[martin417]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

I think the numbers, no matter how non-scientific they are, say something else. It says there is a vocal minority that does not like the game. Here's what I don't understand about the rage about Frank's data. Everyone seemed to agree that last year's game was a good one (I thought it was inherently boring myself). Frank's data from last year supports the idea that it was a "good" game. Frank pulls out data about this year's game. This data is VERY similar to last year's data. This can't be right. This game is "bad." The data is flawed. How can one set of data be accurate on one hand and another inaccurate if it is the exact same tool that was used to collect that data?

I think folks are upset for another reason, but they are focusing their rage at FIRST, refs, the GDC, "crappy robots that win," "teams that don't read the rules," the RNG. The list goes on and on.

Heck someone said they were tired of hearing "it's not about the robot." Folks need to evaluate their priorities. This rage is misplaced and misguided.

So as IndySam pointed out, a 400% increase in "very poor" ratings means most people like it?