Boutros said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Far from it. My post, and others on this site, draw attention to problems on Metacritic and in the industry at large. In fact, my post details a potential problem: us. I'm pooh-poohing this particular "problem," yes, but I'm urging people to think more broadly about bigger and more consequential problems. So I'm not sure where you're coming from.
And we seem to be arguing the same thing, I think? I think factionalism and parochialism make this Metacritic situation that much worse. You appear to believe the same?
Again, this comes down to whether you believe the petitioner and his supporters at face value or you don't. I don't, clearly.
But, again, your post doesn't make much sense. You bash me for assuming the worst in people, and then assume the worst in me?
Again - and this is something I've posted dozens of times before - we need to stop crying foul only when a Nintendo game gets a lowball score or when a Sony game gets shortchanged. We need to protect all consumers and the medium in general. We can't just make a petition when we feel our favorites are under attack. We need to demand better from ourselves and from critics.
|
What's your solution?
|
Sorry, it's tough keeping up with all the new posts 
My solution is three-fold. And it covers the three main players in this critical triangle: publishers, critics, and readers.
First of all, we need to erect a more powerful barrier between the interests of the publisher and the interests of the press. Journalists need to stop accepting gifts, stop fraternizing with publishers, and stop allowing advertising dollars to dictate scoring. There are so many examples of web sites and publications getting into bed with publishers and advertisers to secure exclusive interviews, advance copies, and other favors. With video game companies finding new and creative ways to screw us, we need an independent press now more than ever.
Second of all, we need better trained and educated journalists. We need reporters and reviewers who have studied journalism, who are familiar with rules of engagement and journalistic integrity. We don't need converted fanboys and fangirls. We desperately need professionalism in the media. And we need investigative journalism.
Third of all, we need a culture change among consumers. Readers need to understand that it's the job of a reviewer to inform public opinion, not reflect it. Reviewers are hired (or should be hired) because of their experience, their writing skills, and their knowledge of the medium. They are, in short, authorities on video games. So when an otherwise highly-rated game gets a relatively low score, fans shouldn't insult or invalidate that score. If anything, they should applaud diverse opinions and perspectives. After all, that's where the strength of Metacritic lies: its ability to draw together opinions from many different, sometimes antagonistic, backgrounds. It's not supposed to validate or invalidate a purchase, or provide ammunition in the console wars.
None of these things will happen easily, if at all. But it falls to us. If we don't like a publisher's strong-arm tactics, we should vote with our wallets. If we think a web site is publishing amateurish, misinformed articles, we should refuse to visit that site. And if we see our peers expecting critics to conform to some fabled "objectivity," we should set them straight.
