Bashing isn't my point, I'm hoping that's not what you thought I was pointing out; I'm just a bit confused I guess, Squilliam explained it to me: (It being why in the quaterly reports sites like metacritic were quoted)
I still don't get it though; before there was internet people had to wait for quaterly reports to make their investment decisions, to this day these reports put into english what a company is up to for the long term investor. Citing Metacritic would be like pulling a refference point out of the encyclopedia dramatica.
To be fair I'll do a contrasting argument.
A person refferencing VGC is wrong depending on the reason for reffering this site, if it's casually it's probably fine, if it's a monomedium then no it's not fine, VGC's method of tracking should be considered a guesstimate as much as NPD and Mediacreate, the core of this is because this site works on estimates that are realigned based on... quaterly reports.
A person refferencing Metacritic is wrong in both cases - using metacritic to gauge what the public opinion is of a product is just incorrect, because it appropriates a consensus without nailing down the share of the market they appropriated, it seems like it's such an in your face ommision that it is the best hidden fact in internet history. Because of the assumption about a generalization refferencing any summation of reviews will always be flawed, except in particular conversations where all parties want to delude themselves.
In the end, any consensus, IGN or metacritic or whatever that bases their content on subjective date is wrong, no matter how they slice and dice things. That isn't up for debate and to be fair there is a possibility of them being correct, however it's very narrow.
Just because a thousand people think the sky is falling doesn't mean it's falling.
"It takes a little bit of genius and a lot of courage to see where everyone else is going and choose to go in another direction." - AE
I'm Unamerica and you can too.
The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread:
