One of the niggerfaggots on reddit put together some actually interesting stats

one of the niggerfaggots on reddit put together some actually interesting stats
wtf happened in 2007
or in 2010
we know reviewers are paid shills and that games in general are turning into complete shit, as proven by user ratings
was it zoomers entering the gaming space that did this?

Attached: 1642729357183.png (640x480, 43.23K)

boomers are old and jaded and hate anything new
zoomers find everything is corny or cringe and only care about social media

is this graph actually true?

The west took majority control of the gaming market from Japan with online shooters and sports.

There are way too many factors that can't be controlled for
Also is this taking every game and averaging the scores, or every review? If a billion people give one game a 10/10 and it's only worth the same as one person giving a game a 1/10 then your data has some issues. We would expect user scores to go way down over time as people review the thousands of bad games that exist out there

>2007
Same issue that ruined the rest of the internet, smartphones killing whatever was left of an entry barrier to the internet.

i didnt make the stats
i would assume it just takes every metacritic rating and builds an average, not individual reviews

1. Money-minded jew psychopaths realized that video games were printing money, and acquired the industry

2. High-speed internet access became common and AAA gaming shifted from a singleplayer focus to a multiplayer focus

3. The boomer coding geniuses began to die or retire, and were replaced by fresh CS grads who were paid fuck-all because (see 1)

I remember seeing another graph that tied the shift in vidya to Bazoingo Theory

could be... also maybe the indie wave on steam that took off about 2010
those games probably receive shit user reviews but most of them are not reviewed by professionals
so might also just be bad data
should take only games where both a reviewer and user rating exist

subprime crisis was the turning point, and the only way for magazines to stay alive was moving to what essentially is non-disclosed sponsored content by publishers

>was it zoomers
aaaaaand it's a shit thread, but thanks for participating

Well then there's you user score problem
Critics are far less likely to go back and review shovelware from 2005 but some guy online absolutely will do that
I think user reviews as a whole are consistent over time and probably trend a lot closer to critics

If the shoe fits wear it

so what do you suggest?
i agree that the shitstorm downvotes (no matter if done by chinks or angry kids or whatever) should be removed
i think it would required to calculate a new user-score per title (considering only user reviews within say a 6 month timespan) and then a new average user rating per year based on those values

I did the same about a year ago and found similar results

Attached: Metacritic1.png (701x377, 12.92K)

Attached: Reviewer score bias.png (640x562, 25.21K)

Attached: reviewer bias 3.png (799x598, 36.61K)

The end of my results

Attached: reviewer bias 2.png (647x473, 16.82K)

>game critics
>game critics
lmao, are those developers, art directors or known workers in the industry?
or just some fat ass manchild youtuber or self-claimed gamer/gamer journalist?

Attached: 1522110506392.gif (229x176, 977.63K)

2010 and onwards is when mobile cancer took over and their game design practices leaked onto PC and Console games. Back then you only found gacha in shitty flash games on your phone, today you can find gacha in full priced PS5 games.

did you write a thesis on this shit or what

I feel like there was a lot more shovelware back then, just a lot of shameless cash in games, like so many movies and tv shows and whatever had games, you don't really see that as much anymore. That's probably why it was so low back then

No. I made a youtube video with it instead but mostly it was just to show Any Forums.

i'd assume it's largely due to newer games getting way more user reviews in general, dragging the overall average down in the process.

>that year
GG totally wasnt about journalism though nope.

post the link fren i wanna watch