In the Cars section, it says, "... this may be the only case where this trope is potentially justified, as compared to everything else on this list cars and other vehicles are very expensive, and if you buy one the dealer isn't inclined to take returns."
How could it be justified to rate cars above average? From the consumer's perspective, if you see an overly generous review of a movie, buy a ticket, and are disappointed, then you've only lost a few dollars and a couple of hours from your day. But if you see an overly inflated review of a car, buy the car, and are disappointed, you've spent tens of thousands of dollars on a bad purchase.
I'm sorry, but in what school is a 70%-75% the average. Maybe 80%-85%, though anyond who scores that will certainly be disappointed
Pulled this bit from the restaurant health ratings example, because it had gone from explaining why it happens into "what This Troper believes they should do about it." I'm not usually too bothered by natter but it just didn't belong there.
- Until all the restaurants get so desperate for A's that bribery becomes common so that an A is even more meaningless? The point here is that there's no need for a scaled rating system, it should just be pass or fail. Do I really care if this place is super-ultra-awesome clean versus it's clean enough to eat at? No. I just want to make sure they don't feed me filth. Therefore only 2 states are needed; the whole A-F thing just confuses matters and opens up gateways for corruption because people are stupid. Not to mention it's just further proof that gov't needlessly complicates things.
Harley Quinn hyenaholic
This 'trope' should either be deleted (since it's not really a trope) or seriously cleaned up.
The examples list isn't packed with examples - it's packed with aversions, especially all the video game magazines, past and present.
Deleting this from one of the examples:
This is helped along by Famitsu ALWAYS scoring a adverts-important game (e.g. Final Fantasy) at LEAST 37/40, no matter how bad it really is.
Where was the evidence backing this claim? The only evidence I can remember was someone posting on some forum claiming that they met some Famitsu editors.
Hide / Show Replies
Someone is sneeking in some Square Enix hate here. EeveeLord deleted the folowing:
A not-insignificant number of those perfect reviews being of lackluster Square Enix sequels.
Deleted, esp. in light of fact that last perfect by Famitsu was The Legend Of Zelda Skyward Sword.
Edited by EeveeLord
Can someone clear up the Doctor Who entry and state the actual name of the reviled story and the actual "average score"?
Where's the evidence for this claim? I don't want to just delete the entire section below it, but this needs some sort of evidence beyond "we know the truth".
"But those of us who know the truth know that Gerstmann was fired for giving Kane & Lynch the same general score everyone else was giving because game companies always buy the reviews. IO and Eidos payed for a nice, lukewarm 6.9, but Gerstmann didn't deliver because he had too much journalistic integity!"
Edited by 68.2.141.132 Hide / Show Replies
It's called sarcasm.
It is shameful for a demon to be working, but one needs gold even in Hell these days.
Not really. Sarcasm that oblique shouldn't be an example. I doubt you're the first one to be confused by it.
See you in the discussion pages.
Yeah, although I could tell it was a joke, it's still really dumb, unfunny and out-of-place Natter even as a joke.
Previous Trope Repair Shop thread: Not Tropeworthy
, started by HarleyQuinnhyenaholic on Jun 1st 2012 at 5:20:54 AM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman