One review needs two plus points of views

The opinion on sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have been rather divided ever since they became a staple how consumers could voice their opinion. In principle, aggregate cites like them are best way to convey and give a median on hundreds, if not thousands, of consumers’ view on a given product. By having the experiences and musings of all these people, you should get an overall accurate image on the product, of its strengths and flaws. At the same time we all are aware how easily such things are swayed to a direction or to another. This is something these aggregate sites have had to struggle with since day one, and there really isn’t a good way to get around it. Every major “faction” tries to sway the ratings of the more visible titles, be it the industry, marketing powers, the consumers themselves or whatever sect’s having shit and giggles for that day, on the long run the aggregate sites will end up giving a decent idea on two different kind of score; the reviewer score and the audience score. The problem is, neither of them are reliable.

If we don’t beat around the bush, most modern professional reviewers are mostly paid and have an agenda. What that agenda ultimately doesn’t matter, as the end goal is to keep their job and not get the power that be mad at them. Shoot down a game or a movie that’s cost big bucks to make and piss off the right people, and you’re cut off from the circles. Ubisoft won’t invite you to press-only events to give you iPads and merch after you gave a 7 to their latest Rabbids game. I noticed during the last few Star Wars movies how the review narrative on the movies always started at the height of the hype. but after two years it petered out and to something that tried to cater to both overall consumer reception and view, and the what the marketing was pushing for. The Last Jedi probably being the best example with how it was sold as subversive and how the consumers simply didn’t get it, and with the arrival of Rise of Skywalker the same bits and bops the same people praised at first, were now called problematic and having quality issues in the storytelling. These distort the aggregate results rather strongly, especially when these industry reviewers have a small pool where to draw from.

At the same time, consumer reviews can range anywhere from thousand-page long essays to one sentence and maybe even word. While the reviewers who get paid to review have to meet some kind of deadline and word count, the general audience doesn’t. It’s easy to give short five cents and click how many stars you give something and be off. While consumers generally don’t get catered in special events like reviewers do, consumers are far more eager to drop extreme citing. It’s not rare to see someone dropping 0 or 1 due to whatever single stupid reason or because something else surrounding the product is not to their liking. At the same time you often get people who are, to quote a friend, ‘hype as fuck 10/10 bought three pieces and one extra for their dog.’ You know the type, people who will give a good review for the exact same reasons someone would give a bad review, yet have nothing to do with the product itself. Hell, positive or negative, there are Youtubers going through Steam reviews and making fun of how bad some of the reviews are.

Both are capable of using bots and campaigns to drive the aggregate numbers to whatever direction, so the point is rather moot. With high-profile movies and games it’s more an issue which one will be doing it more visibly and who will get caught first. Tweaking review numbers is silently accepted as part of the whole deal, and in the end nobody really trusts any number a reviewer givers. Which is why I don’t use a rating scale.

The Internet has made the profession of a reviewer rather moot. Everybody has something to say. Some people come across and are more educated on subjects they discuss, perhaps even have worked on projects or are still working in the industry itself. Some have jackshit knowledge where the chicken pisses but naturally can pin point positives and negatives like no other all the while bringing something new to the table. It’s rather common to become blind to your own industry the more you’re with it, how the eyes of a professional may make things sheen in pig grease and swoop down like a striking lightning, but have lost the touch to the grass root level end-consumer who just wanted a anime tiddies and a not a shitty metaphor. Nothing’s fool proof, and often it takes a fool to point out all the flaws the highest levels of professionals missed. The same applies to any industry and it can be seen on these aggregate sites, where individual consumers have far better points, plus and con, just by intuition over people who are used to analyse everything in Shakespearean terms.

There are numerous Internet reviewer sites and individuals who do both entertainment reviews and serious reviews. James Rolfe would count as both depending on what show he is doing. If his views or tastes aren’t to your liking, there are a whole lot more people that probably do. That’s one beauty the Internet has brought is; we are able to find like-minded people who may know more media we might enjoy. You might find fellow fans to share your fun with. However, at the same time we should consider outside views and what others are valuing in their media. After all, the only way to mock someone properly is to first understand what they’re saying.

Very few works of art and entertainment can claim to have objective categories in which to review and evaluate a work under. Because most of the entertainment, art and media overall is an expression of one or many, we often get something that intentionally breaks the set rules. We’re forced to evaluate outside the given parameters. Even with objective rules in which we are to evaluate something, every person will get slightly different result either due to personal experience with past productions of similar kind, or simply understanding the basic set of rules every so slightly. It is rather uncommon to see two people agreeing that, for example, some movie is absolutely fantastic, but for completely different reason. In discussions like this

Aggregate sites have acknowledged the divide between professionals and consumers, and how their world views differ. In some cases this has come to a point where the reviewers end up doing reviews that are more aimed at the industry, this being part of the whole losing-touch-with-consumers thing you always want to avoid. At the same time fellow consumers mostly likely know what at least part of the rest of people who need to pay for these products want and value. There’s a divide between the two roughly-made factions and it will not go away as long as anything like the Internet exists. In many ways, the professional reviewer is an obsolete beast, relegated to exist in certain circles in some manner, but eclipsed by a Joe Everybody with his own Youtube channel. Take the Australian electronic channel EEVblog as an example. Not only you can find reviews, but reviews that will tear down into the electronics and how they work. EEVblog is bit of a cheat, as the Aussieguy who runs it has a history with electronics industry, and it shows. However, at the same time is also a consumer. When the two worlds collide like this, magic happens. The fact that the Internet is full of people like this, and in ever increasing numbers, the traditional outlets are in a losing battle. Hell, if we manage to get into a situation where most reviewers are independent of the industry and its systems, the companies’ leverage could be almost ignored.

With some of the latest movies and TV shows Rotten Tomatoes has taken their stance to change how the calculate the scores as well as have been resetting the scores. While it’d be easy to credit malice and intentional skullfuckery with the score, like with the recent case where a ResetEra user went and review bombed a game, there are more cases where the user score simply tanks because the general consumer really does not like something and deems a movie or game to be low quality. Recently Dr. Who‘s latest season hit a record 0% audience score, but the score got reset and now sits somewhere in the thirties. Often a low score or a tanking score gets people suspicious, but nobody seems to talk about how a quickly rising score is just as weird. While aggregators do have a requirement to test methods to seek out bomber bots and the like, when aggregates begin to curate any submitted results, the whole point of aggregation becomes moot and the end-score won’t reflect the actual score.

Rarely a site or a news source providers you with more than view in a review. Some gaming magazines used to do this, and Japanese Famitsu still has multiple people reviewing the same game. The amount of text they cram into the page may be short, but the fact five different people can give some kind of points of comparisons at the same time is commendable. It’s like in Interspecies Reviewers, same thing really. Perhaps it’s cultural, perhaps it’s that most outlets don’t exactly have the time and money to have five people watching or playing something at the same time and separately submitting a review.

You know what I personally expect from reviews? Different approaches. The best reviews I’ve ever read and watched approach same point from three different angles, often utilising knowledge gained from surrounding matters, first-hand experience and what I call wildcard vectors. This way of examining something from multiple points of views should give more insight on hows and whys, as well as compound all the positives and negatives in proper manner. A negative point may still be negative, but at least one of the three approaches can understand and even appreciate that negative element.

Monthly Music; Elemental Master

Kick up that bass and listen to the whole Soundtrack. That’s some damn fine Mega Drive FM music. I recommend listening to music from Stages 2 and 3 at least

TechnoSoft used to be one of my favourite game studios out there. Well, that’s not exactly correct. A lot of games I enjoyed were made by TechnoSoft but I had no idea about that. I miss the days when only Nintendo games existed. Nobody cared who or what made the games. We saw no faces, just the logo of the company and that was often enough. Hell, the consumers didn’t even know about Nintendo being a Japanese console to a very large extent. It might sound laughable now, but it doesn’t matter worth shit where or when the company is from. It’s equal discrimination; everybody gets the same treatment without any special favours. Of course, the hardcore knew and will always scoff at people for not knowing things he does. Then we always have to ask how much that matters, which results in an immediate answer of It doesn’t. The thing goes both ways, naturally. Some people are walking encyclopaedias of sports or music. Some know wood or steel, and some can list all the stars in the sky. Different people have different interests.

However, the moment the developers began act like super rock star vampire killers, they forgot that fame also brings infamy. Being on the spotlight is something you need to practice and master. If you’re going to call the people you’re developing and selling your products for idiots or anything else negative, be prepared for the consequence. Of course, you don’t need to say anything positive about them, but it’s better to have good relations with the people who pay your salary.

For the last to weeks or so I’ve wanted to make a post about something nice, something very positive and perhaps even mood lifting, but as usual the events have gone against these plans. The situation in Ukraine has been rather alarming for a long time now, and things are getting worse all the time. That is news that you should pay more attention than on what the video game industry is or is not doing. They’re completely worthless in comparison to the real and evident armed conflict in East Europe. If we’re to speak at a ground level, An entertainment industry like electronic games, despite being a million dollar business, is worthless thing compared to numerous lives lost and the tension the event is putting between Russia and their Western friends. However, I am not the right person to speak of the event in any greater detail. All I can wish for a quick and satisfactory solution for the Ukrainian situation despite recognizing how impossible that is.

However, despite that I do need to continue handling the events that are going on with the hobby most of my readers share with me. The game industry has seen brighter days, and it seems things have just gotten not just more ridiculous but also far more offending towards the customers. The corruption and denial has smeared the whole gaming press with a red paint and the press is not even trying to wash the paint off. They would rather smear more paint on themselves in an angry motion. Many developers have voiced their support for the larger industry despite the shown corruption rather than distancing and making a statement not to follow suit. It’s not surprising that the industry refuses to speak of the matter. After all, it would mean that they would admit being corrupted and using relations to screw with the market. Sometimes quite literally.

The industry, both developers and the press, has now attacked their customers directly. Nintendo with their condescending attitude towards the very people who made them successful and ditching people who are ready to suck up over every little thing they do. The press has been voicing their want to end the gamer.

If the industry would end the gamer, then who is left in the market? Any medium has their consumers. Books have readers, TV and movie have watchers, and games have the people who play. The only reason the industry would even want to annihilate the gamer is if they want to redefine what a game in itself is. The problem is that the industry can’t define what a game is. That is the customers’ right and duty.

That said, there are numerous different sites and sources stating the same thing; death to gamer, death to our customer. This is not a coincidence, but further evidence how deep the incestuous relationship between any and all people in the industry is. It’s also completely apparent that all of these posts are based on the same idea and core, something a PR company would do. I would not be surprised if a PR company was behind driving the press’ and developers’ agenda further. and putting all blame on the customers. This won’t go well; an industry can’t exist without its customers. Perhaps we, the gamers, should end the industry. No, not perhaps. I would be glad to advocate the complete and total devastation of current electronic game industry if it meant a complete clean slate that would allow a healthy industry to grow from the burnt ashes.

Perhaps it’s the macro-economics that is allowing all these social justice people into the industry. Because the industry can’t deny their entry, they’re able to install their politics into games. It’s no wonder that games with political content with a driving message have a lousy success. It’s bullshit anyway. The whole social justice warrior group consists nothing short of social rejects with no real life, and these people are forcing their degenerated views on people who don’t give a damn about it. The mainstream has far more healthy view on issues than a tumblr users in their own little circles. The saying Go get some fresh air would apply to these keyboard warriors perfectly.

The customer has all the power in this event. By ignoring the developers and the press altogether and bringing forth more information on issues with the industry, the customers are able to voice their stand on the issue. Discussion needs to encouraged, but the most important thing the customers can do is vote with their wallet. On the long run any and all industries need to bent over the lack of money, or wither away.

Electronic game industry has failed at customer service with devastating results to their image. That said, why the hell are the game players called gamers? Readers and watchers, players would make complete sense.