Are we destroying "our own" game?

[Merrigan]

It's not hyperbole if it's true. And take a look at the ratings. The "best" comparison anyone has ever actually managed to make puts it as equal to ARR's ratings in one single category. It is, by all measurable metrics, the worst expansion XIV has had.

I'm sorry in advance, but you'd have to be naive or acting in bad faith to think that ratings are good judgment tools.

Ratings depend on a lot of things:
- the absence of trolling. We're all familiar with games that are praised by fans, or on the contrary trashed by the anti-something crowd.
- Context. ARR clearly benefits from the ‘game revival’ effect, which, while laudable, must have raised a lot of people's ratings. DT, on the other hand, follows the end of a story arc that many enjoyed. Expectations were inevitably higher.
- And people's personalities. My ‘8/10’ could well be worth your ‘10/10’. There's no scale on these sites - so there's no effective rating. Some also tend to rate on the fly, after a quest that's delighted them, for example; oh, and let's not talk about those who skip the MSQ and only rate the combat content, or the others who focus exclusively on the MSQ and don't even mention the HL.

So no, ratings mean nothing. At best, it provides a vague indicator of what gaming represents at a given time, for a given culture, and for a given audience.

[Nothv13]

I'm sorry in advance, but you'd have to be naive or acting in bad faith to think that ratings are good judgment tools.

Ratings depend on a lot of things:
- the absence of trolling. We're all familiar with games that are praised by fans, or on the contrary trashed by the anti-something crowd.
- Context. ARR clearly benefits from the ‘game revival’ effect, which, while laudable, must have raised a lot of people's ratings. DT, on the other hand, follows the end of a story arc that many enjoyed. Expectations were inevitably higher.
- And people's personalities. My ‘8/10’ could well be worth your ‘10/10’. There's no scale on these sites - so there's no effective rating. Some also tend to rate on the fly, after a quest that's delighted them, for example; oh, and let's not talk about those who skip the MSQ and only rate the combat content, or the others who focus exclusively on the MSQ and don't even mention the HL.

So no, ratings mean nothing. At best, it provides a vague indicator of what gaming represents at a given time, for a given culture, and for a given audience.

Ratings on a small scale are indeed meaningless. As the number grows however, it does become a decent gauge on how well the item is being received. Further many of these sites that have user reviews actively remove obvious troll reviews. Metacritic has removed something like 1000 negative reviews for DT and it is still only around a 6.3. Further reviews often also contain (yes even the negative reviews) actual feedback. Plus if ratings actually meant nothing, then the game industry would not be putting such emphasis on them and even pay for higher ratings from professionals.

[Merrigan]

Ratings on a small scale are indeed meaningless. As the number grows however, it does become a decent gauge on how well the item is being received. Further many of these sites that have user reviews actively remove obvious troll reviews. Metacritic has removed something like 1000 negative reviews for DT and it is still only around a 6.3. Further reviews often also contain (yes even the negative reviews) actual feedback. Plus if ratings actually meant nothing, then the game industry would not be putting such emphasis on them and even pay for higher ratings from professionals.

The gauge is actually more decent on a large sample. It doesn't take away the context (since everyone involved is affected by it). As for the boxes, they rely on them when it suits them (inevitably); it's an instrument, not a proof of legitimacy.

Oh, and you'd also need a system where the other scores are hidden to be able to give an objective rating.