This is what he PM'd me:
Well, two things stood out for me when people were asking for me to do something about all the zeroes:
1. "It is unfair"
I do think that it's unfair. I haven't played the likes of Big Rigs or Custer's Revenge, but a zero appears to be an irrational vote. I am not looking for complete objectivity in ratings or anything, but I wish for people to use some common sense and actually think about their how they would rate a game. A zero just appears as a lazy rating with absolutely no thought to it. Thus, it's unfair to the game.
2. "It makes no sense"
I attempted to rationalize what a game that deserved to receive a zero would be like. I came up with this: I start the game up and literally after playing it for one second, I walk away. Even then, it may need to be worse than that. A zero game means that it doesn't have any positive, above-average, average, neutral, or poor qualities. Every. and I mean every, facet of it has to be abysmal to the point that would regret spending even one second on that game for the rest of my life and be embarrassed to mention to anyone that I actually played that game.
Is changing the minimum to 0.1 going to make a huge difference? No, but it's the principle that counts as it makes sense, on several levels, and is fair. Rate the Game is never going to be how I envisioned it, but little things like this make it closer to that image
If people want to give games a zero, that's on them. You forcing everyone to give every game a bare minimum is absurd. By your logic, someone giving Ocarina or FF7 10/10 is unfair, irrational, lazy, etc.
I gave FF13 a 0/10 because that's how I felt about it as a game on percentages out of 100%. I don't think it's a 0.10/10; I think it's an objective 0/10 as a video game.
There are some people out there who think Uncharted 2 and Starcraft are 0's.
Stop this affirmative action crap.
--
Genesis does what Nintendon't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nsBoqJ6s8