spine
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,731
Love
• [H]ardforum. It's pretty much the only forum I properly participate in. Good people and usually polite when you help them out. Very well moderated.
• Front page news updates are just fantastic. Very frequent and always well picked and interesting. Good work going on there indeed.
• Motherboard reviews. [H] is the only place I goto for motherboard reviews. Only [H]ard knows how to properly nit-pick and test a motherboard and show it no mercy. If there's a fault, we'll know about it thanks to [H]ard. Top stuff!
Hate
• The unscientific videocard review system. Really infuriates me and I often give up mid way through a videocard review and just goto a site that'll give me the damn numbers.
YOU DO NOT INTERPRET DATA WHEN DISPLAYING RESULTS!!!
It's unscientific; you should really leave interpretation for discussion/conclusion. The results should be just a very neatly presented set of, just that, results.
I don't want to know what someone else thinks is a 'good playable framerate' or what is 'acceptable image quality', I want the raw numbers so I can decide on my own if I like it or not. I can't tell you how annoying it is to have 2 cards compared but have the settings (entirely subjectively) changed between the two and be left with 2 uncomparable sets of data. I mean, you realise that as soon as you alter settings between 2 items it's not by definitation a comparison anymore? It's just 2 independant sets of data back to back.
Don't get me wrong, the whole 'real world gameplay experience' is bang on the money, truly the best review mantra. But it doesn't mean that you have to abandon objectivity altogether.
I think It would be better to start with raw apples to apples (same settings) comparisons between videocards and then state very clearly what image quality differences there are and go through them in detail if need be. If card A runs twice the speed of card B but looks like shit, then run them at same settings first and then show screenshots to show explicitly what the trade off is. Then post an additional 3rd set of data showing your subjective comparison of 'best playable settings'.
Best of both worlds surely?
Guess you miss most of those apples to apples sections we do? - Kyle
• [H]ardforum. It's pretty much the only forum I properly participate in. Good people and usually polite when you help them out. Very well moderated.
• Front page news updates are just fantastic. Very frequent and always well picked and interesting. Good work going on there indeed.
• Motherboard reviews. [H] is the only place I goto for motherboard reviews. Only [H]ard knows how to properly nit-pick and test a motherboard and show it no mercy. If there's a fault, we'll know about it thanks to [H]ard. Top stuff!
Hate
• The unscientific videocard review system. Really infuriates me and I often give up mid way through a videocard review and just goto a site that'll give me the damn numbers.
YOU DO NOT INTERPRET DATA WHEN DISPLAYING RESULTS!!!
It's unscientific; you should really leave interpretation for discussion/conclusion. The results should be just a very neatly presented set of, just that, results.
I don't want to know what someone else thinks is a 'good playable framerate' or what is 'acceptable image quality', I want the raw numbers so I can decide on my own if I like it or not. I can't tell you how annoying it is to have 2 cards compared but have the settings (entirely subjectively) changed between the two and be left with 2 uncomparable sets of data. I mean, you realise that as soon as you alter settings between 2 items it's not by definitation a comparison anymore? It's just 2 independant sets of data back to back.
Don't get me wrong, the whole 'real world gameplay experience' is bang on the money, truly the best review mantra. But it doesn't mean that you have to abandon objectivity altogether.
I think It would be better to start with raw apples to apples (same settings) comparisons between videocards and then state very clearly what image quality differences there are and go through them in detail if need be. If card A runs twice the speed of card B but looks like shit, then run them at same settings first and then show screenshots to show explicitly what the trade off is. Then post an additional 3rd set of data showing your subjective comparison of 'best playable settings'.
Best of both worlds surely?