The Critic's Plight

[vlad321]

Runa216 said:

vlad321 said:

Again, it's REALLY not hard to normalize the broken system into one that works (I even outlined a pretty easy way to do it). Furthermore the problem is that NONE of the actual milestones have shifted as games have shifted towards 75-80 average with an extremely small standard deviation. AAA has always been 90s, it hasn't shifted up. A normal person, you know one that comes from the regular worls where scores aren't as big joked as ratings, doesn't know that either. I can write a whole paper on what a retarded idea it is to have a 0-100 scale of scores with an average of 75 and a tiny tiny variance. One of the minor points being that it's no damn wonder other entertainment mediums point their fingers and laugh at gamers (and if they know enough, the reviewers). Scales exist for a reason, and ;aughing them off is just a very bad idea.

Then do it.  I'd like to read it.  As I see it now, an industry where most games are similar in value, content, and quality should certainly have a small variance.  When quality doesn't have much variance, why should scores?  

This is why it's important to have a relatable scale.  As I've said dozens of times, my scale works just find.  90+ are for those exemplary games that get practically everything right.  80-89 should be those games which get most things right but have some minor issues.  The score is based on how fun it is or how good the game is, not based on what others think.  I rate things a bit lower than most people.  in fact, it's very rare for me to give a 90 or more becuase there really aren't that many truly exemplary games.  

My point is that most high budget, popular games are good.  I know that's an odd concept for most to digest, but it's true.  When you factor in ALL games, like Barbie's Pony adventures and various other shovelware, then you'll find that the skew is a bit lower.  you DO get a lot of 20-50% games, they're just not well known or publicized like Duke Nukem Forever was.  the reason you have such an opinion is because of skewed perspective....you're only really taking popular games into consideration.  

TLDR version: most popular games DO have small variance in quality, therefore it makes sense that most of them get scores between 7.0-9.0, but when you factor all games in on all consoles and across all genres including shovelware, you'll find the skew IS a bit closer to what you're saying is ideal.  the review scores aren't as bad as you think. 

I already said this once, it's not about what MY taste is or the next guy's when it comes to the score, for some reason you keep ignoring that. Also an industry where games have a similar value and worth can all be normalized easily, to be centered around the 50 point, not the 75. That is how you have a broken scoring system.

You know what the best part about the normal distribution is? It holds true even if you look at just the "good."  Among the good games there will be ones that are worse, and ones that are better, and a lot are in the medium. I just realized that you may not understand the math behind the normal distribution, such as the ability to normalize just about any other distribution, and I highly suggest you read up on it before you continue this terrible argument with terrible statistics. Finally, I will have to reiterate that this is one of the reasons why gaming is such a laughable part, and game reviewers are more or less the bottom feeders of entertainment reviewers in general. I mean shit, they can't even keep an accurate scale.