You are comparing doing serious surgery to video games! Video games are entertainment and just like any medium which one will enjoy or not entirely subjective. I don't understand how can you compare surgery to video games?
Obligatory:
Cut down the scale to 1-5, hell, even just 1-3, and it will fix the issue instantly. And no half-steps. Problem=solved.
You can rank and put number in anything you want... that include enjoyment, taste, smell, fun, etc.Scoring in general is idiotic and you can't put a number on entertainment.
Breaking down a complex game down to a number is idiotic but the
casual audience will continue to eat it up.
What flaws are worthy of a score reduction?
Does the game offending your personal believes somehow makes it worse for everybody?
It is a great idea but it won't change the average at all (removing few reviews barely chances the avg.) and it will happen the same user reviews where people give 0 or 10 according with their platform of choice.You should be able to rate critics. If they are bad, they should have a weaker impact on the average score..
You can rank and put number in anything you want... that include enjoyment, taste, smell, fun, etc.
What is the biggest impediment hat won't allow you to rank and score things?
I knew what the video was before I clicked.
This post contains potentially lethal levels of pretentiousness. I recommend everyone steer clear of it until we can quarantine it for safe observation.I agree with your sentiment, but the problem is deeper. Quantifying an experience on a linear scale of bad-good is idiotic. There is no room for nuance, challenging experiences, subversion, etc.
In Slavoj Zizek's new book Sex And The Absolute, he makes the observation that, it's in the gap we see between the flaws and the ideal that perfection exists - and it's the only place it can exist.
Should something 'correct' it flaws, it only becomes ordinary.
Xenoblade Chronicles X, for example, is a deeply flawed game. It's easy to point out where it fails, and easy to knock points. Yet, the experience is transcendent. If it corrected for all it's warts and idiosyncracies, it'd be Horizon: Zero Dawn, or something equally 'good' - and utterly mediocre. As it is, we can see the most rich and ambitious open world game ever made buried underneath the flaws, and in that sense, we grasp perfection, if only in moments.
This post contains potentially lethal levels of pretentiousness. I recommend everyone steer clear of it until we can quarantine it for safe observation.
As the title suggests, this is what I think.
We live in a society that, in a large part of the cases, turns out to be extremely tied to the general opinions of an entertainment product like the video game media.
I think that this attitude has helped to create a status of perpetual violence and war over what should be considered better, and what should be considered worse.
This has done nothing but establish a "relationship" of "guide to the consumer" that must feel called into question to take an interest in something, or that the consumer must be guided towards the "new product of interest".
I find this attitude profoundly wrong and incorrect.
For the creators of the works sold, and also for the consumer.
This "status" of interest is conveyed through an average of numbers that makes it clear to the consumer what needs to be guided to buy, and what he must avoid.
(strongly penalizing all those small productions that do not even have the means to be noticed by the general public)
In conclusion I think that, in this case, it is a situation of strong imbalance of media and monetary value.
And that it would be better if sites like Metacritic and Opencritic ceased to exist, in this market where the war between what is better and what is worse, turns out to be perennial and endless.
And where we have reached the point of seeing some kind of people who despise everything that does not come to be considered as absolute and collective excellence by the whole world.
And people who have the sense of guilt of buying a game that, in the end, turns out to be not particularly loved by the public.
(and therefore not thinking at all about what they really wanted)
My hope is that this situation finds a way to end.
But I already know that, probably, what I desire is something practically impossible.
And if it is the opposite?There are analysts with very bad taste or lack of criteria that for their reports users miss games that are really worthwhile.
And if it is the opposite?
How do you know the analyst tastes are the bad one and yours the good ones?
Same here. I never read any reviews with no score.Also sites like Eurogamer that have ditched scores are dead to me. It's with incredible arrogance that they assume I have the time to read all their waffle. Back in the days when they had scores, I would glance at the score and use that to determine whether I wanted to read the review.
The reason they gave for ditching scores was something like "we don't like Metacritic and we don't want to contribute to it". Well guess what - I used to hang upon your scores Eurogamer. Now I don't even consider your reviews in my buying decisions at all because you removed them. You drove me further into the arms of Metacritic. Are you happy now?
As the title suggests, this is what I think.
We live in a society that, in a large part of the cases, turns out to be extremely tied to the general opinions of an entertainment product like the video game media.
I think that this attitude has helped to create a status of perpetual violence and war over what should be considered better, and what should be considered worse.
This has done nothing but establish a "relationship" of "guide to the consumer" that must feel called into question to take an interest in something, or that the consumer must be guided towards the "new product of interest".
I find this attitude profoundly wrong and incorrect.
For the creators of the works sold, and also for the consumer.
This "status" of interest is conveyed through an average of numbers that makes it clear to the consumer what needs to be guided to buy, and what he must avoid.
(strongly penalizing all those small productions that do not even have the means to be noticed by the general public)
In conclusion I think that, in this case, it is a situation of strong imbalance of media and monetary value.
And that it would be better if sites like Metacritic and Opencritic ceased to exist, in this market where the war between what is better and what is worse, turns out to be perennial and endless.
And where we have reached the point of seeing some kind of people who despise everything that does not come to be considered as absolute and collective excellence by the whole world.
And people who have the sense of guilt of buying a game that, in the end, turns out to be not particularly loved by the public.
(and therefore not thinking at all about what they really wanted)
My hope is that this situation finds a way to end.
But I already know that, probably, what I desire is something practically impossible.
EG decision was a big mistake that made them irrelevant.Also sites like Eurogamer that have ditched scores are dead to me. It's with incredible arrogance that they assume I have the time to read all their waffle. Back in the days when they had scores, I would glance at the score and use that to determine whether I wanted to read the review.
The reason they gave for ditching scores was something like "we don't like Metacritic and we don't want to contribute to it". Well guess what - I used to hang upon your scores Eurogamer. Now I don't even consider your reviews in my buying decisions at all because you removed them. You drove me further into the arms of Metacritic. Are you happy now?
I don't agree because Breakpoint has a terrible score yet its selling like hotcakes.
In the end these sites arent even that important