TruckOSaurus said:
My view on it is that since most people know the Metacritic user average is a joke, making a perfect review just to correct it serves no purpose while making a comprehensive review does have a purpose. |
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with this. We, the forum junky types, know it's a joke. We also know there are tens of millions of people who identify as gamer's, and let's face it, there is no gaming website, with anything like that kind of following. So, it stands to reason that we are, in fact, the minority (this has been well known for quite some time). Now, I would think people could read these low reviews, and see that there's something seriously wrong with the people posting said reviews...then again, that's assuming people are taking the time to even go into the user review section and not just look at the number posted under the game's page itself. Which I think is much more likely to be the case.
I think what bothers me most, is that Amazon/Metacritic etc.. and sites like them, have yet to do anything about these types of troll reviewers. Does it add anything to their site? Does it make that entire section of their site credible, at all? No. It doesn't. For us, we know it's a joke, and there's no reason to even go there. So, why aren't they just handing out bans to these folks, to actually bring some credibility to the user reviews section? That's the part that really is curious to me, they're basically allowing some of the worst elements of gaming, to render entire sections of their websites/business, irrelevent.
But, assuming that your average gamer, who probably gets the vast majority of their games info from TV ads, knows the intricate details of abuse in the User reviews section? Not sure that's true.
