Measuring what, exactly?: Eight Point Eight

How on Earth is what I said Fan Myopia? I didn't refer to the game itself. The page itself perfectly describes what the trope is about. I really don't see the huge rush to rename it.

edited 21st Jul '11 2:42:39 PM by MangaManiac

Okay, I'm going to try a wick check here. I'm not fully familiar with the procedure thereof, so please tell me if this is incorrect. I'll take every fifth wick, and roll a die to see where I start (I got a 4, so I start at M.I.A.)

Correct (an outlier bad review generated controversy):

Applied Phlebotinum Blog (labeled as an inversion, but it's not)

Game Cola

Global Agenda

Mark Prindle

Monster Rancher

Reviews Are the Gospel

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button

The Nostalgia Critic

Winger Dinger Productions

Correct (an outlier good review generated controversy):

(none)

Incorrect

Bias Steamroller - no controversy

Final Fantasy XIV - no outlier

Gundam Vs Series - no controversy

Killzone - got a perfect score but some fans misunderstood the scale

Nintendo Power - no controversy

SF Debris - no controversy

Sonic The Hedgehog - no outlier

Sugarland - no controversy

Not enough context:

Chrono Trigger

Digitiser

Film In General

PC Power Play

VG Cats

So by my count, 9 wicks are correct, 8 are incorrect (not counting "not enough context"). That's would indicate that the page is frequently used simply for games that got a bad review, or got bad reviews in general, regardless of any controversy.

• Most* people don't know what Applied Phlebotinum refers to but it's still one of the largest trope trees on the site.

I don't see where the "outlier" rule came into this, because the trope page in no such way defines it as that, only marking it as one version of the trope. FFXIV is clearly a proper us, the game was heavy on the hype and then the 4.0 review knocked it off its high horse. "8.8" refers to incidents where a highly-hyped title gets a proportionally opposing score, or in the case of the namer, one that gets an overblown negative reaction. Previously proposed titles like "controversial review" do not work because the scenario is not restricted to singular reviews and does not always contain controversy.

edited 21st Jul '11 5:47:59 PM by Kanten

That's not what the trope page says, and indeed strikes me as a different trope.

There are basically several unrelated things on the page. (1) a game that gets mostly good reviews gets a bad one; (2) a game that gets mostly good reviews gets a slightly less good one and this results in a flamewar; (3) a game that was hyped before release turns out to not live up to the hype; and (4) complaining about reviews you don't like.

Going off the namer's case, the event is primarily a combination of #2 and #3. The Zelda case drummed up so much attention because it was the first major review released, in a series with a fanbase that is liable to scream bloody murder if a new game (especially one as hyped as Twilight Princess) scores under a 9. "8.8" eventually became a derisive nickname for the game itself on message boards. In a more recent event, FFXIV's hype train got utterly derailed by the first 4.0 review and "4.0" again became something of a nickname for it. A game needs a sizable amount of hype (or in the case of Kane & Lynch, major overreaction by the publisher) with an opposing amount of notoriety from said review or event.

1. 4 is already its own trope, so those examples are just flat-out on the wrong page.

edited 23rd Jul '11 6:20:43 PM by Kanten