by getdafunkout
jonocop wrote:
*Full disclosure, I am a TS lover...rate it a 10*
As with many charts and graphs, lying with statistics (whether intentional or not) is too often the case.
Put 20 statisticians in a room and they can all find a way to come to thirty different conclusions...EACH!:p
But here's one prediction I will boldly make now. Because of the nature of Pandemic Legacy (being a disposable game...not a criticism, but a reality) the ratings it gets from an individual are not likely to change. So if someone rates it a 9.5, they are not likely to replay it again six months later and come back and change their ratings as someone would with Puerto Zico or Agricola or Twilight Struggle.
So what am I getting at? I believe that a great legacy game ( as PL appears to be...I have not played it yet) has the chance to permanently be at the top of the charts. I don't believe these charts were created to take into account a game that is only played for a certain period and then it's done.
And MORE importantly, if people have a great experience they are more likely to go back later and UP their rating (nostalgia and all that).
Is that a criticism of PL? Absolutely not. But it's a layman's way of looking at the data from TS and PL. TS(like many games) is a slow burn that takes time, energy, and reflection to rate.
With PL, you have 12-24 games (probably in a short period of time) to experience and reflect.
As with many charts and graphs, lying with statistics (whether intentional or not) is too often the case.
Put 20 statisticians in a room and they can all find a way to come to thirty different conclusions...EACH!:p
But here's one prediction I will boldly make now. Because of the nature of Pandemic Legacy (being a disposable game...not a criticism, but a reality) the ratings it gets from an individual are not likely to change. So if someone rates it a 9.5, they are not likely to replay it again six months later and come back and change their ratings as someone would with Puerto Zico or Agricola or Twilight Struggle.
So what am I getting at? I believe that a great legacy game ( as PL appears to be...I have not played it yet) has the chance to permanently be at the top of the charts. I don't believe these charts were created to take into account a game that is only played for a certain period and then it's done.
And MORE importantly, if people have a great experience they are more likely to go back later and UP their rating (nostalgia and all that).
Is that a criticism of PL? Absolutely not. But it's a layman's way of looking at the data from TS and PL. TS(like many games) is a slow burn that takes time, energy, and reflection to rate.
With PL, you have 12-24 games (probably in a short period of time) to experience and reflect.
I think it really depends on the rater. I regularly adjust my ratings for games 'in hindsight.' So, I can totally see me adjusting my rating of PL in light of my both my past recollections AND my new gaming experiences. More often than not, I reduce game ratings over time and this often happens regardless of additional plays (sober second thought, and all that). So, at least based on my experience, I do not think what you are projecting matches how my ratings change over time.
