That is to say, what about the people who didn't buy and play the game because they evaluated it and decided they did not like it? They are absolutely a 'no' vote on the game, but don't get "counted" anywhere.
Nah. I don't think that people who haven't even played a game get to have a vote on whether or not it's good. A restaurant reviewer doesn't get to review restaurants they haven't eaten at. A film reviewer doesn't get to review films they haven't seen.
But they can, all they have to do is register at MetaCritic, a fact that makes it absolutely worthless when I'm trying to evaluate the quality of a product.
The problem here, from where I'm sitting, is that we have people that look at what the critics on Rotten Tomatoes say, and believe it's gospel, and people that look at what the consumers say, and believe it's gospel.
However, if I'm looking to buy a game, I don't run straight to IGN, or GameSpot to see what they think of it. I don't run to Steam either, since I won't be using Steam to play it. If that's the only way it's available on PC, I'll pass. I think I mentioned this earlier, but I got this through GoG, or I wouldn't be here, and if the final product was only going to come through Steam, I'd pass. I do, however, trust what my friends might be saying about it. Even if, at the end of the day, we disagree. I at least know they aren't motivated by clicks. For example, I haven't clicked on a single link provided in this thread. I have also refrained from commenting on their content, since I have no idea what it is. I refuse to add to their view counts. Too many 10/10 reviews on games that I know personally sucked, and too many "this game sucks" when they mess up mechanics, or think it's "too hard".
