By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Just Dance, metascore 47

chichi-101 on 23 February 2010

Hope to see this game nominated for goty...the way people enjoy it, it should be.



Around the Network
theprof00 on 23 February 2010
Demotruk said:
theprof00 said:
You know what the problem here is?
You guys are blaming a reviewer for not tailoring a review to all demographics.
Reviews are for gamers. That is their demographic. I mean gamer not in the wii fan-endorsed sense of the word as "person who plays a game", but in the traditional sense. Someone who buys games, memorizes the various aspects, subscribes to magazines or goes to websites to look up upcoming releases. Someone who would answer "what do you do for fun" with "I play video games".

Those people are who most reviews are meant for. That score is perfectly matched to meet the tastes of that demographic. Sure it seems unfair, and maybe you think that they are "not judging the game for what it is", but that is an illogical argument. If they did that, review sites and mags would lose so many readers for giving a game like just dance the same score as Halo, or Gears. In theory, Just Dance should have that kind of score because a lot of people like it and consider it great quality. In practice, it would just lead a lot of gamers into buying games that will not meet their criteria of quality.

This is the problem with the review system. It isn't some unfair bias. It's the demographic. The review system has been tailored to the demographic because the demographic is what supports it. That is why it has always been said, "find some reviewers who share similar tastes and stick with their opinions and recommendations".

And sorry. Sorry that metacritic will not work for wii games (in general). Sorry that a big gamer site will not favorably rate a casual or wii game (in general). Stick with the reviewers you agree with, or start your own Wiicritic meta-analysis to get scores which match the fanbase. As such, it doesn't quite exist outside of teen magazines or cosmo. But hey, where there's a need, there's a niche. Go out and create something, you wily entrepreneur you.

Go take a look at the traffic to the big sites like Gamespot and IGN and tell us again that they should be tailoring to their existing customers.

Yeah, they can continue to marginalize potential customers outside their base, but it's not a clever strategy.

The only solution to this problem is to separate the site into two areas. You guys talk like it's an easy thing to do. Just review everything based on different users. But there is a tricky line here. There is a significant purchase involved in making a recommendation. You go telling Halo guys that Just Dance has the same score and quality, and there will be a shitstorm. You don't understand the effects of what you are asking for. They are separate demographics plain and simple.

It's like wing a restaurant reviewer and saying, Johnny Chao's Golden Garden is a 10. Sure it's really unhealthy and everything is fried and greasy, but some people like that. On the other hand Lucky Wah is also a 10, but they serve a higher quality food, which other people like. In that kind of world where you interchange the demographic and blend them together, you have all 10 with no reason to score anything less other than speediness of delivery and price. It's not viable.



Demotruk on 23 February 2010

Nobody suggested dividing things into different demographics except for you. I've given suggestions on how I might think they could expand their audience (IGN has been trying to, but half-heartedly likely to appease investors, hence why they review all these expanded audience games these days), and I think it's much more achievable than you suggest.

Yeah, there'll be a backlash from their core audience, but their core audience is already leaving them in droves.



A game I'm developing with some friends:

www.xnagg.com/zombieasteroids/publish.htm

It is largely a technical exercise but feedback is appreciated.

chichi-101 on 23 February 2010
theprof00 said:
Demotruk said:
theprof00 said:
You know what the problem here is?
You guys are blaming a reviewer for not tailoring a review to all demographics.
Reviews are for gamers. That is their demographic. I mean gamer not in the wii fan-endorsed sense of the word as "person who plays a game", but in the traditional sense. Someone who buys games, memorizes the various aspects, subscribes to magazines or goes to websites to look up upcoming releases. Someone who would answer "what do you do for fun" with "I play video games".

Those people are who most reviews are meant for. That score is perfectly matched to meet the tastes of that demographic. Sure it seems unfair, and maybe you think that they are "not judging the game for what it is", but that is an illogical argument. If they did that, review sites and mags would lose so many readers for giving a game like just dance the same score as Halo, or Gears. In theory, Just Dance should have that kind of score because a lot of people like it and consider it great quality. In practice, it would just lead a lot of gamers into buying games that will not meet their criteria of quality.

This is the problem with the review system. It isn't some unfair bias. It's the demographic. The review system has been tailored to the demographic because the demographic is what supports it. That is why it has always been said, "find some reviewers who share similar tastes and stick with their opinions and recommendations".

And sorry. Sorry that metacritic will not work for wii games (in general). Sorry that a big gamer site will not favorably rate a casual or wii game (in general). Stick with the reviewers you agree with, or start your own Wiicritic meta-analysis to get scores which match the fanbase. As such, it doesn't quite exist outside of teen magazines or cosmo. But hey, where there's a need, there's a niche. Go out and create something, you wily entrepreneur you.

Go take a look at the traffic to the big sites like Gamespot and IGN and tell us again that they should be tailoring to their existing customers.

Yeah, they can continue to marginalize potential customers outside their base, but it's not a clever strategy.

The only solution to this problem is to separate the site into two areas. You guys talk like it's an easy thing to do. Just review everything based on different users. But there is a tricky line here. There is a significant purchase involved in making a recommendation. You go telling Halo guys that Just Dance has the same score and quality, and there will be a shitstorm. You don't understand the effects of what you are asking for. They are separate demographics plain and simple.

It's like wing a restaurant reviewer and saying, Johnny Chao's Golden Garden is a 10. Sure it's really unhealthy and everything is fried and greasy, but some people like that. On the other hand Lucky Wah is also a 10, but they serve a higher quality food, which other people like. In that kind of world where you interchange the demographic and blend them together, you have all 10 with no reason to score anything less other than speediness of delivery and price. It's not viable.

I agree with the first paragraph, but the second is a horrible comparison...it's just games.



milkyjoe on 23 February 2010
theprof00 said:
Demotruk said:
theprof00 said:
You know what the problem here is?
You guys are blaming a reviewer for not tailoring a review to all demographics.
Reviews are for gamers. That is their demographic. I mean gamer not in the wii fan-endorsed sense of the word as "person who plays a game", but in the traditional sense. Someone who buys games, memorizes the various aspects, subscribes to magazines or goes to websites to look up upcoming releases. Someone who would answer "what do you do for fun" with "I play video games".

Those people are who most reviews are meant for. That score is perfectly matched to meet the tastes of that demographic. Sure it seems unfair, and maybe you think that they are "not judging the game for what it is", but that is an illogical argument. If they did that, review sites and mags would lose so many readers for giving a game like just dance the same score as Halo, or Gears. In theory, Just Dance should have that kind of score because a lot of people like it and consider it great quality. In practice, it would just lead a lot of gamers into buying games that will not meet their criteria of quality.

This is the problem with the review system. It isn't some unfair bias. It's the demographic. The review system has been tailored to the demographic because the demographic is what supports it. That is why it has always been said, "find some reviewers who share similar tastes and stick with their opinions and recommendations".

And sorry. Sorry that metacritic will not work for wii games (in general). Sorry that a big gamer site will not favorably rate a casual or wii game (in general). Stick with the reviewers you agree with, or start your own Wiicritic meta-analysis to get scores which match the fanbase. As such, it doesn't quite exist outside of teen magazines or cosmo. But hey, where there's a need, there's a niche. Go out and create something, you wily entrepreneur you.

Go take a look at the traffic to the big sites like Gamespot and IGN and tell us again that they should be tailoring to their existing customers.

Yeah, they can continue to marginalize potential customers outside their base, but it's not a clever strategy.

The only solution to this problem is to separate the site into two areas. You guys talk like it's an easy thing to do. Just review everything based on different users. But there is a tricky line here. There is a significant purchase involved in making a recommendation. You go telling Halo guys that Just Dance has the same score and quality, and there will be a shitstorm. You don't understand the effects of what you are asking for. They are separate demographics plain and simple.

It's like wing a restaurant reviewer and saying, Johnny Chao's Golden Garden is a 10. Sure it's really unhealthy and everything is fried and greasy, but some people like that. On the other hand Lucky Wah is also a 10, but they serve a higher quality food, which other people like. In that kind of world where you interchange the demographic and blend them together, you have all 10 with no reason to score anything less other than speediness of delivery and price. It's not viable.

On the food point... imagine you are a reviewer, and you have a nut allergy. You go to a restaurant and get served nut roast. You give them a poor review because you are allergic to nuts. It may have been a great nut roast, but you'll never appreciate it for what it is because of that allergy.

Just Dance is a nut, and the reviewers are allergic to it.

EDIT: One other thing, on the talk of movie reviews in other posts, I remember reading a review for one of the big action movies last summer (I forget which one) in one of the Sunday newspapers. The paper had sent a middle aged woman who admitted to hating such movies with a passion at the start of the review, and as such she gave it a low score. That is no different to what is happening here.



VGChartz

Around the Network
Galaki on 23 February 2010

http://vgchartz.com/swlaunch.php?reg1=All&game1=Just+Dance+-+Wii[40053]&reg2=All&game2=Call+of+Duty%3A+Modern+Warfare+2+-+PS3[28847]&reg3=All&game3=Call+of+Duty%3A+Modern+Warfare+2+-+X360[28848]&weeks=15&weekly=1



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

theprof00 on 23 February 2010
chichi-101 said:
theprof00 said:
Demotruk said:
theprof00 said:
You know what the problem here is?
You guys are blaming a reviewer for not tailoring a review to all demographics.
Reviews are for gamers. That is their demographic. I mean gamer not in the wii fan-endorsed sense of the word as "person who plays a game", but in the traditional sense. Someone who buys games, memorizes the various aspects, subscribes to magazines or goes to websites to look up upcoming releases. Someone who would answer "what do you do for fun" with "I play video games".

Those people are who most reviews are meant for. That score is perfectly matched to meet the tastes of that demographic. Sure it seems unfair, and maybe you think that they are "not judging the game for what it is", but that is an illogical argument. If they did that, review sites and mags would lose so many readers for giving a game like just dance the same score as Halo, or Gears. In theory, Just Dance should have that kind of score because a lot of people like it and consider it great quality. In practice, it would just lead a lot of gamers into buying games that will not meet their criteria of quality.

This is the problem with the review system. It isn't some unfair bias. It's the demographic. The review system has been tailored to the demographic because the demographic is what supports it. That is why it has always been said, "find some reviewers who share similar tastes and stick with their opinions and recommendations".

And sorry. Sorry that metacritic will not work for wii games (in general). Sorry that a big gamer site will not favorably rate a casual or wii game (in general). Stick with the reviewers you agree with, or start your own Wiicritic meta-analysis to get scores which match the fanbase. As such, it doesn't quite exist outside of teen magazines or cosmo. But hey, where there's a need, there's a niche. Go out and create something, you wily entrepreneur you.

Go take a look at the traffic to the big sites like Gamespot and IGN and tell us again that they should be tailoring to their existing customers.

Yeah, they can continue to marginalize potential customers outside their base, but it's not a clever strategy.

The only solution to this problem is to separate the site into two areas. You guys talk like it's an easy thing to do. Just review everything based on different users. But there is a tricky line here. There is a significant purchase involved in making a recommendation. You go telling Halo guys that Just Dance has the same score and quality, and there will be a shitstorm. You don't understand the effects of what you are asking for. They are separate demographics plain and simple.

It's like wing a restaurant reviewer and saying, Johnny Chao's Golden Garden is a 10. Sure it's really unhealthy and everything is fried and greasy, but some people like that. On the other hand Lucky Wah is also a 10, but they serve a higher quality food, which other people like. In that kind of world where you interchange the demographic and blend them together, you have all 10 with no reason to score anything less other than speediness of delivery and price. It's not viable.

I agree with the first paragraph, but the second is a horrible comparison...it's just games.

I've never been good with comparisons lol.

I'm just trying to make the point that in order for a food site like that to work, a review would have to be searched by different aspects and given different scores. In the end, it is all based on the reviewer and what they constitute as tasty. I might like one thing, where someone might like another. In the end, simplicity rules, and that needs to be reflected in the score, not in the write-up. As such, different groups need different scores. That is the simple, yet elegant solution.



theprof00 on 23 February 2010
milkyjoe said:
theprof00 said:
Demotruk said:
theprof00 said:
You know what the problem here is?
You guys are blaming a reviewer for not tailoring a review to all demographics.
Reviews are for gamers. That is their demographic. I mean gamer not in the wii fan-endorsed sense of the word as "person who plays a game", but in the traditional sense. Someone who buys games, memorizes the various aspects, subscribes to magazines or goes to websites to look up upcoming releases. Someone who would answer "what do you do for fun" with "I play video games".

Those people are who most reviews are meant for. That score is perfectly matched to meet the tastes of that demographic. Sure it seems unfair, and maybe you think that they are "not judging the game for what it is", but that is an illogical argument. If they did that, review sites and mags would lose so many readers for giving a game like just dance the same score as Halo, or Gears. In theory, Just Dance should have that kind of score because a lot of people like it and consider it great quality. In practice, it would just lead a lot of gamers into buying games that will not meet their criteria of quality.

This is the problem with the review system. It isn't some unfair bias. It's the demographic. The review system has been tailored to the demographic because the demographic is what supports it. That is why it has always been said, "find some reviewers who share similar tastes and stick with their opinions and recommendations".

And sorry. Sorry that metacritic will not work for wii games (in general). Sorry that a big gamer site will not favorably rate a casual or wii game (in general). Stick with the reviewers you agree with, or start your own Wiicritic meta-analysis to get scores which match the fanbase. As such, it doesn't quite exist outside of teen magazines or cosmo. But hey, where there's a need, there's a niche. Go out and create something, you wily entrepreneur you.

Go take a look at the traffic to the big sites like Gamespot and IGN and tell us again that they should be tailoring to their existing customers.

Yeah, they can continue to marginalize potential customers outside their base, but it's not a clever strategy.

The only solution to this problem is to separate the site into two areas. You guys talk like it's an easy thing to do. Just review everything based on different users. But there is a tricky line here. There is a significant purchase involved in making a recommendation. You go telling Halo guys that Just Dance has the same score and quality, and there will be a shitstorm. You don't understand the effects of what you are asking for. They are separate demographics plain and simple.

It's like wing a restaurant reviewer and saying, Johnny Chao's Golden Garden is a 10. Sure it's really unhealthy and everything is fried and greasy, but some people like that. On the other hand Lucky Wah is also a 10, but they serve a higher quality food, which other people like. In that kind of world where you interchange the demographic and blend them together, you have all 10 with no reason to score anything less other than speediness of delivery and price. It's not viable.

On the food point... imagine you are a reviewer, and you have a nut allergy. You go to a restaurant and get served nut roast. You give them a poor review because you are allergic to nuts. It may have been a great nut roast, but you'll never appreciate it for what it is because of that allergy.

 

Just Dance is a nut, and the reviewers are allergic to it.

The majority of people do not have nut allergies, so, a reviewer cannot have a nut allergy, otherwise it is a skewed review. He may give them a bad score however, if they gave him the nut roast after he distinctly told them he had a nut allergy.

Maybe you guys see the demographic as changing more than I do. I personally see the gamers as Halo fans, Starcraft, Mario, and MGS. To me, those people are still the majority of the people checking reviews and using those sites. I will do as Demotruck suggested and check those user stats, but I can hardly believe that those people are the same ones buying Imaginz pets, wii fit, and Just Dance. I could be very wrong. To me, that sounds utterly ridiculous.



Galaki on 23 February 2010

They could use the same score (100 points based) and could still score it for the compatible demographics. That's what the written part is for. It would explain the game briefly and tell readers what kind of game they are expecting and the score may not be taken at face value comparing to other game that is targeted at different demographics.

It's not hard, Just dance is as different from FPS as RPG is different from FPS. There are a lot of people that hated RPG but loves FPS.



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

Demotruk on 23 February 2010

Nobody said they were the same people. However, following the strategy of appealing to your base, which is what they've been doing, is preventing them from growing because that base is shrinking/leaving.



A game I'm developing with some friends:

www.xnagg.com/zombieasteroids/publish.htm

It is largely a technical exercise but feedback is appreciated.