By Video_Game_King 42 Comments
( Finally, Renegade Ego has returned, after less than a week away.) Get used to those two guards in the foreground, for you shall never see them again. So, what was I doing in the huge break? Was I fighting the forces of evil? Was I writing more blogs? Actually, neither answer is correct. Instead, I was doing maths! Yes, that's what this latest blog is about: math. To be more specific, I calculated a buttload of stats regarding all the ratings I give to games. Why did I wait until the 1000th game? Because (at least in theory) it makes all the stats piss easy. Just count everything up, divide by 10, and you have your percent. Speaking of which, what percentage of games actually have ratings? Before I get into that, though, a warning: since Giant Bomb doesn't support transparencies or GIFs or anything else that is fun, I decided to throw a black background onto everything. Sucks, but not much I could do about it.
Wow, that's actually quite terrible. Even with that whole "I'll focus on replaying old games I've already played" thing that I tried out for a bit, I haven't even reached the halfway mark. You'd think this would make me stop writing this blog, since all the stats won't even be close to representative of all the games I've played in my life, but I've already went through the trouble of making all these pretty charts and stuff. Speaking of which, you probably want to know the average score I give games, don't you? Well, here it is, inside a box plot. For the math nerds who know what that is, rejoice; for everybody else, whom I'm guessing have only seen these things in high school textbooks, ask PsEG what the hell all this means. This is a blog, not a calculus class.
Yea, that's about what I expected from this. Fun fact: Microsoft Excel can't do box plots on its own, and all the workaround solutions I tried out suck. This is why you're not going to see me do anymore of them. Another reason? They're boring. I know that you don't want to see stuff like that, even though it's statistically important. You really want to see how Final Fantasy has fared over time, or how much I hate the Genesis or whatever. (I probably don't hate the Genesis, but that's not the point.) Well, you're in luck, because this is where I start all that cool stuff. Also, it's where I stop personally appearing in each graphic. If I did that for each one, there'd be a lot of stupid dialogue that you don't need. First up:
ConsolesI know that you came here for ratings and numbers (or at least that's why you're staying; you actually came here because...I don't know.), but first, let's look at how I spread out my gaming love.
Eh, about what I expected. The big three are the systems I've been emulating the longest: the SNES, the NES, and the Genesis. As I've suspected for a long time, the PS1 is slowly catching up to the big three, but given that the Genesis is ahead by 30 games, it still has a long way to go. Also, I apparently like the Sega Master System equally as well as I do the TurboGrafx-16. Or do I? Next up is a more accurate version of exactly what I just said: the average rating of each console. At first, I was going to adjust for accuracy by integrating the numbers or whatever, since over half the games I've ever played aren't rated, but let's face facts: if I did that for every rating thing in this blog, a lot of biases would suddenly come up. For example, 1993 probably isn't a shittier year than 2010. And either way, the Neo Geo is still going to beat the 32X. To me, that's a victory. Anyway...
Um, that joke was startlingly close to being false. I'd replay Kolibri to knock the 32X down a few notches, but it's not worth it. Kolibri's like a more boring version of Ecco. I'd have put labels on the side, but I feel that the numbers make them self explanatory. However, for those of you who feel ripped off (you should; I removed a couple of systems because none of their games were rated), here's a fun game: see if you can guess which ones only have one rated game. Bonus points if you guess the rated game. Are you done? No? OK, while you're doing that, I'm going to move onto something that's incredibly similar to this section:
Gaming over the yearsWhy does that sound familiar? Hmmm....Oh well. I mustn't spend too much time reflecting on that; I have a blog that needs writing. In fact, just to save time (and also because I don't really see the point of it), I'm not even gonna show you guys how many games I've played from each year. All you're going to see is what I thought of each year.
Before I say anything of value, let me explain the colors: green is the highest rating of that year, red is the average, and purple is the shittiest score of the year. Yes, Devil Survivor is the dip in 2009. Anyway, this starts off weird. Apparently, I didn't start rating games until 1981, and it was apparently only one game. From there, shit went downhill fast, and this time, I know why: Mystique was making games in 1982. Yes, that Mystique. The only one. However, that's not the worst part; 1983 was apparently such a terrible year for the game industry, that I couldn't find a rating low enough to place on the graph. Things got better after that year, spiking up a bit before settling into the six or seven range. Also, 2011 may be the year where all the games I play get the exact same score, somehow, judging by the trends I'm spotting in the graph. I know that you're wondering what the two blue lines mean, so I'll explain: I decided to see what gaming in the Clinton years was like. Oddly appropriately, it's somewhat confusing. What am I to think of it? The green line is pretty high, but the purple line hits a lot of jagged valleys. The red line doesn't help, since it bounces around a bit. I can't figure it out, so let's just move onto something else.
CompaniesFinally, I'm moving onto something that's actually different: game companies. Logically, I should avoid this altogether, since it's probably going to be your opportunity to call me a fanboy, but when the hell have I been logical? Keep in mind that I beat a game made by a Japanese troll; clearly, logic means nothing to me. That in mind, let's math our way through this blog.
And now I've defanged you of any fanboy comments. Over 25% of the games I've played come from companies that haven't made a lot of games, like Novotrade or Square-Enix. I'd name some more, but they're more obscure than the actual games I've played. Moving on, Nintendo is the second biggest contributor, followed by Sega, then Capcom (how the hell did they get here? Capcom never made a bunch of consoles.), and a bunch of companies that couldn't break 10%. But of course, the reason those companies hog so much of the spotlight is simply because they pump out games like they're a queen bee. In fact, I'm sure Capcom is a queen bee, since all it does is squeeze out completely identical drones on a very regular basis. Does Capcom deserve that insult? (Before I answer that, let me just say that I'm cutting all the crappy non-percent companies. It makes things easier.)
Wow, apparently, I fucking hate Taito. What did they ever do to me? *checks* Apparently, it was Takeshi's Challenge and Demon Sword. Yea, fuck those guys. Going down the list, I also notice a few interesting anomalies. Why is Compile ranked so low? Those guys make shitting great games, like Aleste and Puyo Puyo. What's that? You haven't heard of Aleste? I have lost all mercy. * beats this shit out of you* Speaking of which, Square actually ranks pretty high with a rating of 7.2. Apparently, that's good. However, not good enough to beat Ubisoft, apparently. Final Fantasy XIII can't beat Rayman 2: The Great Escape. But can Final Fantasy beat Rayman? OK, that sounds clumsily cryptic, but what I'm trying to say is...
FranchisesYou know what? Fuck the fancy introductions. I just want to see if Final Fantasy actually beat Rayman.
It appears that Final Fantasy beat Rayman, as it's one of the few franchises that actually got its own sliver of the graph; Rayman got lumped in with a bunch of other series that didn't pass 10 games. You'd think that they'd exert a major influence, given that they take up 45.7% of the chart, but I'm only counting their influence if they take up a large percent, like....wait, the next largest one is games that aren't part of a franchise, at 22.8%. OK, what's next? Mario, Sonic, and Mega Man? Again, why hasn't Capcom made a console? The Virtual Console for it alone would keep them alive for twelve years. Other than that, I'm noticing very similar trends I saw in the company graph. Will that hold up for the ratings? Probably not, since I'm going to graph the important (the ones with actual percentages) franchises over time, ignoring their highs and lows. I don't want this happening.
And here's why that was a huge mistake. First, because Tetris and Zelda have no ratings, they're not gonna register. Second: it's a frigging mess. It's hard to make out anything on that chart. However, that's why I'm here: to point out the trends of the respective franchises. In bullet form!:
- Apparently, Mario was most stable before 1995, when he reached his peak. After that, the quality bounces up and down erratically before reaching its peak, again.
- Like Mario, Mega Man bounces up and down, but for a bit longer. He kinda sucks during the mid 90s, before pulling himself together by the end of the millennium...followed up by plummeting the very next year. However, he pulls it together for a stable period before plummeting AGAIN.
- I'd say that he's a bit wonky, like the others, but there's some more interesting shit with Sonic: immediately after reaching his high point, he shoots straight into the Valley of Suck. Keep in mind that I'm not referring to his venture into the third dimension; in fact, he does decline around that time, but picks things up by 2005. Hooray for him.
- Disney stays in the "I'll play it, maybe" range of 5-7 before dropping off the planet in 2004. Couldn't even reach the next marker, could you?
- Oh, shit! Final Fantasy! It may look like I hated the original game, but keep in mind that my ratings for the series start with Final Fantasy II. After that, I notice a weird pattern of hitting a peak before dropping a bit into a stable area, and then hitting a peak again. However, this trend stops at 2009, since The After Years sucked so hard that it apparently defies math. WHY DID CECIL'S DARK SIDE COME BACK!? DIDN'T HE KILL IT IN THE FIRST GAME!? AGH! At least Final Fantasy XIII prevented the series from dropping past zero.
- Half of Japan is probably gonna hate me for this, but Dragon Warrior performs better than Final Fantasy. It spends a lot of time at the top, and there's only one valley: Caravan Heart. You know, the game that reminds you why Ultima's food system never caught on. From there, it looks like it's going to repeat.
- Castlevania starts in the 7 range, almost hits 9, and then drops down to 7. Classy
- Thanks to the Atari 2600, things do not start well for Donkey Kong. Following a bad port, it stays in the low 8s and high 7s.
- Not much to say about Pokémon. It just shoots up a bit, really. You can barely even see it.
- How are you doing, Fire Emblem? It seems you hit your peak around 1996 ( predictably), before settling around the 6 or 7 range. I should really rate more Fire Emblem games.
- Kirby's a straight line, mostly. Is that even possible?
- Street Fighter: always improving, except for that one time, apparently.
- Man, Metroid drops an entire point fast. It seems to like it, too; just look at how steady it is after Prime.
- Holy shit, Ninja Gaiden is steady. It's almost like I didn't rate a lot of Ninja Gaiden games...
GenresWhy did I save this for last? First, because a lot of the other options were much more interesting. Second, because this is one of the few categories where most of the entries will actually get a percent, even if it is because there aren't as many genres as there are game companies.
And even then, I still end up with an "Other" category. At least this time, it only takes up about 2% of the chart. The rest is dominated by platformers (saw that coming), RPGs (only somewhat surprising), and shmups (I honestly thought this would end up beating RPGs). I'd attempt a witty transition, but you already know what's coming up next: genre ratings! Hopefully, you'll be able to see what genres I didn't include because of how pathetically impotent and tiny they are. Hopefully.
I know that a lot of the stats are fucked up because a lot of the games for those stats aren't rated, but holy shit. I didn't expect a clearly bad stat to make it to the top. I'd hate Metal Gear Solid, but it carried the stealth genre to the top. Going down the list, I also notice that the RPGs are clustered into one group, strategy RPGs being the lowest of them all. What could such a glorious genre do to deserve such terrible treatment? Oh, right: Devil Survivor. Live a Live, too, but mostly Devil Survivor. Fuck that game. Fuck it more than The After Years. Also, fuck racing games, apparently, as they're the worst performing genre overall. Again, why? Apparently, it's all because of Big Bumpin' and a few mediocre racing games. I should really play some more Mario Kart.
So now what? I've beaten 1000 games and made a bunch of stupid graphs for them. What more is there to do? Well, now I'm going to make the Giant Bomb list reflect my actual list. That's right: I'm going to beat 1000 games...again...kinda. The point is that I'm going to get 1000 games onto the Giant Bomb list. Don't expect a countdown for this one, though; it'd just end up being me grabbing mostly the exact same pictures for something that isn't nearly as epic. Just let me remove all the blank games that got deleted, for whatever reason, and that leaves me with...867 games on Giant Bomb. Hooray for having less than 200 games to go until I hit 1000 here. And now...I'm off!