| starcraft said: I can see your point with regard to context. But again, I see some validity in the critical reception measurement. And it's not just me. The big 3 have all at some point referred to Metacritic as a measure of their games in one way or another. You cannot completely debunk aggregate reviews as a measure of game quality or library quality. I a world where personal taste is removed, it is likely that the average consumer would tend to find a large quantity of high quality experiences on the PS2 for example, in line with the critical reception it's library received. |
In a world where oxygen is acidic, human life can't exist. In other words, your fanatasy world is not really a valid point here. Games appeal to different people. This is the core idea behind different genres. Personal taste is really all that matters when it comes to a game. If I thought Ninja Bread Man was the greatest game ever then reviews can do absolutely nothing to alter this.
You will also note that those companies will refer to sales of their games as well. They also use sales of consoles. Are these good measures for how good a game or console is? An arbitrary number system is not inherently objective. An average of an arbitrary number system is not inherently objective either.
Given the above is true then the burden of proof is on you to show me why a set of aggregate reviews is actually objective. The assumption is not that you are correct and everyone has to disprove you. At least not in any rational debate. It is on you to actually show why this should be considered objective, and then on your opponents to counter it. I will gladly debunk any points you bring up if I disagree with their validity. Until then you set an inherently impossible task. I can't disprove something based on faith, and no one entering a rational, logical debate should be expected to.
