DryGuy84 (Inactive)

Wait...What?

I love ProJared's tounge-in-cheek approach to the scoring system. It's hilarious.

I agree, I stated this at the start of the blog. I don't think this necessarily makes the scores devoid of meaning, though. Moreover, I think it causes the entirety of the review to be somewhat jeopardized as a result. However, this entry wasn't really meant to be about that. It was meant to be more of an look at why the use of numerical scores are so widespread, and so popular. Hell, I'd argue Strebiskunk's pros and cons sometimes are oversimplified. Anyway, thanks for reading. I appreciate it.

It holds true in that critic's mind though, and that's more what I'm getting at here. The numbers mean nothing on their own, they're just numbers. A bit of an abstract view on things, but I think it explains the context behind this pretty well. We all assign different meanings to different things based on our own personal interpretations and experiences. That's what gives anything meaning. To you those scores can't be right, yet in the critics mind it is. Again, disagreeing is not only welcomed, but should be encouraged to spark discussion, as well as to better understand those around us. Thanks for reading!

I'm going to be very blunt about this, I don't like number scores. I feel like they take try to quantify a qualitative value, and inadvertently are opening their review to unnecessary criticism by doing so. "What makes you like one six better than the other? If one is better than the other how are they ranked the same?" They shout from the comment section. Here's the real question, though. Do these numbers actually hold any meaning, or is there more to it than that? I don't think I can determine this for you, but let me try to explain where I'm going with this. You see in psychology there is a phenomenon called implicit association. As its name suggests it's when we base our interpretation of parts of the world around us based on what we have learned in life. In the case of review scores this can be problematic, as the reader will often interpret a number based on his or her own scale. For example, AngryJoe rates video games based on 5 being considered the average with 1-4 being considered subpar, and 6-10 being considered above average. However, most people interpret review scores in association with what quantifies as passing and failing within their education system. Say AngryJoe gives a video game a 5, then. A viewer comes along and either takes issue with the score being so low, or associates that with being worse than it actually is. You see, us humans have brains that work in bizarre ways. No matter what is said in that review, the connotation will more than likely be decided by that little number. Our minds want everything to be broken down to its simplest state for easy absorption. It's a fact that is likely responsible for our species having the drive to create, though it comes with a trade-off like many good things. Let's tackle the real question then: Do numerical scores actually mean anything? I'd say yes, actually. I don't like them personally, and I likely will never use them, but reviews are generally meant to reach the broadest audience possible, and discuss one's outlook on a specific title. In the writer's mind that score signifies what their own connotation of the game is. It's the simplest breakdown of an opinion possible, generally acting as a sorting system rather than a sunstitute. At the end of the day reviews are just opinions, anyway. If you don't agree with number score, that's fine. Everyone is different, and as such not everyone cares about the nuances of the written review. It shouldn't be discredited, however. The written review is the writer's attempt to explain that score. Your interpretation and theirs both house their own meanings. Personal meanings. All text is open to interpretation, after all. Even in texts largely about other texts, or even the text criticizing their texts, the true meaning lies in the eye of the beholder. Thank you for reading through my ramblings all the way through, and I hope you enjoyed it. Feel free to leave any feedback you have for this blog, or just general comments you want to share below! I'm open for anyone to chime in. See you in the next blog!

I'm sure I understand your train of thought.

Awesome! I think you'll enjoy it.

It's no secret that Persona 4 Golden is my all-time favorite RPG, however I haven't really explained why. I think that Persona 4 Golden's Social Links are a fantastic way to combine a strong sense of story and gameplay progression. Join me as I take a look at a large part what makes this game appeal to me. P4G starts off slow, it means to construct a framework for the story (such as introducing important characters, concepts, the setting, and the tone), however this also acts as an introduction to the idea of choice. No choices in the first section really impact any stats you have. The changes are purely cosmetic. This isn't the case at all later on, where everything you do or say requires a good amount of thought. P4G's intro lays the foundation for the admittedly complex game mechanics, before giving them the reigns. The first time you actually battle is when you get sucked into the TV by yourself. You feel powerless, but you can't fail here even if you tried. This battle serves the purpose of motivating the player. "I want to know what that is," they think. Back in the real world you go to class, and have a fairly standard day...Until a murder occurs involving a woman hanging from an antenna. Skipping forward a bit we go into the TV world where the biggest theme of the game becomes obvious, acceptance of one's self. There's an unfavorable side in all of us. If we ignore that, we aren't trying to better ourselves, we're running from reality. Since these unfavorable sides are directly tied to the games bosses (which are generally a character's unfavorable side manifested into a bizarre, creepy-looking, shadow creatures filled to the brim with obvious symbolism), you end up personally dealing with the situation alongside. You beat them, and generally a party member joins you due to that creature becoming a Persona when subdued, and accepted. Now, after all this we're finally getying to where Social Links come in. Social Links are events in which either a party member deals with the aftermath of their respective boss, or a side character's own personal story. Each of these characters represent different Arcana. Your character has the unique ability to wield multiple personas, and gets large experience boost when summoning one of which you have the Arcana for. You power these up by hanging out with characters outside of battle, usually helping them through their problems. If that character is a party member they also can learn moves via Social Link leveling. Confused yet? Well, let me explain with an in-game example: Rise is an idol you meet later in the story. She has an identity crisis, and is unable to tell whether her idol, or casual personas are the "real" her. She accepts this is an issue in her shadow's boss fight, and you can choose to hang out with her afterward. As you level up the Social Link Rise's journey of self-discovery progresses. The reasons for why she is who she is revealed, along with the answer she's been looking for the whole time. It's a satisfying experience in itself due to the great writing, yet on top of that gameplay perks are tossed at the player like crazy. Unique moves, abilities, and experience boosts constantly tie the narrative directly to the gameplay. It doesn't feel disconnected like most experiences are. You're there to support your friends, in battle or in life. Hell, quite a few funny scenes are interspersed throughout the story to give the player a break from the brutal difficulty, and meticulous planning necessary to advance. The characters carry these scenes in the best possible way. Anyway, I've rambled long enough. It's just that with Persona 5, as well my departure from the forums on its way I wanted to talk about this. I hope you enjoyed reading this! Leave a comment down below if you want any clarification on this subject, or just wanna leave feedback. I don't bite. Until next time!

I don't know about that, but the constant references are certainly grating. It should never have been branded as a faithful recreation of the show.