haxxiy said:
400,000 views a week is not a lot. Some media vehicles do up to a hundred times better than that and are very much concerned on how much money they are going to win with advertising. In the past, the media earned a lot more from subscription rather than advertising, so quality was actually their main concern. When you earn it all with advertising, only one thing matters - clicks, and nothing attracts clicks better than misguided headlines and deliberately stocking a strong reaction from your target audience. I'm not saying it is good or bad, right or wrong - only that is how most of the media works today, placing notoriety above quality.
I'm not sure, and I'm unable to properly estimate, the proper standard deviation for the scores of the Zelda game in question - but it is very likely that, on a normal distribution curve, reviews on the 60-70 range for a game rated 98 shouldn't really appear until it gets hundreds of different reviews. It's a thumb rule of proper statistics. Now, I don't know what goes on on Jim Sterling's head (and neither do you) but it is reasonable to suggest his review was entirely fair and concerned with quality alone, for there is evidence that it is so.
And it's not by making a strawman of other people's arguments that you will be able to effectively defend his choice, mind you.
|
