this is why i need more math.

Right now I am Pandora.com listening to music. The theory behind the song selection is ingenious: it uses metrics (and a hella back category) to find and recommend came based on those metrics.

This is one of the most fascinating bits of technology, and you can read more about it here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Genome_Project. I have no qualms endorsing this page (my roommate and I are pledging a donation). But this is solving a lot of problems in how to expand a category.

Pandora is one way that the music industry can do well, because it can expose you to new music acts and interests, and it’s clear from the mainstream advertising that it is viable. It’s not a perfect service, but what it delivers is greater than any competitor. And this is actually an article about video games, but Pandora is a good start.

Criticism of game news is a hot subject on the internet, so what the hell. Like any criticism, it’s flawed, the metrics are flawed (Twilight Princes 8.5 zomgwtfbbq). Yet the internet is at its best when transparency is prevalent. What if a game score never changed? Reviewers forever and always will have biases. I will generally trust a review from Angsty Gaijin when I take his biases into account.

But unlike Metacritic, which is the Rotten Tomatoes of gamedom, I propose a metric that measures both the critics response and the reviewers response. This way, a game’s score is constantly in flux; and ultimately, gamers can prevail. Game critics can say their peace, but their score will be waited.

What excites me more idea is about my thoughts on bias. I can’t ignore it. There is an average score that we all have in our mind. I consider Final Fantasy 7 to be a barely passable video game, Angsty Gaijin considers it the pinnacle of gaming.

Does that mean a score can’t be counted? Well, gamers take their shit seriously. The nice thing about metrics is that it can help with averages. I have to take Angsty’s RPG views with a critical eye, because I have a different point. He thinks Ocarina is ok, but to me it is the game my yardstick.

So the score will always change… yet a reviewers opinion remains valid. And sales remain sales, and it puts the power back in the hands of the consumer, the advertiser, and the reviewer.

And what’s the main idea of this. Person to person scoring. The score is like a dating site, almost. I may have tastes that match up with IGN editor Matt Cassamassina’s references and scores a bit more than angsty, so the score for Twilight Princess will reflect that (say a 9.3). Another person may take a dimmer view on the Zelda universe, and based on the metrics of past games their individual “predicted score” would change. Of course humans have free will, and they can fall in love with a game and change their scores. Maybe they’ll realize they’re falling out of love with an old genre, and it suddenly opens up new doors for gameplay. When everyone sees a different score, it means you can take what a critic says seriously, get your point across, and maintain a level of civility that is not existent using current scoring systems.

Invariably, a Halo lover may give that game their highest score. And a system recommends them Half Life 2 (a given). Say you rather detest that game, and the next game you recommended is Every Extend Extra. Suddenly you’re at Everyday Shooter, and then you’re at Guitar Hero, which leads a Halo player to Samba De Amigo.

Maybe it only makes sense to me. But I believe this system would guarantee higher sales on the increasingly digital catalogue of old games. It would push developers harder (never a bad thing) and critics are spared the venom and infamy of numbers, all the while remaining valid. It would make gamers better, make gaming smarter, and invariably lead to more money for gaming companies (even Midway and Ubisoft).

Try Pandora with something other than J Pop. It may become clear. I need more math…