D.Final
Banned
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.
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.
