X

Sessler's Soapbox: The National Review of People

Posted: April 12, 2011
Sessler's Soapbox: The National Review of People
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/52351/sesslers-soapbox-the-national-review-of-people/
http://images.g4tv.com/ImageDb3/267041_LGST/soapbox-4-12-11.jpg
Video_52351
Adam discusses the controversy over Metacritic's developer/people pages.

Comments are Closed

  • fanime2

    I would've raised my hand, but a) no one would see that I was doing it and b) I would be lying. The world has gone crazy, Sesslah!

    Posted: April 12, 2011 10:32 PM
  • tonedef11

    Time to shave the dome, Sessler! Donald Trump, you are not, nor should you want to be. Embrace the baldness!

    Posted: April 12, 2011 10:27 PM
    tonedef11
  • Fusion13

    I don't like scores on anything unless it's a real numbers coming up by % of critics likes and dislikes, and the audience like rotten tomatoes. If they want to know how good a person is then really learn what they do and how they help with the their part of the project..

    Posted: April 12, 2011 10:01 PM
    Fusion13
  • Atavax

    completely disagree with adam here. Metacritic doesn't assign values to people/games anymore or anyless then critics do. It appears that Adam is afraid of math, and doesn't trust math. He has no problem with a reviewer giving a game a 4/5 but when metacritic gives a game a 80 because it used math to do so, Adam thinks its an abomination.

    What happened to Adam's supposed love for democracy? Meta-critic works very similarly as democracy, if it is good enough for tabulations of votes to decide who does and doesn't run our government, and if laws get passed or don't, why isn't it good enough to rate videogames?

    Posted: April 12, 2011 9:40 PM
    Atavax
  • Zzanzabar

    Adam, what did you really expect? Gaming is about entitlement. That is to say by its very nature, gaming validates a person's worth in a way that no other system or art form does. With the advent of 'achievements', awards, and on-line gaming many people can assign 'value' to what they do. It is not considered a 'waste of time' even though not one thing is really produced or changed.

    Suddenly anonymous individuals suddenly feel that they matter AND that they have the right to evaluate and 'score' what they do (and what other people do) simply because they have purchased,played and have gotten good at a game. Now some people whose opinions were heretofore considered irrelevant such as teens or the socially 'awkward' now believe that they have a voice. Of course rating or 'scoring' people is going to be the next step. Once you let the genie out of the bottle you cannot stuff him back in again simply because you are afraid where this is all leading.

    Unlike, literature, music or even a stellar piece of artwork or a movie, gaming cannot produce many 'life changing' moments outside of its medium. It can only produce a temporary sense of accomplishment that needs to be evaluated with some type of rating system.

    Posted: April 12, 2011 8:00 PM
    Zzanzabar
  • Mike F.

    G4 has a subtle beef with Metacritic. They try so hard to stay relevant and to make X-Play matter to the overall gaming community, then Metacritic doesn't even count their scores to the overall rating.

    Let them rate people, who cares.

    Posted: April 12, 2011 7:53 PM
    Mike+F.
  • CareyGrant

    Wow! The Sess is pissed, and rightfully so; I'm right there with you.

    However, don't we already "score" industry creative-types based on sales, units sold, profits and like?

    I agree: Metacritic assigning a numerical score is both arbitrary and ridiculous, not indicative of the person as a whole.

    Posted: April 12, 2011 7:48 PM
    CareyGrant
  • theantigzus

    i give adam a 97 as an editor in chief/ geek, i give sarah underwood a 100 as a hottie :)

    Posted: April 12, 2011 7:30 PM
  • XwingVmanX

    As someone who is trying to get into the industry this does concern me, my only hope is that they only rate the people that would the leads on a game and hold there score accountable to it.

    Posted: April 12, 2011 7:25 PM
    XwingVmanX
  • hito157

    100% AGREED with you Adam, this is not a good sign...we already removed Hitler; we dont need this in the 21st century

    Posted: April 12, 2011 7:18 PM
    hito157
  • theantigzus

    i give adam a 97 as an editor in chief/ geek, i give sarah underwood a 100 as a hottie :)

    Posted: April 12, 2011 7:18 PM
  • Elliott_Ness

    Yup, it is a harmful practice that can have serious ramifications on real world employment.

    To be fair it is done in schools at all levels that somehow the grade given to you is your worth as opposed to this is the body of work given, this is how it was tested and this is what he/she got.

    Nobody meticulously looks the similarity of the test to a real world scenario then look at how the person did. We just slap a grade the person s a** like meat then send them off ..*POW* FIRST CLASS HONOURS!

    BTW: Adam youre career gets 65 out of 100 ;p LOL LOL *joking*

    Posted: April 12, 2011 7:11 PM
    Elliott_Ness
  • Elliott_Ness

    Yup, it is a harmful practice that can have serious ramifications on real world employment.

    To be fair it is done in schools at all levels that somehow the grade given to you is your worth as opposed to this is the body of work given, this is how it was tested and this is what he/she got.

    Nobody meticulously looks the similarity of the test to a real world scenario then look at how the person did. We just slap a grade the person s a** like meat then send them off ..*POW* FIRST CLASS HONOURS!

    Posted: April 12, 2011 7:07 PM
    Elliott_Ness
  • Elliott_Ness

    Yup, it is a harmful practice that can have serious ramifications on real world employment.

    To be fair it is done in schools at all levels that somehow the grade given to you is your worth as opposed to this is the body of work given, this is how it was tested and this is what he/she got.

    Nobody meticulously looks the similarity of the test to a real world scenario then look at how the person did. We just slap a grade the person s a** like meat then send them off ..*POW* FIRST CLASS HONOURS!

    Posted: April 12, 2011 7:03 PM
    Elliott_Ness
  • djboogymonster78

    This has been happening for years, its called a credit score. You may or may not be the "same person" that defaulted on a credit card 15 years ago, but I guarantee, a potential employer will hold it against you.

    (Not saying that it should be this way, just pointing out the similarities.)

    Posted: April 12, 2011 6:51 PM
  • cwbys21

    Adam used the example of someone just out of college working on a bad game because he was new, but to use, I think, a better example is Blizzard. They have had lots of people leave the company to start their own. Imagine someone leaving Blizzard, and because he has a career metacritic score of 91 he gets 10 million dollars from EA to make his own game instead of someone else who may be more worthy, but because he didn't work on such well known products at a top of the line developer (which, as much as we don't' like to admit, does influence the way we perceive games) he has to work on a shoe string budget for a no name publisher and now has very long odds against him that his company will become as successful as it could be.

    Posted: April 12, 2011 6:28 PM
    cwbys21
  • neoadvent89

    Your correct Adam society has an issue with trying to label everything.

    Posted: April 12, 2011 6:22 PM
    neoadvent89
  • Inaccordance

    http://www.ratemyprofessors.co m/

    http://www.ratemds.com/

    http://hotornot.com/

    I'm inclined to agree with you, Adam, but I wonder if we might be in danger of being hypocrites. The general populace seems to value these rating systems and uses them frequently, as evidenced by the success of websites supporting such systems. That doesn't mean they're good or fair, but they do give a prospective consumer, at the very least, some idea of what to expect should they choose to invest in a given rated good, service, or person.

    A major problem with any rating system is that it is subjective. Knowing this, one can and should take every rating with a grain (or many grains, as the case may be) of salt, but in the end, chances are they will at least be better informed than they were without such a system. It's a feedback mechanism.

    Rating values, I think, increase in reliability to some degree if they are associated with comments made by the rater and anyone rating anything should be required to provide, at a minimum, their real name. This would give us some inkling about why the rater evaluated the good, service, or person the way they did and some measure of integrity from the rater.

    Personally, I use rating values of games, salt added, as a guide (not THE guide) when deciding whether or not to make a purchase. I presume that I would use Metacritic's system for the same purpose, albeit with a much greater amount of salt and empathy for its creators.

    Sean

    Posted: April 12, 2011 6:11 PM
    Inaccordance
  • 5thGeneral

    I give this Feedback and 3/5 it was o.k.

    I give Adam Sessler a 3/5, he's not visually appealing enough and his voice is grating at times, he should also work out, he has good shoulders but very little muscle on them.

    All kidding aside. I don't mind the reviewing of people. When review sites call a game "bad" and give it a review that reflects the games badness, it's pretty much reviewing not only the game but the group of people that made that game. What if the audio engineer did a fantastic job on the game though? If you're a small developer with little resources, you go and check out the reviews and higher that audio engineer for your game. In a business sense it's fine, in my opinion.

    Posted: April 12, 2011 6:07 PM
    5thGeneral
  • KilledFirst

    Peoples performance can be rated, and is rated. Performance always carries a numbered value, but it is given internally by evaluation teams not by critics. I don't understand why this would be a concern considering these numbers are opinions from the blind. Meticritic is just a conglomerate of opinions by critics and not those who develop games. This scoring on people who work on games could only be used as office fodder and nothing more. If corporations looked at these scores and viewed them as having any value, why would anyone want to work for that business. If I was in an interview looking for a job and the employer brought up my Metacritic score I would immediately walk out of the interview. I would perceive it as an employer trying to short change potential employees. It would be an excuse to pay people less. I would also believe that those numbers for anyone who is not familiar to the media would intentionally have lowers scores paid for by publishers looking to hire, but at a cheaper price then they should pay them.

    Posted: April 12, 2011 5:38 PM
    KilledFirst
AdChoices