Another metagame rule for next gen. SW decides.

Now that dl games count the metagame makes a little more sense but it's still pretty flawed. I say we should decide using Metacritic and not GS for two main reasons:

1. Not all games get reviewed in GS which makes those games inexistant for the metagame even though they exist. Metacritic has the advantage that even little known games get scores so we can have a more complete count.

2. Metacritic is an average of opinions and, even if it's not perfect (nothing using opinions is), the opinion of one reviewer in GS is not perfect either. Metacritic represents better how the game is regarded by the whole critic gaming community than one lonely review from any site.

Bonus reason: Metacritic is more exciting since scores tend to occilate and so it keeps the interest for a longer time. We all know a score doesn't determine the quality of a game but SW is here to have fun and therefore something that adds more dynamism to ownage and scores is welcomed.

Vote on the poll.

Definitely no, Metacritic is an inconsistent mess, and the last place on the Internet I'd ever use to determine the game quality...

SW metagame will always be flawed in one way or the another, but focusing on GS only at least keeps things simple...

No.

Definitely no, Metacritic is an inconsistent mess, and the last place on the Internet I'd ever use to determine the game quality...

SW metagame will always be flawed in one way or the another, but focusing on GS only at least keeps things simple...

Rocker6

Nah

What poll?Nanomage

Gamespot be trippin' balls!

prepare for backlash

What poll?Nanomage

Yes.

The industry uses Metacritic, Microsoft, Sony, game publishers and devs all use Metacritic to measure critical success.

Definitely. Metacritic is a great source to use in here.

Fanboys are using GS scores, especially lems, because they work the best for them and claim ownage.

Bring out Metacritic and they get owned.

[QUOTE="Nanomage"]What poll?lundy86_4

Gamespot be trippin' balls!

I love how Cows always resort to Metacritic lol

Definitely no, Metacritic is an inconsistent mess, and the last place on the Internet I'd ever use to determine the game quality...

SW metagame will always be flawed in one way or the another, but focusing on GS only at least keeps things simple...

Rocker6

O_0Nanomage

Only if you use soley the proffesional reviews.

The hipster "I-Hate-anything-that-is-popular" attitude ruins the scores for great games... and star wars nerds make it look like all Star Wars games are perfect.

I don't care for review scores much to be honst. It doesn't change my mind on whether or not I personally enjoy a game or not, I find people on here take metacritic and GS far too seriously than they should.

However if I had to pick one I would say metacritic because it's a collection of different opinions as opposed to just one. And GS is reflected in metacritic scores, but it should be critic reviews only and not the user reviews.

Only if you use soley the proffesional reviews.

The hipster "I-Hate-anything-that-is-popular" attitude ruins the scores for great games... and star wars nerds make it look like all Star Wars games are perfect.

fadersdream

not sure how long this thread will last but i say no to metacritic since it's a mess and the greater of the two evils.

Definitely. Metacritic is a great source to use in here.

Fanboys are using GS scores, especially lems, because they work the best for them and claim ownage.

Bring out Metacritic and they get owned.

GamerwillzPS

And cows run to metacritic when a PS3 game gets 8.5'd at gamespot. Works both ways ;)

While I generally agree that a single source is limited in scope of opinion, metacritic takes in too many uncredible sources into the aggregate. A counter proposal would be that we the community decide from among more established sites that we would average from. That could include Eurogamer, Kotaku, 1UP, IGN, Gametrailers, to name a few. I would even go with Angry Joe who is a solid reviewer. (but that's just me) This should also include a few stipulations;

* This being Gamespot, this site's review being included is non-optional
* NO sites exclusive to any platform, the bias will be way too obvious
* no sites that reviews by a 5 point scale, having only 20% increments can really skew the results. should be by 10, 20, or 100 point scales

Yes.

No.

[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]

Definitely. Metacritic is a great source to use in here.

Fanboys are using GS scores, especially lems, because they work the best for them and claim ownage.

Bring out Metacritic and they get owned.

AdobeArtist

And cows run to metacritic when a PS3 game gets 8.5'd at gamespot. Works both ways ;)

While I generally agree that a single source is limited in scope of opinion, metacritic takes in too many uncredible sources into the aggregate. A counter proposal would be that we the community decide from among more established sites that we would average from. That could include Eurogamer, Kotaku, 1UP, IGN, Gametrailers, to name a few. I would even go with Angry Joe who is a solid reviewer. (but that's just me) This should also include a few stipulations;

* This being Gamespot, this site's review being included is non-optional
* NO sites exclusive to any platform, the bias will be way too obvious
* no sites that reviews by a 5 point scale, having only 20% increments can really skew the results. should be by 10, 20, or 100 point scales

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

Definitely no, Metacritic is an inconsistent mess, and the last place on the Internet I'd ever use to determine the game quality...

SW metagame will always be flawed in one way or the another, but focusing on GS only at least keeps things simple...

kuraimen

Nah, I usually determine game quality by collecting pieces of info pre-release, and by playing the game myself, of course...

I do like Kevin VanOrd a lot, though, when I'm in a doubt, I'd always read a good review from a source I trust, instead of depending on some inconsistent aggregate mess that can easily be influenced by "troll reviews", differences in number of reviews per game, severe issues in converting letter scores to numerals, etc, etc...

I stand by what I posted, GS metagame is flawed, most notably because of some games not being reviewed, but nevertheless, it keeps things simple...

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]

Definitely. Metacritic is a great source to use in here.

Fanboys are using GS scores, especially lems, because they work the best for them and claim ownage.

Bring out Metacritic and they get owned.

kuraimen

And cows run to metacritic when a PS3 game gets 8.5'd at gamespot. Works both ways ;)

While I generally agree that a single source is limited in scope of opinion, metacritic takes in too many uncredible sources into the aggregate. A counter proposal would be that we the community decide from among more established sites that we would average from. That could include Eurogamer, Kotaku, 1UP, IGN, Gametrailers, to name a few. I would even go with Angry Joe who is a solid reviewer. (but that's just me) This should also include a few stipulations;

* This being Gamespot, this site's review being included is non-optional
* NO sites exclusive to any platform, the bias will be way too obvious
* no sites that reviews by a 5 point scale, having only 20% increments can really skew the results. should be by 10, 20, or 100 point scales

no, considering gs has been the one for the metagame since the days where dinosaurs and decent debate roamed free.

no, considering gs has been the one for the metagame since the days where dinosaurs and decent debate roamed free.

razgriz_101

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

no, considering gs has been the one for the metagame since the days where dinosaurs and decent debate roamed free.

kuraimen

metacritic would be devolving.

LOL rules

I make my own rules

[QUOTE="fadersdream"]

Only if you use soley the proffesional reviews.

The hipster "I-Hate-anything-that-is-popular" attitude ruins the scores for great games... and star wars nerds make it look like all Star Wars games are perfect.

kuraimen

LOL rules

I make my own rules

Zurrur

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

no, considering gs has been the one for the metagame since the days where dinosaurs and decent debate roamed free.

kuraimen

this isnt evolution theres too many glaring issues with MC, such as disparity in review numbers for each product (one may have 87 and an avg metacore of say 77 and the other 22 reviews and an average metacore of 95)

theres to many factors such as disparity, and the variation of sources especially in terms of platform to platform, and the fact it could make the metagame convoluted and a massive mess.For the sake of evolution its pretty much a dead end unlike the evolution put forth that digital games from PSN and Live have become key in the platforms ecosystems and becoming a huge part of our gaming diet.

I agree with Adobe maybe other sites like say IGN,Eurogamer,EDGE with their own seperate metagame as a kinda side show to the main one which has stood the test of time and is essentially foolproof.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="fadersdream"]

Only if you use soley the proffesional reviews.

The hipster "I-Hate-anything-that-is-popular" attitude ruins the scores for great games... and star wars nerds make it look like all Star Wars games are perfect.

fadersdream

this isnt evolution theres too many glaring issues with MC, such as disparity in review numbers for each product (one may have 87 and an avg metacore of say 77 and the other 22 reviews and an average metacore of 95)razgriz_101

[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]

Definitely. Metacritic is a great source to use in here.

Fanboys are using GS scores, especially lems, because they work the best for them and claim ownage.

Bring out Metacritic and they get owned.

AdobeArtist

And cows run to metacritic when a PS3 game gets 8.5'd at gamespot. Works both ways ;)

While I generally agree that a single source is limited in scope of opinion, metacritic takes in too many uncredible sources into the aggregate. A counter proposal would be that we the community decide from among more established sites that we would average from. That could include Eurogamer, Kotaku, 1UP, IGN, Gametrailers, to name a few. I would even go with Angry Joe who is a solid reviewer. (but that's just me) This should also include a few stipulations;

* This being Gamespot, this site's review being included is non-optional
* NO sites exclusive to any platform, the bias will be way too obvious
* no sites that reviews by a 5 point scale, having only 20% increments can really skew the results. should be by 10, 20, or 100 point scales

we did kick around that idea back before you became a mod. not much ever came of it, though.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

And cows run to metacritic when a PS3 game gets 8.5'd at gamespot. Works both ways ;)

While I generally agree that a single source is limited in scope of opinion, metacritic takes in too many uncredible sources into the aggregate. A counter proposal would be that we the community decide from among more established sites that we would average from. That could include Eurogamer, Kotaku, 1UP, IGN, Gametrailers, to name a few. I would even go with Angry Joe who is a solid reviewer. (but that's just me) This should also include a few stipulations;

* This being Gamespot, this site's review being included is non-optional
* NO sites exclusive to any platform, the bias will be way too obvious
* no sites that reviews by a 5 point scale, having only 20% increments can really skew the results. should be by 10, 20, or 100 point scales

kuraimen

Definitely. Metacritic is a great source to use in here.

Fanboys are using GS scores, especially lems, because they work the best for them and claim ownage.

Bring out Metacritic and they get owned.

GamerwillzPS

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]this isnt evolution theres too many glaring issues with MC, such as disparity in review numbers for each product (one may have 87 and an avg metacore of say 77 and the other 22 reviews and an average metacore of 95)kuraimen

first, lol at averaging opinions.

second, different weights are given to different sources so right away that's not a fair way to access things.

third, different sources use different grading scales and metacritic transforms them into things that don't match the original intention

fourth, different sources review different games so how can that be fair and even?

fifth, metacritic is slow. it takes a long time for all the reviews to come in and the average score changes over time.

No. That just makes it a competition to see how many "PS Planet" and "Xbox World" perfect 10/10 scores get handed out to hyped exclusives.AmazingGaming

[QUOTE="AmazingGaming"]No. That just makes it a competition to see how many "PS Planet" and "Xbox World" perfect 10/10 scores get handed out to hyped exclusives.kuraimen

they're quite often a few points apart and that makes a big difference.