Jtan21

@HoboZero said:

If you are a 'trusted' review site on an aggregator like metacritic, do you think you have some responsibility to calibrate your scoring with other submitters? I'm of the ilk that would LOVE to see all review scores simply go away, to be sure, but shouldn't any site that submits to metacritic for the pageviews (and really, that is the ONLY reason a review site participates in metacritic aggregation, for the linkbacks) have a responsibility to score even remotely similar to other sites?

For example, what if my scoring range is 1-5. 1 for every game that runs without exploding, 2-4 for revolutionary, life-altering experiences, and 5 for Resident Evil games, regardless of quality. I mean, just like Tom Chick, these are my Honest Opinions, and I am being up front about them - but they're also not what ANYONE ELSE on the aggregtor uses when scoring, and adding my data will just muddle and already obfuscated system.

I guess what I'm saying is: when you submit to an aggregator you're really saying "My score is as accurate as everyone elses"... well, maybe not 'saying'... 'inferring'? Seems like there's an ethical responsibility to calibrate with the consesus. Or not, that's just, like, my opinion, man.

Score Halo 4 One Potato out of Five Watermelon Starbursts for all I care, but don't submit it to metacritic. Problem solved. Whole issue feels like a case of 1st Degree Sh*t-Stirring.

I give this comment 1/5 stars

No, I don't think you have that sort of responsibility to calibrate with others. I think it's valid for reviewers to use different criteria from each other to review games; I think their only responsibility is to stay calibrated within what they have stated as their own criteria for reviewing games, so you have a good idea that each score means for that reviewer. If reviewers submitting to Metacritic are obligated to calibrate their scores with other sites, that would be promoting groupthink, which is definitely not desired in a field that primarily relies on opinion. Reviewers' review scores should be evaluated in the context of the content of the review as well as the context of the general tendencies of each reviewer, which of course, makes the overall Metacritic score not very informative beyond a very general sense of a game (which is all it should be used for).

So I'm choosing between getting this edition or the NBA Jam for the 360 that came out before this one. Any advice on which one I should get? I'm looking to mostly play this offline with some friends who I live with and are into Jam.

This is a several part question, so bear with me. I've kicked around an idea in my mind about the evolving role of online communities and technology in general in people's lives. So the main question I am pondering is that if you had to come up with a list of the most important people in your lives, would someone you had only met through the internet, like say in a community like this one, be able to be high on that list?  
 
Often, parents start out at the top of this hierarchy of important people, and gradually close friends are moved into the hierarchy as well as romantic partners, as a person ages. However, I wonder, if an individual makes a connection with someone through an online community (platonic or otherwise), and the relationship grows sufficiently, could it be considered on par with the relationships the individual has with other close friends that were met initially in person? 
 
As an additional wrinkle, what about the influence of increasingly sophisticated online communication methods, like voice chat and Skype. Could Skype perhaps be an acceptable substitute to meeting someone face to face, since you are able to see the other person and notice the more subtle non-verbal aspects of communication? So maybe if Skype was involved, a person would be able to consider a friend made online as one of the most important people in their lives? 
 
Naturally, the only way this really could be sorted out for sure would be an empirical study, but does the idea that the Internet and its associated technologies has changed the way we make close friends hold any sort of water?

What I don't understand is why the PR group would lash out? It's not like he developed the game. Why do this for a single game and risk this kind of backlash?

Heh heh, I'm digging Nintendo continuing the theme of words used to describe urine as their title for consoles.

"

"

I remember being at DisneyQuest, sitting down to play NFS Underground, and this came out directly at my ears from the speakers on the headrest, and I sat there for a little, just listening:  

If they did the Dougie, it would have to either hew pretty close to the music video, or be a whole lot of freestyle. Because there's only like one part of the Dougie that gets done consistently by people who are doing it. Some Shakira would be funny because of the horrifying Dance Central community performance videos that would result from it.

" My first thoughts were NBA RPG. Don't try and stop me now, the dream is already seeded. "