>>58771759>where are the scores shitting on overpriced incomplete crapThis should be your baseline assumption unless you're profoundly retarded.
>>58771977Average isn't "objectively" bad because words mean things, sure, but when media consumption requires the expenditure of a nonrefundable resource (read: time) it inherently biases attention to "above average" media because anything less is a waste of that time by comparison; why the fuck would you bother wasting time on objective 3's and 4's if you could be playing objective 7's, 8's, or 9's instead? Therefore an objective 5/10 becomes subjectively "below average" because the threshold for relevance is "above average" to begin with, rendering an objective 7/10 "average" for this subjective criteria.
You're essentially arguing -against- a collective raising of standards that, objectively, benefits consumers including yourself... and the real issue isn't the perceived mediocrity of the objective 7/10, but rather the desperate shilling for objective 3's and 4's to somehow be considered 7's and 8's and even 9's.
tl;dr? An objective 7/10 is average -among media worth consuming- and this is a good thing; relaxing standards to the point that there are so few objective 7+ that 5/10 (or lower) must be settled for is a nightmare scenario.
>new craptchaHiroshitmoot needs to kill himself already.
