@JaxonH I think @Yorumi is saying that your picking the average as being that of the reviewers is a flaw in itself. You currently have two means (averages), and you picked the one that would prove your point. If on the other hand, you picked the user's score as the mean, all of the 10s would be ''wrong''. If anything, the user score should be the one that's used because many more 'voted' therefore you have a larger sample. Having a larger sample makes it closer to the population mean (The hypothetical average where every single person having played the game gave a score).
That aside, you cannot say that statistics will prove some to be 'wrong' and leave it at that. Statistics can prove some to be wrong with a % estimate. In other words statistics can make a claim while having an estimate of the chances of their being wrong. So statistics can claim that something is wrong and such, but the statement in itself can be wrong and is therefore not absolute.
All of this to say that statistics cannot deny the 0s that are present, if anything, they can be used in the opposite way but even there the argument wouldn't be absolute.
Tbh, I always thought there should be sort of two ratings for each Pokemon game: one for new players and another for those that already played the previous games (so generally long term fans).
In the first case, I think if someone picks up and plays a Pokemon game and loves it or dislikes it he'll keep his opinion no matter whether he would've started with another or not. For example, I started with B/W and Gen 5's now my favorite and I heard from so many other people that their favorite gens are the ones they started with. From this I would argue that new fans would likely love SwSh and give it high scores.
In the second scenario where users actually played past entries, they would obviously compare the new product with the one that was previously released. I could thus see how many wouldn't be satisfied with how SwSh turned out and voice complaints as they compare it with UsUm (I won't mention Let's go as it also removed a lot of aspects we were used to, so the last most complete verion we got was UsUm). This would be the reason for the low scores which I believe is also completely justified.
Yes the '0' scores are kinda harsh, but I'd argue a '0' isn't necessarily attributed to a broken/unplayable game, but also to a game that was advertised as a brand new experience with new models/animations but that ended up getting lots of cuts and being inferior to it's predecessor (UsUm). It's normal for past players to see the 'evolution' of the new entry, but if there's none or worse, less, then comparatively it would get a really low score. (Note that I'll admit that a zero is kinda too low, but there is still a reasoning behind their actions besides discontentment. Tbh I'd give the game a 2 if it were only in terms of evolution or, more accurately, improvements.) From this, I'd say as many have stated that the low scores are legitimate arguments and not 'review-bombing' (Also the ones that were cited seemed to have played past entries).
@Yorumi I also agree with your reason for removing a part of the dex. It doesn't cost anything for them to remove most mons and buisness-wise that would make each game more unique. If it were really about them remodelling/reanimating all mons then why not say that they'll include the nat. Dex in a future entry. (From what I heard apparently they actually stated that they will do the exact opposite and not include all mons in future entries though don't remember the source, so don't take my word for it) But whether that's true or not if they actually invest resources in remaking the models/animations why not add more mons from gen1 that were already made in let's go. Furthermore why make those models/animations so similar to the ones we were used to and even make such a question (of them lying) arise. They could've taken that opportunity to truly make the Pokemons feel 'alive'. Given all previously said it really feels like it was an excuse.
Comments 2
Re: Of Course Pokémon Sword And Shield Is Getting Review-Bombed
@JaxonH
I think @Yorumi is saying that your picking the average as being that of the reviewers is a flaw in itself. You currently have two means (averages), and you picked the one that would prove your point. If on the other hand, you picked the user's score as the mean, all of the 10s would be ''wrong''. If anything, the user score should be the one that's used because many more 'voted' therefore you have a larger sample. Having a larger sample makes it closer to the population mean (The hypothetical average where every single person having played the game gave a score).
That aside, you cannot say that statistics will prove some to be 'wrong' and leave it at that. Statistics can prove some to be wrong with a % estimate. In other words statistics can make a claim while having an estimate of the chances of their being wrong. So statistics can claim that something is wrong and such, but the statement in itself can be wrong and is therefore not absolute.
All of this to say that statistics cannot deny the 0s that are present, if anything, they can be used in the opposite way but even there the argument wouldn't be absolute.
Re: Of Course Pokémon Sword And Shield Is Getting Review-Bombed
Tbh, I always thought there should be sort of two ratings for each Pokemon game: one for new players and another for those that already played the previous games (so generally long term fans).
In the first case, I think if someone picks up and plays a Pokemon game and loves it or dislikes it he'll keep his opinion no matter whether he would've started with another or not. For example, I started with B/W and Gen 5's now my favorite and I heard from so many other people that their favorite gens are the ones they started with. From this I would argue that new fans would likely love SwSh and give it high scores.
In the second scenario where users actually played past entries, they would obviously compare the new product with the one that was previously released. I could thus see how many wouldn't be satisfied with how SwSh turned out and voice complaints as they compare it with UsUm (I won't mention Let's go as it also removed a lot of aspects we were used to, so the last most complete verion we got was UsUm). This would be the reason for the low scores which I believe is also completely justified.
Yes the '0' scores are kinda harsh, but I'd argue a '0' isn't necessarily attributed to a broken/unplayable game, but also to a game that was advertised as a brand new experience with new models/animations but that ended up getting lots of cuts and being inferior to it's predecessor (UsUm). It's normal for past players to see the 'evolution' of the new entry, but if there's none or worse, less, then comparatively it would get a really low score. (Note that I'll admit that a zero is kinda too low, but there is still a reasoning behind their actions besides discontentment. Tbh I'd give the game a 2 if it were only in terms of evolution or, more accurately, improvements.) From this, I'd say as many have stated that the low scores are legitimate arguments and not 'review-bombing' (Also the ones that were cited seemed to have played past entries).
@Yorumi I also agree with your reason for removing a part of the dex. It doesn't cost anything for them to remove most mons and buisness-wise that would make each game more unique. If it were really about them remodelling/reanimating all mons then why not say that they'll include the nat. Dex in a future entry. (From what I heard apparently they actually stated that they will do the exact opposite and not include all mons in future entries though don't remember the source, so don't take my word for it) But whether that's true or not if they actually invest resources in remaking the models/animations why not add more mons from gen1 that were already made in let's go. Furthermore why make those models/animations so similar to the ones we were used to and even make such a question (of them lying) arise. They could've taken that opportunity to truly make the Pokemons feel 'alive'. Given all previously said it really feels like it was an excuse.