"Hey, can I get a fair and honest rating for this game?"

>Oh no, I asked for opinions but I didn't want these ones

You really want to give people the benefit of the doubt, when by now you should have learned that's exactly what some people are here to take advantage of.

You might think you sound reasonable and even noble, but you wind up sounding not simply naive, but maliciously misleading.

Complaining about getting ratings when asked for. 0/10

I'm genuinely amazed you managed to interview a caveman, OP.

Bruh, you sound like a paranoid psycho. Is actually right. Are you sure you've been here long enough to think every single opinion is out to get you?

Stop being a crybaby that can‘t handle critism.

But if your base assumption is only predominantly favorable reviews are genuine the undertaking of asking for feedback is crippled and futile from the start, you need to find the problems to improve.
I agree the last three ratings are shit because they lack almost any usable information (aside from that the single negative reaction datapoint), but the first point is valuable data, and helping you even if the weight of the points were overstated.

Why ask for feedback if your outlook is that "jaded"? Wouldn't it be naive to have asked in the first place? You can't be that thin skinned that a small negative sample size awakes you to a all people are shit outlook.

>jaded ratings are what we're known for!
>you should respect our warped views and scheming!

Why should I respect the worst posters on this board? While you might have rushed in your attempt to try and defend negativity that arises from simply negative people who are only here because nowhere else will tolerate them, take a look at what you are doing.

You're defending a hypothetical post under the view that we should treat and react to every post as if it were made with good intentions. The only people I could imagine would wish for that level of naive interpretation are the very sort of people who hate the idea of their negativity being brought under scrutiny.

I didn't know you were talking about Veeky Forums specifically. It doesn't really matter.

Your task lies in effective data interpretation.
You need a sufficient sample size.
You need useful criteria that help you in assessing your game.

>Any negative feedback is wrong and will be discarded.
Is not a useful criteria for you to filter your data. The foregone conclusion of that is only "my game is good". You ask the question to determine if it is good or not.
A post may be genuine or not but you have no way of verification.
Ok, you are aware of factors that might skew the outcome (towards positive and negative). That is why you have a margin of error and attempt to widen your sample size as far as possible to average out the biases.

And even if the arguments you see are overstated in weight, they still are quantifiable as +/-. And that much information will be genuine, as nobody in favor will flip his review to negative or vice versa.

Criticism involves saying not only what they don't like but also why. There is no why in any of those complaints. They're just noise and are completely unhelpful. If the 3/10 had said exactly what he doesn't like about the flavour and went into detail about the mechanics and why they don't work or why they conflict or why they're unbalanced, then it would be criticism. But he didn't, and it's just noise.

And what is the incentive to "scheming"?
user encounters feedback request for a game I assume isn't final and at the marketplace.
What is his incentive to scheme and bash the game? He may be a contrarian, he may be subconsciously searching for a negative emotion outlet. But that is just anons base disposition he is going to have when encountering games and represents his decision making process when encountering and judging games. Valid point of data for user as part of the gaming demographic. user has ulterior motive to his taste and temper. user isn't out to get you.

3/10 can include a reasoning that has been abstracted out because it's an example quote. In fact when described as "nitpicking about the mechanics" I interpret that as verbose enough to contain reasoning.

>I interpret that as verbose enough to contain reasoning.
That's fair.

>-5/19 Only French people and retards would enjoy it

>"Any negative feedback is right and will be accepted"
>Is not a useful criteria for you to filter your data. The foregone conclusion of that is only "this game is bad".

Notice how it can be flipped to actually address what we're talking about here.

No one said anything about dismissing all criticisms. What is being directly and currently discussed is people with obvious biases providing skewed ratings when asked for fair ones. This is a common issue on this board, a symptom of long standing feuds combined with plenty of ulterior agendas, with a large smattering of simple venting and trolling, all thanks to anonymity and often thanks to biases from the moderation as well.

While this may be better than the overwhelming positive atmosphere you might find on sites like Reddit, there's no need for a false dichotomy of "either skewed heavily negative or skewed heavily positive."

I really don't think you understand what "fair" means.

Nitpicking, as defined as "looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, especially in order to criticize unnecessarily".

The fact that you're going out of your way to try and defend "nitpicking" makes me really wonder why you're so invested in trying to excuse a hypothetical naysayer.

Is it because it's hitting too close to home for you?

That's fair for a pillowbiting OP obviously hoping to talk about his baby who gets so butthurt when people offer criticisms that he makes a thread absurdly lampooning them in a pathetic attempt to save face. Note that this thread wouldn't be necessary if the anonymous OP wasn't somehow tied to his halfbaked retail product.

>That's fair

I don't think you understand what "fair" means.
>a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism

I was not defending the act of nitpicking.
I was criticizing declaring potentially valid points to be nitpicking, as individuals value points differently.

I also have an "involved" writing style that makes me look like I'm going out of my way in all languages, instinctively flex my vocabulary. Also training english.

My motive is entertaining myself with Veeky Forums discussions. Wrote the second post, got (you). Continued because was talked too.

>"7/10, I like the flavor and tone and I'm going to cherry pick about the mechanics."
OMG NOT FAIR!!!! BIASED!!! AS A TRUE RADICAL CENTRIST LIKE MYSELF EVERYTHING IS A 5/10 NOW WRITE DOWN 3 PROS AND 3 FLAWS OR I'M GOING TO SEND YOU TO THE EXTREMIST'S REFORMATION CAMPS!!!!!

sounds like it's not very good, op

You sound like you're underage and hoping to not get caught.

That's too bad I guess?
Why would one have to hope to not get caught though? Parroting the current memes is good enough for perfect cover, and most attractive for the kids anyway.

As they say, turnabout is fair play. OP's clearly into rough trade anyway.

Nitpicking is the nitpicking of criticism's criticism.