -A Masterpiece

A friend of mine named Marc phrased it best, “These days the quality of games rate something closer to that of an exponential curve rather than that of the American grading system.” FECS has the potential to properly account for differences in games often rated on the same caliber by traditional scales. Games that have been rated closely to one another would follow as such:

-Crysis 2 8.5 – 10

-Modern Warfare 2 8 – 9.5

-Infamous 2 9.5 – 11

-Dead Space 2 10 – 11.5

-Ratchet and Clank: ToD 8 – 9

Obviously all five examples were PS3 or PS3/Xbox360 titles because at the time this was typed, I only had a PS3, my desktop PC, and my smart phone. All were games I have played in their entirety, will not be writing reviews for, and felt my view of these games to be similar in rating to others. They show distinctions in scoring where other systems are unable to because of the constraints in the scoring method.

Moreover the system is two pronged. While the numbered score increases for the quality of the game, the terms such as “Excellent”, “Profound”, and “The Best” are not arbitrary terms given to each number. Many of the terms act as barriers that the medium has to overcome in order for it to achieve such a score. In order for it to be Excellent, the entertainment must excel at what it does, to obtain the score of Profound it must do something profound.

Enjoyment is not based upon the quality of a product, some reviews will be written about items that can be entirely terrible, which is something I will note. Things that don’t shine in every aspect of their medium, much like Transformers: Dark of the Moon with its many plot holes and overall ridiculousness, may still be considered enjoyable by the standards of a reviewer. I chose to see the movie for the sheer spectacle and would rate it within 4 – 7 on the Fullicide Enjoyment Meter, making it “Ok to Excellent” according to the FECS scoring system.

Tv shows and movies will have a slightly larger deviation rather than the standard 1 to 2 point range for video games. I feel that opinions on movies can vary with greater degree, so, I will probably rate movies with a 2 to 3 point deviation. Still, this could change. The system will always need refinement as time marches on.

Hope some of you come to enjoy my method of review, and even rely on it. Weekly Review will occur every Wednesday, most often covering movies, tv shows, or games.

-SD