Metacritic, the cancer killing the industry

All review scores are, in part, responsible for the slow death of the industry because they put a false value on the product in focus. Ulterior motives, personal bias, vested interests, bribes and other unforseen issues taint the attempts to judge any given game.

Bigboi500

a lot to blame on people who just see the number and don't read the review

[QUOTE="clyde46"]

Why is Metacritic used as the games industry when the basic principle of it is biased? How can one site be given more weight than other? Its generally worrying when you have publishers withholding bonus because a certain game didn't gain an arbitrary score on a site that sells to the highest bidder.

StormyJoe

It sucks because there is no standards as far as scores, or what they mean. A 3/4 star movie is considered great. But, if you calculate that to a percentage, it is a 75%( or a 7.5/10) which looks like a mediocre score. In reality, a 2 star movie is "average" (which, btw, calculates to a 5/10, or 50% score).

Until game ratings are standardized, sites like metacritic should not be taken too seriously.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

All review scores are, in part, responsible for the slow death of the industry because they put a false value on the product in focus. Ulterior motives, personal bias, vested interests, bribes and other unforseen issues taint the attempts to judge any given game.

lostrib

a lot to blame on people who just see the number and don't read the review

Only butthurt fanboys use Gamespot to hide behind

Davekeeh

it was chosen so people like you don't flip flop your sources to whatever serves you best.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

this is why the use of metacritic her was soundly defeated.

RoOodriGowW

Soon we'll be posting "lol GS score".

it was determined to be the lesser of two evils.

I use GameRankings.

I use GameRankings.

Demonjoe93

and people use it to compare games across platforms even though the average contains reviews from system specific sources. no good.

I use GameRankings.

Demonjoe93

[QUOTE="Demonjoe93"]

I use GameRankings.

Cranler

Which begs the question: Why is Metacritic so hated?

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="Demonjoe93"]

I use GameRankings.

Demonjoe93

Which begs the question: Why is Metacritic so hated?

more popular.

metactitic and anything like it are just for the lack of a better word dumb. It makes no sense to average a games score depending on multiple reviews espcailly when one or two reviews can change everything no matter the amount of reviews in. Sites like metecritic should be used as a spot to get all reviews together in one spot and thats it no averaging or anything like that.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

All review scores are, in part, responsible for the slow death of the industry because they put a false value on the product in focus. Ulterior motives, personal bias, vested interests, bribes and other unforseen issues taint the attempts to judge any given game.

Bigboi500

a lot to blame on people who just see the number and don't read the review

and metacritic inforces that even more with the averaging.

Whats worse is that all the different branches of IGN that have seperate reviews all get the same high weighting. It ends up with them having a very high impact on the site compared to everyone else. 

Also Quarter to Three is on Metacritic cause the owner of that site is friends with the owner of Metacritic even though its awful

MC isn't killing the industry, gamers are. For some reason people have this mentality that if a game doesn't score a "8.5" or higher a game isn't worth it so they ether pass on it,pirate it, buy it used or wait for a huge price drop. 

metactitic and anything like it are just for the lack of a better word dumb. It makes no sense to average a games score depending on multiple reviews espcailly when one or two reviews can change everything no matter the amount of reviews in. Sites like metecritic should be used as a spot to get all reviews together in one spot and thats it no averaging or anything like that.

finalfantasy94

yeah, i think it was obsidian that got screwed by the MC score of New Vegas by like one point

lostrib

Yep, it's them

Why is Metacritic used as the games industry when the basic principle of it is biased? How can one site be given more weight than other? Its generally worrying when you have publishers withholding bonus because a certain game didn't gain an arbitrary score on a site that sells to the highest bidder.

clyde46

Every site gives biased reviews, a review system based on strict mathematical averages is less likely to be influenced by bias because of LLN. I agree though, it's stupid that bonuses are given like that. Damn economists messing up everything.

Metacritic isn't killing anything. Publishers are.

GD1551

[QUOTE="StormyJoe"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"]

Why is Metacritic used as the games industry when the basic principle of it is biased? How can one site be given more weight than other? Its generally worrying when you have publishers withholding bonus because a certain game didn't gain an arbitrary score on a site that sells to the highest bidder.

Cranler

It sucks because there is no standards as far as scores, or what they mean. A 3/4 star movie is considered great. But, if you calculate that to a percentage, it is a 75%( or a 7.5/10) which looks like a mediocre score. In reality, a 2 star movie is "average" (which, btw, calculates to a 5/10, or 50% score).

Until game ratings are standardized, sites like metacritic should not be taken too seriously.

That's not true. Giant Bomb, for instance, rates games on a 5 star rating, where IGN and Game Spot use a 10 point scale. 4/5 stars is actually higher, according to GB's site, than 80% - but Metacritic scores it as an 8/10.

MC isn't killing the industry, gamers are. For some reason people have this mentality that if a game doesn't score a "8.5" or higher a game isn't worth it so they ether pass on it,pirate it, buy it used or wait for a huge price drop. 

Ballroompirate

I'd argue it's the reviewers' fault then.

Movie reviewers are extremely harsh compared to game reviewers, in fact you can enjoy a 5/10 movie with no problem. For games instead there's the 7-8 for indie games and 8.5-9.5 for AAA games, and everything below that is absolutely terrible, as in not even worth playing for 15 minutes.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="StormyJoe"]

It sucks because there is no standards as far as scores, or what they mean. A 3/4 star movie is considered great. But, if you calculate that to a percentage, it is a 75%( or a 7.5/10) which looks like a mediocre score. In reality, a 2 star movie is "average" (which, btw, calculates to a 5/10, or 50% score).

Until game ratings are standardized, sites like metacritic should not be taken too seriously.

StormyJoe

That's not true. Giant Bomb, for instance, rates games on a 5 star rating, where IGN and Game Spot use a 10 point scale. 4/5 stars is actually higher, according to GB's site, than 80% - but Metacritic scores it as an 8/10.

there's also the fact that an 8/10 on ign isn't the same as an 8/10 on gamespot. they're different review sources and there's no universal industry standard.

[QUOTE="StormyJoe"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Game ratings are standardized as much as film. Metacritic colors reflect this. A game with a score of 65 is yellow while a movie scored 65 is green. CaseyWegner

That's not true. Giant Bomb, for instance, rates games on a 5 star rating, where IGN and Game Spot use a 10 point scale. 4/5 stars is actually higher, according to GB's site, than 80% - but Metacritic scores it as an 8/10.

there's also the fact that an 8/10 on ign isn't the same as an 8/10 on gamespot. they're different review sources and there's no universal industry standard.

It has definitely contributed to killing off low budget games, but it has also pushed big budget games to be better and has brought more awareness to indie games.

[QUOTE="AtariKidX"][QUOTE="bbkkristian"]The Flop of Us - 8.0 @ GS. :lol:LordOfPoms

A flop does not mean a bad game, kind of been established here a while on SW.

I find the issue of weighting certain sources heavier than others, less of a problem than  how  they decide who is weighted at what level. At the end of the day, should we be ranking official review sources on par with sites like GB/GS/IGN/etc?

You people are talking like before Metacritic everything in the industry was perfect. Back in time you had the "wars" of publisher's.

They get more weight because they compile all of "profesional" review scores in one place from all sources. They also compile review scores by everyday real world gamers in one place.

Metacritic doesnt actually do anything or express their own opinion, they simply put every one else opinion in one place. You need to blame the publishers that withhold a bonus because of a score, not the place that simply only puts those scores up that arent even their own.

Jimquisition tells it better than me.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/3607-Metacritic-Isnt-the-Problem

Gargus

Metacritic is offensive in so many ways. The actual aggregiate itself is broken on a scale standpoint, the way the industry uses it is way too stupid, and the most offensive part is how internet clowns react to reviews. 

The constant "Well this score is so much lower than the metascore"...the f*ck? Every other medium has far mroe range across their critics in terms of reactions, analysis, and labeling with scores. But in this medium the community has this mystical belief that the metascore is the actual indicative quality of said game. As if it's not possible for people to believe the game is less impressive or even mroe so.

I know about it being a cancer killing the industry, but the way people react to it is incredibly stupid.  

The gaming industry and the real world are proving to be 2 different things. Games with High Metacritic scores are not necessarily a success. Uncharted 2 is the PS 3's highest rated exclusive at 96 but sold 3.8 million copies. The highest selling PS3 game is GT 5 with 10.55 million copies and a metacritic score of 84. For 360 its Kinect Adventures ( 24 Mil and a MC of 61) or if you want stand alone non exclusive its COD Black Ops with 12 million sold and a MC of 81. GTA IV was a huge success in both sales and Metacritic (98 MC and over 25 million sold) but those results do not correlate with any other game. There is much more evidence that Metacritic results and commercial results are not related in the real world. But to publishers and these forums metacritic means everything. GoldenElementXL

Metacritic is offensive in so many ways. The actual aggregiate itself is broken on a scale standpoint, the way the industry uses it is way too stupid, and the most offensive part is how internet clowns react to reviews. 

The constant "Well this score is so much lower than the metascore"...the f*ck? Every other medium has far mroe range across their critics in terms of reactions, analysis, and labeling with scores. But in this medium the community has this mystical belief that the metascore is the actual indicative quality of said game. As if it's not possible for people to believe the game is less impressive or even mroe so.

I know about it being a cancer killing the industry, but the way people react to it is incredibly stupid.  

jg4xchamp

Yeah, this sums up my thoughts on the matter... ultimately, it's the Internet clowns who made aggregates like MC have so much weight in the gaming industry, and when games are being judged on a system full of flaws and inconsistent, that's bad, very bad.

And true, "this score is lower than the metascore" crap is really a crime against any form of common sense, you can see people these days refuse to understand the point of a review isn't to be told everything you want to hear, and that sucks.

T'would help if Pubs didnt plaster their score the boxes

T'would help if Pubs didnt plaster their score the boxes

Zaibach

Yeah, here's an example of some quality box design:

Nintendo is the cancer

Nintendo is the cancer

Chris_Williams