Some uDG2004 Statistics
Post: #1
I calculated the percent correlation of some of the numerical data (the data involving text is a bit harder to manipulate). I made sure to keep the numbers negative for indirect correlations.
To explain a few of the types of data, Price(Pri) is the shareware price that voters thought the game would be worth, Hardcore(HCo) is a 1-4 scale of how hardcore of a gamer the voter thinks he is, and Inc stands for spendable income.
I have been looking at numbers for a while now, so I don't really feel like interpreting anything right now. I will just show my results.
Code:
Gra Aud Ori Sto Pol Pts Overall
Gameplay 44.32% 59.20% 28.61% 7.34% 45.78% 28.21% 69.15%
Graphics 82.00% 25.35% 15.16% 58.08% 41.88% 81.09%
Audio 39.65% 24.81% 56.62% 44.76% 92.62%
Originality 26.22% 16.75% 28.57% 53.16%
Story 0.09% 15.40% 28.04%
Polish 43.19% 63.22%
Contest Pts 52.60%
Pri Age HCo Inc
Gameplay 14.79% -0.03% -0.05% 0.24%
Graphics 14.73% 2.72% -0.10% 1.10%
Audio 14.36% 0.94% -0.16% 1.10%
Price 0.41% -0.55% 0.00%
Age -10.14% 0.09%
Hardcore 1.81%To explain a few of the types of data, Price(Pri) is the shareware price that voters thought the game would be worth, Hardcore(HCo) is a 1-4 scale of how hardcore of a gamer the voter thinks he is, and Inc stands for spendable income.
I have been looking at numbers for a while now, so I don't really feel like interpreting anything right now. I will just show my results.
Post: #2
You may want to check this thread
I have all the stats I calculated here: http://www.reversecode.com/powermacx/udg04stats.html
As you can see, my correlation results and yours have very different values, did you do the correlation on ALL the data at once? I first grouped it by game, so that may be the cause.
I have all the stats I calculated here: http://www.reversecode.com/powermacx/udg04stats.html
As you can see, my correlation results and yours have very different values, did you do the correlation on ALL the data at once? I first grouped it by game, so that may be the cause.
Post: #3
How did I fail to notice that thread?
Anyway, the first table was created using data from the average scores of each game. The second was created using all the raw data at once. In addition, my results are reported in percent correlation instead of correlation coefficient. I did that because I think it is a bit more meaningful.
Oh well. It looks like you did most of the dirty work, and very nicely reported as well. I wish I had seen that before.
[Edit: I just realized that you also reported a lot of the quantitative data in the form of tables rather than correlations, such as casual-hardcore. I used the 1-4 values as data in a correlation, but you sectioned them into tables of data.]
Anyway, the first table was created using data from the average scores of each game. The second was created using all the raw data at once. In addition, my results are reported in percent correlation instead of correlation coefficient. I did that because I think it is a bit more meaningful.
Oh well. It looks like you did most of the dirty work, and very nicely reported as well. I wish I had seen that before.
[Edit: I just realized that you also reported a lot of the quantitative data in the form of tables rather than correlations, such as casual-hardcore. I used the 1-4 values as data in a correlation, but you sectioned them into tables of data.]
Possibly Related Threads...
| Thread: | Author | Replies: | Views: | Last Post | |
| Interesting statistics | ThemsAllTook | 4 | 4,940 |
Nov 27, 2004 09:13 PM Last Post: skyhawk |
|