I'm spent more hours playing Civilization than I've probably spent studying for all my college courses combined, but I still didn't get the "nuclear Ghandi" clue... bizarre
world wonders, tech tree, turn based strategy, alpha centauri (building a ship to go there is a victory condition in every Civ game), etc... would all be better clues than "nuclear Ghandi" which I think is really confusing and probably why this is by far the least-guessed game on the list. I mean only 25% of the people who got "Oregon Trail" got Civ... that's not right.
I think tirmenat's point was that (using current stats as of 14 July 2015) if we assume the 36% of people who got Oregon Trail contains all of the the 31% who got Civilisation, then 86% of people who got Oregon Trail also got Civilisation. However, there is no reason to assume that all the people who got Civilisation are also in the population that got Oregon Trail - so actually we can't know which percent got OT but not Civ based on current information.
tecumseh: there are only two clues so it would have had to have been one of them. The second clue isn't that much better.
penguin: I know what he meant. Given the six month gap in between our two comments, you don't think that the stats could have changed in that time? When I left the comment, the %age for Oregon Trail was 4x higher than the %age for Civilization.
But just because the % was 4X higher doesn't mean you can say that 25% of the people who got one, also got the other. Imagine a scenario where one question has 50% correct, another has 12.5% correct. It's entirely possible that they are two totally separate groups of people and none of the people in the 50% that got the first question right were the same ones that got the second one right. That's what he meant when he said "That's not how statistics work"
tom: it does mean that. 4 people is 25% of 16 people. If those 4 people come from a group outside of those 16 people it doesn't change the relationship between these two numbers.
Nuclear Gandhi is one of the oldest jokes for Civ, and the percentage confusion is because of how you wrote the original statement:
25 percent of group A are in group B
vs
25 percent of the amount of people in A is the amount of people in group B
Both of those meanings can be understood from your statement "only 25% of the people who got "Oregon Trail" got Civ". All the people who replied to you (including me) immediately understood the first meaning instead of the second one, and I'd argue that's the most natural way to understand that sentence.
Kal, two years later but oh well. Yes the relationship between 4 and 16 doesn't change but you can't say that all(or any) of the people who got one answer also got the other.
example: 100 people took the quiz
20 people got civilization correct but did not get oregon trail
80 people got oregon trail but not civilization
stats:
Oregon trail 80%
Civilization 20%
number of people who got both 0%
the stats for Oregon trail would be 4X higher than those for Civilization but you can't say anything for sure about people who got one also getting the other simply from looking at the percentages.
and your original assertion was "I mean only 25% of the people who got "Oregon Trail" got Civ... that's not right." which you cannot tell simply from the percentages.
Perhaps it's just your wording though, I think perhaps you meant that only a quarter the number of people got one as the number of people who got the other. When you say 25% of people who got Oregon trail got civilization, I interpret that as saying 25% of the people who got one also got the other.
Just about every historical based strategy game could have tech tree and world wonders, and turn based strategy is an entire genre of games. And Alpha Centauri is the name of a turn based strategy game. Those are terrible clues.
I haven't even played it, but I know the reference. Apparently, in one of the earliest games, there was a bug which made Ghandi turn into a total warmonger as soon as his country discovered how to make nuclear weapons. The creators then decided to just keep him like that in all subsequent games.
His aggression was set all the way to the bottom of the scale, but when they adopt democracy (which reduces aggression by 2), it would roll over to the very top of the scale, making him extremely aggressive. Nuclear weaponry was just the way he would express that, not necessarily the cause.
Huh, I've never noticed that either. I've played Civ 1 quite a lot and Civ 3 countless of hours. I'm also on a Civ forum, and I've never heard of it. o_O
As someone who has played Civilization (1-6) more than all other games combined, I can confirm that nuclear Gandhi is definitely a thing (and nowadays is a meme, but that's after your comments).
In all the Civ games the leader traits are assigned a value of 1-10. In Civ 1, Gandhi's aggression was 1, but when democracy was founded, it reduced aggression by 2, which caused the number to mistakenly be 255 (on a scale of 1-10), so he always declared war.
In subsequent games, Gandhi's aggression was still always set low, but as they have many more traits now, they set building nuclear weapons and use of nuclear weapons as a very high number as an easter egg. He would still be very unlikely to be the aggressor, but if backed into a corner, he would unleash the nukes.
Yeah I think "nuclear Gandhi" is a pretty good clue. If anything, the other clue is probably worse. I mean, I doubt Civ is the only video game that involves world domination (even if it is the most famous).
They accidentally programmed Ghandi to be more likely to use nukes, then left that way because they thought it was funny. In actual gameplay i have not noticed it but there are some memes about online i guess, probably not the best clue, but funny.
I think what happened was that, in the first game, his "aggression" stat was super low, then when it was lowered further through diplomacy, it reset as super high. The developers decided to keep the glitch for the next ones. Nowadays, he builds nukes to maintain peace, but does not hesitate to use them if feels you are a threat.
As others have said, Ghandi has always had a modifier in the game that makes him very likely to use nukes once he gets them. It's a very common trope on civ message boards etc
Never heard of Megaman. On the other hand, I never played Wolfenstein and I think I haven't watched it being played for more than 10 minutes in my life, the nausea and headache that it caused can't be forgotten though. Doom was marginally better, Quake a bit more so but I just can't take those games without wanting to puke my guts out and Wolfenstein was the worst of the lot. (The movement, not the gore.)
If you make a part two of this quiz (and you should) you should put in Donkey Kong, Burger Time, Castlevania or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. All classics
I got almost half of the answers correct, but beat only 16.5% of the quiz takers. Methinks there be some gamers here. (I only played in the '80s when our kids were young, and I managed to pick up a few more here and there, Tomb Raider from the movie, Angry Birds from the grandkids, etc.)
Nice quiz. Only missed Portal because I could only think of Half-Life, which I think should be accepted. Plug for my new Final Fantasy quiz: http://www.jetpunk.com/user-quizzes/121975/final-fantasy-series-quiz
I too could only come up with Half-Life! I never played Portal, but I thought it was only set in the same universe as Half-Life, and wasn’t a sequel or a remake or anything. If that’s the case though, I disagree that “Half-Life” should be accepted as an answer.
Super Mario, The legend of Zelda, GTA, angry birds, tomb raiders, fortnite, pac man, minecraft, mortal kombat, halo, street fighter, portal, Tetris, world of Warcraft, wolfenstein 3D, metroid, madden, punch out, mega man are so hard
Would you consider accepting "John Madden" for "Madden"? It's how the first several installments were titled, and for those of us who haven't played a significant amount of video games since the Super Nintendo, it's how we may remember it.
penguin: I know what he meant. Given the six month gap in between our two comments, you don't think that the stats could have changed in that time? When I left the comment, the %age for Oregon Trail was 4x higher than the %age for Civilization.
25 percent of group A are in group B
vs
25 percent of the amount of people in A is the amount of people in group B
Both of those meanings can be understood from your statement "only 25% of the people who got "Oregon Trail" got Civ". All the people who replied to you (including me) immediately understood the first meaning instead of the second one, and I'd argue that's the most natural way to understand that sentence.
example: 100 people took the quiz
20 people got civilization correct but did not get oregon trail
80 people got oregon trail but not civilization
stats:
Oregon trail 80%
Civilization 20%
number of people who got both 0%
the stats for Oregon trail would be 4X higher than those for Civilization but you can't say anything for sure about people who got one also getting the other simply from looking at the percentages.
and your original assertion was "I mean only 25% of the people who got "Oregon Trail" got Civ... that's not right." which you cannot tell simply from the percentages.
Nuclear Ghandi really only refers to one game.
In all the Civ games the leader traits are assigned a value of 1-10. In Civ 1, Gandhi's aggression was 1, but when democracy was founded, it reduced aggression by 2, which caused the number to mistakenly be 255 (on a scale of 1-10), so he always declared war.
In subsequent games, Gandhi's aggression was still always set low, but as they have many more traits now, they set building nuclear weapons and use of nuclear weapons as a very high number as an easter egg. He would still be very unlikely to be the aggressor, but if backed into a corner, he would unleash the nukes.
Haha, I was going to say it, but you got this. That is most certainly NOT how stats work. He tried on some math there, but it didn't fit. LOL
*Gets 19/20.. and forgets Halo*
I wish I was not stupid <3