The BG Rating Scale is a bit odd

[Josh]

This is not new, I just have never figured this one out.  Say you are going to be objective and people fight.  A shiny sham-wow to the person who can tell me why.

Because they do not believe you when you say it.

Cheers,
Cam

Nope.  People don't believe lots of things and don't get fighty.  People only get fighty when they have a stake in being on what they fear is the losing side.

[Cam_Banks]

Nope.  People don't believe lots of things and don't get fighty.  People only get fighty when they have a stake in being on what they fear is the losing side.

Oh, I see. So you have an answer already, you were just trying to get us to see it.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

Nope.  People don't believe lots of things and don't get fighty.  People only get fighty when they have a stake in being on what they fear is the losing side.

Oh, I see. So you have an answer already, you were just trying to get us to see it.

Other than you (Cam) who has an obvious hope in reviews being inherently flawed, why do other people care?  What are they invested in?

What are they losing?

[Cam_Banks]

Other than you (Cam) who has an obvious hope in reviews being inherently flawed, why do other people care?  What are they invested in?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

Other than you (Cam) who has an obvious hope in reviews being inherently flawed, why do other people care?  What are they invested in?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.

You have a clear interest in keeping reviews from being effective.  Anything that keeps people from buying your game is bad for business.  Beyond the licenced property (and forgetting for a moment the quality of your books) you have nothing in particular to offer that dozens of other games don't also have.  So obviously you want to fight tooth and claw to keep down reviews.

The actual point is why do other people care? 

[Talen Lee]

The real question is "why all the fighting about it?"  Everyone wants to fight about objectivity.  

This is not new, I just have never figured this one out.  Say you are going to be objective and people fight.  A shiny sham-wow to the person who can tell me why.  

My two reasons would be that when cited for your uninformative and bad podcasts riddled with repetitive humour, the response is that you're personality-driven and yet when talking about reviews you are somehow a perfeclty unbiased font. The second reason being I've yet to see you produce a review worth the time.

[Cam_Banks]

You have a clear interest in keeping reviews from being effective.

False.

Anything that keeps people from buying your game is bad for business.

Nothing you've done so far has been bad for our business.

Beyond the licenced property (and forgetting for a moment the quality of your books) you have nothing in particular to offer that dozens of other games don't also have.

This is like saying that beyond the three of you and your opinions, analyses, and personalities, you have nothing in particular to offer that dozens of other podcasts don't also have. Which is to say, that's exactly the point.

So obviously you want to fight tooth and claw to keep down reviews.

I would actually like to see more reviews. I'm not fighting tooth and claw to do anything. What I've been saying is that I would rather hear your opinions of games (you, Zeke, and Meg), even if it's subjective and "what you like" as opposed to "what is good/bad" because that is A) more entertaining and B) more informative. I don't mind if they're negative or positive or mixed. I think your format is more conducive to that approach, your personalities are a better fit for that, and you don't have to constantly make assertions that you can't support in the process.

That way, you don't need a rating scale. People can listen to your podcasts, hear your "critiques" of games, and having already determined whether or not your tastes are similar to theirs, can make an assessment about the game and whether or not they'd been interested in playing it, buying it, or giving it a try at a convention. For some reason, you don't seem to want this to be the part of your show that is successful and interesting, even though I think that it is.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

The real question is "why all the fighting about it?"  Everyone wants to fight about objectivity.  

This is not new, I just have never figured this one out.  Say you are going to be objective and people fight.  A shiny sham-wow to the person who can tell me why.  

My two reasons would be that when cited for your uninformative and bad podcasts riddled with repetitive humour, the response is that you're personality-driven and yet when talking about reviews you are somehow a perfeclty unbiased font. The second reason being I've yet to see you produce a review worth the time.

OK.  Now why do you care?

And why do you think that being funny makes us more biased?

[Josh]

You have a clear interest in keeping reviews from being effective.

False.

Of course you do.  It is not financially in the interest of most gaming companies to have a well informed public.

Anything that keeps people from buying your game is bad for business.

Nothing you've done so far has been bad for our business.

OK, if you say so.

Beyond the licenced property (and forgetting for a moment the quality of your books) you have nothing in particular to offer that dozens of other games don't also have.

This is like saying that beyond the three of you and your opinions, analyses, and personalities, you have nothing in particular to offer that dozens of other podcasts don't also have. Which is to say, that's exactly the point.

Kinda.  Firstly we are good at what we do, so we differ quantitatively from other podcasts.  I don't mind being compared to other podcasts.  Second, we offer things that they do not.

So obviously you want to fight tooth and claw to keep down reviews.

I would actually like to see more reviews. I'm not fighting tooth and claw to do anything. What I've been saying is that I would rather hear your opinions of games (you, Zeke, and Meg), even if it's subjective and "what you like" as opposed to "what is good/bad" because that is A) more entertaining and B) more informative. I don't mind if they're negative or positive or mixed. I think your format is more conducive to that approach, your personalities are a better fit for that, and you don't have to constantly make assertions that you can't support in the process.

That way, you don't need a rating scale. People can listen to your podcasts, hear your "critiques" of games, and having already determined whether or not your tastes are similar to theirs, can make an assessment about the game and whether or not they'd been interested in playing it, buying it, or giving it a try at a convention. For some reason, you don't seem to want this to be the part of your show that is successful and interesting, even though I think that it is.

I meant keep the objective quality suppressed.  Opinions can be declared "wrong" and and doofus can have an opinion, muddying the waters.  Objective analysis on the other hand is a look at the truth. 

[Cam_Banks]

Of course you do.  It is not financially in the interest of most gaming companies to have a well informed public.

I think this says more about your attitude towards game companies than it does any actual reality of the business of game companies and their relationship to the people who buy games. It has nothing to do with my motives or aims or the reason I say anything here.

Nothing you've done so far has been bad for our business.

OK, if you say so.

Correct.

Kinda.  Firstly we are good at what we do, so we differ quantitatively from other podcasts.  I don't mind being compared to other podcasts.  Second, we offer things that they do not.

Apparently, you don't like people complimenting you on the things you do well, at least if it's not what you want to be known for doing well.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

Of course you do.  It is not financially in the interest of most gaming companies to have a well informed public.

I think this says more about your attitude towards game companies than it does any actual reality of the business of game companies and their relationship to the people who buy games. It has nothing to do with my motives or aims or the reason I say anything here.

Again, not really.  I am not giving my opinion rather stating fact.  Game companies have a bottom line.  Sell product, make money.  Companies should act in their own best interest and no one will fault them for it (ideally).  I understand that you need to sell books however you can.

Kinda.  Firstly we are good at what we do, so we differ quantitatively from other podcasts.  I don't mind being compared to other podcasts.  Second, we offer things that they do not.

Apparently, you don't like people complimenting you on the things you do well, at least if it's not what you want to be known for doing well.

I apologize, apparently I got used to communicating with other people.  I was reading more than you said.

Course the issue is still not addressed.

[Talen Lee]

The real question is "why all the fighting about it?"  Everyone wants to fight about objectivity.  

This is not new, I just have never figured this one out.  Say you are going to be objective and people fight.  A shiny sham-wow to the person who can tell me why.  

My two reasons would be that when cited for your uninformative and bad podcasts riddled with repetitive humour, the response is that you're personality-driven and yet when talking about reviews you are somehow a perfeclty unbiased font. The second reason being I've yet to see you produce a review worth the time.

OK.  Now why do you care?

Because six months ago I came into this community being promised brilliant gameology and by and large what I have instead found is hubristic masturbation. I have listened to podcasts that are ostensibly reviews that critique WoD for swearing too much then spend their entire time using a ratings system designed to let them swear. Because in a New Years Resolution episode about no longer simply relying on old humour, you relied on old humour. And because I think you can do better. You certainly have the attitude of someone who at least believes himself capable of recognising the failings in the podcast, in your own writing and in your writing output. You apply the title 'Brilliant' to the site, which I cannot help but think is supposed to be taken seriously.

And why do you think that being funny makes us more biased?

Excellently missed. I don't even think you're all that funny, so how could I think that plays into your bias?

You are personality-driven when that suits your aims (such as justifying podcasts full of non-content), and you are unbiased and objective information-dispensers when that suits your aims (such as justifying a ratings system that I think holds you back as writers). You are interested in the view and impact on individuals when it supports your views and dismissive of popularity when it fails to support those views.

It behooves you, if you are truly a brilliant gameologists podcast, to actually be brilliant. To not simply wear the title and smugly smile at yourself in the mirror of a morning as you reflect on how much better you are than those mere designers making full-time paid jobs doing something that you merely criticize. Be brilliant. So far, every critique I've given has been met with one of two responses from you: Either other people are doing worse, which is a good thing to recognise but not actually in aid of proving you to be brilliant, and this is actually great to the people who have told us as much.

Here's the simple answer so you can provide the pithy, one-liner response of 'well, that's your opinion', in however words you want to couch it: I think you can do better.

[Meg]

Ok, I said it on the last page, but I'll say it again:  Thank you Talen and Cam for your opinions.  They are valued and will be taken into account.  But you and Josh can stop now.  We get it, we've heard you.  We will not take all feedback and apply changes from it.  In the case of reviews, which this episode is about, there are pieces we may change and pieces we won't. 

Move along.  If you have different pieces of feedback, let's hear.  As for the pieces already stated- they've been heard.  Thank you.

[MilwaukeeJoe]

Move along.  If you have different pieces of feedback, let's hear.  As for the pieces already stated- they've been heard.  Thank you.

I have a solution to the Josh/Cam struggle.

Thunderdome!

(Sorry, failed my will save and couldn't resist....)

MilwaukeeJoe

[Cam_Banks]

I have a solution to the Josh/Cam struggle.

Thunderdome!

That wouldn't even be fun for the audience.

Cheers,
Cam

[Zeke]

Love ya cam. Let's do breakfast

[Cam_Banks]

Love ya cam. Let's do breakfast

You know that's a standing arrangement, man.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

I have a solution to the Josh/Cam struggle.

Thunderdome!

That wouldn't even be fun for the audience.

Cheers,
Cam

It would not even be fun to do.

But for the record, there is no "struggle." 

[MilwaukeeJoe]

But for the record, there is no "struggle." 

Very well... Thunderdome request withdrawn.

MilwaukeeJoe