That is pretty much why I chose this forum due to the core of the topic having to do with rating systems and not specific to video games. I would rather have had it on a forum that that was video gamecentric but this ended up being more fitting. And I do agree, all systems will be flawed and unreliable in some way. But there are some that are more or less reliable than others.

Also as I mentioned, I am not a fan of using numbers and my was just an example. But, I do believe that breaking them up would be better, especially for ones not caring to look into the matter further. One variable may be more important compared to another. Alas, I have a feeling general consensus either do not care or disagree so might let the topic die off.

To be fair, my use of laziness was only due to you bringing it up. And it is correct, the priorities are what matter (although the inability to read more than 500 words I view as more of a social issue of laziness brought on by technology and other variables but that is for another topic). What I was getting at and I shall reiterate is that the current systems allow and encourage the use of unreliable and flawed systems. Whereas one, as a consumer, should be able to use a system that they can actually trust due to it being valid.

Now, with regard to your comment on my complaint of numerical ratings, you are simplifying the matter too much. It is not simply that I have issue with numerical system, it is that they are inherently flawed and borderline useless. Whether or not they are accompanied by a review holds little weight due to the focus is on the score. I even touched upon this in the beginning too--the reason why on websites the written reviews are not up front and the main focus is because they are just that, the afterthought. When you have a list of reviews with in large numbers, the score, and not even a hint of the review, that is wrong. They are designed in such a way, intentionally, to bring attention to the score and make that what matters. Which leads to the problem of well, the scores themselves are flat out broken.

So question of why one should care (since that seems to be the crutch of what you are getting at), it is quite simple. By accepting things the way they are, you are accepting that the "casuals" use a broken and unreliable system. Sure, people can care less and not be bothered and use a broken system. I personally would rather have the "casuals" use a more reliable system to get a better grasp or even make a choice leading to perhaps a better experience. In the end, the "casual" person will not have to be bothered of how damaging the current systems can be to businesses, careers, since ignorance is bliss. But I will finish with the last point because I assume you never finished reading or missed some of the points.

The assumption being made is that (to label and put into easy groups) we require the "elitist" role to be taken on my the consumer and the one that reviews. When in reality, there can be a "casual" friendly system where behind the scenes, it was provided in a "elite" sort of manner. For example, let us use a numerical system. Although I personally would not like this type but it illustrates the point. Since "casuals" tend to not be the ones to review (since they can't be bothered to put in the work to look into the matter apparently), it ends up being placed on the "elites". Now, since "elites" are differentiated by virtue of their willingness to put in the work, we can assume that added word into reviewing would be tolerable. So instead of having a basic, rate 1-10 and that is it; we can have a system that scores individually the game play, music, aesthetics, etc.. Now, it can go either one or two ways; you can either have the eye-catcher rating (the one in large numbers on the front page) have the average of all combined or show each one individually (guess you can have both, showing all but that may be too much information). You see, issues like this can be tackled in a variety of ways and can even keep them "simple" for those that do not care while at the same time, creating a more reliable and complex system.

In the end, I'd rather have some progress compared to accepting, borderline promoting the use of unreliable systems to those that know no better. Call what I said snarky if you will but you know what, I'd rather come off as "elitist" and wish to better the current norm than accept and be tolerant of people using a broken system to begin with.

P.S. See this quote form your post, "It's not that consumers don't have other options, it's that they often choose the EASIEST option because they just don't care that much." that view right there shows why I am not a fan of focusing purely on numerical ratings. Because the standard is so low that the numerical is the easiest instead of raising the standard but that is more of an issue of society.

Edit: @Iszdope, I am sure you might get to it at some point :) I have faith in you! Just gotta sit for two minutes or so and get through it. Afterwards, feel satisfied that you finished it and realize that you have forgotten most of which you read leading to annoyance and then giving up.

I think that instead of just accepting the standard, we should try to improve upon it. Consumers are far too complacent in their 'research' and rely on overly simplistic means of looking at a products viability. This has trained consumers into the way that they are because there is no push or desire to improve upon the current systems. Instead of writing it off as mere actions of the ignorant and naive, we ought to look for ways of determining why they are and try to counter it. Having such simplistic numerical rating systems in place that are open to abuse, corruption and unreliability is essentially say, "I give up, no point in even trying".

To further my points, one of the issues I brought up was the limitations of them and how they should me more inclusive and not exclusive in their variables. For example, the addition of bringing up the game play, the music, the story, etc. and have those account and not simply, 1 to 10 and use an arbitrary system. Hell, I would even argue that the inability for people to read something of this length (which is actually not even long) illustrates how lazy consumers have become. Of course many could simply not read this due to the topic, the disregard for its validity, or thinking it is pointless (or boring). In the end, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even if it is gradual, there should be a desire to improve and not become complacent because when it does, we all suffer.

I am a bit curious, in terms of game overall, what were you expecting before playing it? I have to ask because you were expecting something else with the narrator and overall, you were expecting something else. So I am just curious what your expectations were prior to trying it?

This is a really good idea for a thread. Not sure if mine merit any mention but here are two. One is a review and the second is a look at the development of the Elder Scroll series from beginning all the way to Skyrim (one of my first blog post so still getting use to it).

http://www.gamespot.com/profile/KazeNilrem/blog/bastion-a-beautifully-narrated-story-review/26054368/

http://www.gamespot.com/profile/KazeNilrem/blog/the-elder-scrolls-the-evolution-of-an-epic-fantasy/26036956/

Personally, my view differs from yours in terms of where I see gaming as a whole. If you had mentioned that two years ago, I would have agreed. But the waters are changing and it is for the better. We just need to start looking at how games are being developed and looked at by the gaming community. We have the uprising of indie games that focus on retro-stylized aesthetics with an oldschool feel. We have Kajima admitting to AAA titles not being as highly anticipated as before. We have companies being held to a higher standard now of quality and even PR relations.

In general, I sort of liken it to that of clothing style. There is the saying that styles of clothing go through a cycle and eventually repeat and I think we are seeing hints of that occurring now. At least for myself, I do see gaming moving toward how it use to be in past but updated. Given how in-tune gamers are now with video game releases and their respective company, there is much more of a push toward having a voice and in the end, companies will have to listen or they will lose money.

I will agree on the matter of DLC and personally, I do worry of the potential abuse of the system. It is a system that has benefits but also potential consequences if abused. Not so sure about p2p (pay-to-pay) since if anything, we have seen that the trend is actually to avoid them. P2P has been around for many years and in the last few years, we have seen repeated attempts and failures in implementing. Just look at the outcry from ESO; there are many gamers out there that are tired of it and companies have already seen that unless truly worth it, they will be forced to either drop p2p or drop the game. So although I do some problems arising, I do see it improving in many areas. Things like social media and forced online is merely a matter of accepting reality. We are becoming more connected and by next gen-consoles, expect all consoles to move toward being online required.

I am a fan of physical manuals as the next person but we must accept reality, it is a matter of nostalgia. The manuals of the past were done out of necessity whereas nowadays, they are done out of habit. With this sort of topic think we should really be asking ourselves is why we want them? If it is a matter of needing to know information on controls or other content, that can be included within the game. If it is a matter of information about the game such as characters, factions, etc., that too can be done within game (and often does).

Now, from my perspective, I would be more sympathetic if it is a matter of Collector editions and wanting something special (like artwork), that can and should be done via artbook. Special editions to do something more but in the end, they are just not necessary and are merely a costly nostalgic habit.