| starcraft said: You're doing something similar to werekitten now in assuming that I am for a moment going to argue that aggregate reviews are objective. I have simply argued that it is more inherently objective than any other measure we have available. If you want to speak to truisms, find someone with a diametrically opposed view to your own, because that is not me. Your sales argument has a major, MAJOR flaw. Whilst it would be entirely accurate in a perfectly competitive market, the games market is missing one key ingredient of such markets: perfect information. Games are often purchased not because a consumer knows them to be of high quality, but because a consumer ASSUMES they are of high quality. |
You misunderstand my position then. You have done nothing to support the argument that they are objective at all. You continue to say it is more objective than anything we have, but you have yet to show how it is objective at all. Further, simply being more objective than any other measure is entirely meaningless. We could rate games entirely around the average number of polygons each character has and that would be perfectly objective. On the flip side being the best smelling pile of shit does not stop something from being a pile of shit. I do not see where you have shown that reviews should be considered relevant to the individual, or acceptable as a way to universally compare games.
For the record, I do not feel there is a remotely objective way to actually judge games. How do you compare a RPG to a FPS? Game length, interactivity in combat, multiplayer, and replay value are all wildly different by design. Sales show you what is popular amongst the masses. Critical reviews show you what is popular amongst game reviewers. Neither is more objective than the other.
