Number of games released was never really a good metric. Review count is probably a bit better, but people buy games released before the current year too.
Right? This just reminds me of how platforms were flooded with clones of clones of clones when mobile games started becoming a thing back in the 2010s.
It doesn’t really matter for the purposes of filtering out slop, although you’d need to account for people like me with huge libraries with tons of good games we’ve never played.
No single metric is going to give a good picture of what’s good or not. You’d need several layers of filters.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
Number of games released was never really a good metric. Review count is probably a bit better, but people buy games released before the current year too.
Right? This just reminds me of how platforms were flooded with clones of clones of clones when mobile games started becoming a thing back in the 2010s.
A ratio between hours played and sale counts would be a better metric.
Boring grind and hours of fun are tracked just the same
It doesn’t really matter for the purposes of filtering out slop, although you’d need to account for people like me with huge libraries with tons of good games we’ve never played.
No single metric is going to give a good picture of what’s good or not. You’d need several layers of filters.
Number of people still playing over a year after launch probably isn’t a bad one to look at.