You can tell quality miles away. It is not so subjective. For instance, you may have played GTA5, you may not be a fan of the game, but you would find it hard to dispute its quality. Production values. Same for the App Store, tennis champ returns. I'm not a strong fan of tennis but it is easy to see its a quality game. Same for plants vs zombies. When you use an iPad, you can tell the difference between that and a $20 tablet. Is that subjective?
Quality is subjective, I have to insist. It is not easy, by any means, to see that a game is a quality game. Much less to give an universal rating, that resonates with everyone. Let's move from games to movies. Transformers have high production values and most think it is a mediocre movie, while some think it is great. Now you have 12 angry man, which I think is one of the best movies ever made, while some think it is plain boring. Production value is not the same as quality on a game.
Hm I maybe confused on the production values. But quality is not so subjective. You look at tennis players, you can tell a good player and a bad player. I play racket sports, but if you would look- my hitting has no pedigree, my choice of shot is not so good, my body angles are all bad. Me vs Djochovich, is it really subjective? 12 angry men I would agree is a good film- but it also has a good degree of quality which makes it that.
Are you even comparing sports performance to art? Seriously? You can be much more objective(not 100%) on rating performance on those kind of games. The best player on tennis is the one who scores most and win most games, though this is not so simple. However try to compare tennis to soccer. Which is better? Or tennis to bowling? Can you see that it is very subjective? You see quality on 12 angry men, but some see low production values and a movie boring as hell. You can not rate it objectively.
Again, because of the subjectivity, this is why ratings should simply be likes. In the above cases, you might like 12 angry men and seeing that a few people like that film, I might then look it up and decide whether it's worth me watching it (I did, years ago and liked it too). Likewise, you might like a tennis player despite their stats not being so good, simply because they're fun to watch. Trying to score them based on your subjective views gives less meaning to their value.
I actually like the star system, but I totally understand why developers don't. It's too easy for a game's reputation to be sabotaged because 17 halfwits gave it one star solely because it requires a one-time IAP to unlock later levels or because it lacks MFI support or because they didn't read the spec and found out too late than it won't run on a 4S. I don't think there are any great solutions. The "like" idea isn't bad, but niche games which would might get 17 all five-star reviews would then miss out to popular games that got 400 likes, but in actuality were merely all just better than average. I personally believe that, as long as nobody can rate the game without writing a review to explain it, that's the best we're going to do. It doesn't take much time or intelligence to flick through what people have written to work out whether you feel their opinion is trustworthy. Maybe we're just lucky, but the UK app store tends to have a good stock of well written user reviews amidst the dross.
I think we have to agree to disagree. I can give umpteen examples, and you'd still refuse to see it. So best leaving it there (12 angry men see Rotten Tomatoes...)
Shawshank Redemption has the highest score on imdb. Do you think it is really the best movie of all time, based on that? Also, it is 10% lower rated on tomatometer on rotten tomatoes than 12 angry men but is 1% higher on audience score on the same site. Which movie objectively is better? And those scores is also subjective, by the way. We have to agree on disagreeing.
