Metacritic versus Gamespot scores -- which is more accurate

This forum has been using Gamespot's scores soley to judge the quality of titles, as well as systems.

There is a few huge flaws with this setup.

1. Firstly, each game is reviewed and grades by one individual who will without a doubt have some inherent bias in him. Whether that bias deals with the system, the genre, the franchise, etc. No matter how hard anyone tries, bias will exist, even if you try to suppress it.

2. When titles are compared amongst one another, you are now essentially comparing... What reviewer A thought about game 1 versus what reviewer B thought about game 2. When you break it down to that level... you begin to realize how strange the arguments on this site become.

Aggregate sites like Metacritic alleviates many of these problems. In fact, it's the very reason I use it as my main source of judging what the top titles are.

1. You are now judging what the critics though of the game, rather then just one critic.

2. When comparing titles, you are comparing what critics thought about game 1 versus what critics thought about game 2

Hey... no one is stopping SW from continously using Gamespot as their means to measure titles. I'm sure, as a buisness decision, Gamespot makes more money. People flood the front pages, waiting for a score to come out... versus flooding metacritic instead. As such, I applaud Gamespot for mandating this... *ahem* oh ya, the "community decised to use Gamespot's scores".

What are your thoughts on this? Which method do you prefer and why?

Well considering Gamespot is only one person's opinion compared to Metacritic which is a bunch of people's opinions... They are all just opinions, but I guess the most accurate would be Metacritic

I usually trust GS's reviews, but Metacritic of course is more accurate as it's not a review site. Compiling all of the opinions of a game into one score > one person's opinion. Sorry.

Before i buy i usually ask around and check meta critic for an overall opinion of the game.

i think most of us are aware an averaged score will be more accurate but it still makes no diff as far as sw is concerned

I usually trust GS's reviews, but Metacritic of course is more accurate as it's not a review site. Compiling all of the opinions of a game into one score > one person's opinion. Sorry.

jamejame

I use metacritic as a more reliable source. More reviews from different types of gamers = better idea of what to expect. Of course you get some biased ones in there also because of being official magazines etc.. I just usually overlook those reviews. Although I have noticed that PTOM has been pretty harsh on most Sony games

im sorry but GS scores are the worse. i like the way they review games. i just dont like they way rate the games. i hope that makes sense... For example,

GT rate games accurately similar to my opinions, Mostly it matches to my opinion which is why I think its most reliable source for me. But i dont like how they review games. they give out way to much of the story. and sometimes spoilers

i like metacritic scores. but i have yet to actually read any of their reviews

I use Metacritic and GameRankings to guide me with my purchases. I only use GameSpot for the forums and nothing more. Have done so for years now.

This is pretty funny to me. Which opinion is more accurate, a bunch of opinions or one opinion? :lol:

Your kidding, right?

I use Metacritic and GameRankings to guide me with my purchases. I only use GameSpot for the forums and nothing more. Have done so for years now.

Hexagon_777

This forum has been using Gamespot's scores soley to judge the quality of titles, as well as systems.

SquatsAreAwesom

Gaming scores are an opinion...therefore NONE of them are accurate. Accurate implies that there is either a RIGHT score, which there isn't, or that a score in only valid if it matches your opinion. Both of these are flawed assumptions.

If you are REALLY asking, which site can you trust more regarding the quality of a game? Well, scores can never reflect whether or not YOU will like the game, but the more high scores a game gets (ie. metacritic), the more likely you will like that game....as opposed to one single reviewer from one single site.

However, the only TRUE indicator of whether a game is for you is for people to stop obsessing about scores and READ THE DAMN REVIEWS. The review will discuss the pros and cons of the game which you can then judge for yourself if the game is for you or not.

This is pretty funny to me. Which opinion is more accurate, a bunch of opinions or one opinion? :lol:

Your kidding, right?

h575309

That's exactly what it is, but if one is to draw a conclusion for a game it makes sense to draw that conclusion from a majority rather than one opinion.

Metacritic is not, by any means, more accurate. As someone just said, in each of the ratings there are between 5-10 reviews from fan sites skewing the average by giving exclusives defautly a higher score and in some cases a nearly perfect score. Reviews, just like polls and opinions, can be skewed and manipulated in this fashion. The fact is, you are on Gamespot , so you use Gamespot's reviews as the final word. Cherry-picking when to use one review system based upon the direction of your argument is false logic and therefore fails.

Accurate in what sense?IronBass

[QUOTE="jamejame"]

I usually trust GS's reviews, but Metacritic of course is more accurate as it's not a review site. Compiling all of the opinions of a game into one score > one person's opinion. Sorry.

HarlockJC

Good point that the single console dedicated fan site must boost up exclusive game scores.

If we didn't use GS only scores then you would have people just picking random site to prove that their exclusive game got a top scoreor the precious AAA rating. You could say Lair was a AAA game because Play Magazine and AceGamez gave it a score of 90.

based on what the majority say.Alpha-Male22

Usually taking the average between GS and IGN gives a good idea of a game's rated quality. GS scores low, IGN scores high.

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]I use Metacritic and GameRankings to guide me with my purchases. I only use GameSpot for the forums and nothing more. Have done so for years now.nervmeister

[QUOTE="h575309"]

This is pretty funny to me. Which opinion is more accurate, a bunch of opinions or one opinion? :lol:

Your kidding, right?

Alpha-Male22

That's exactly what it is, but if one is to draw a conclusion for a game it makes sense to draw that conclusion from a majority rather than one opinion.

No...it makes sense to draw a concolusion based on the review, not the score.

In a matter as subjective as opinion it is wisest to use a consensus.

[QUOTE="Alpha-Male22"]

[QUOTE="h575309"]

This is pretty funny to me. Which opinion is more accurate, a bunch of opinions or one opinion? :lol:

Your kidding, right?

ZIMdoom

That's exactly what it is, but if one is to draw a conclusion for a game it makes sense to draw that conclusion from a majority rather than one opinion.

No...it makes sense to draw a concolusion based on the review, not the score.

Regardless (And I'd agree with you), it's better to get an opinion from a mass sample, instead of basing it off of one sample.

It's true that Metacritic and Gamerankings usually include sites that could be (loosely) considered "fan sites." But, even so, I don't see how it's possible to say that a single person's opinion (which could very likely include a bias as well) could be considered more accurate than an aggregate score based on several people's opinion. Once a game on MC or GR reaches a decent number of reviews (maybe 40 to 50), I think it's safe to say that any bias held by a few of those reviews is pretty much negated. For example, say a reviewer on a "fan site" gives a game a perfect 10. That perfect 10 will be included in the MC and GR scores, but if they compile 50 different reviews and the majority of the other reviews give the game a 5, that 10 will not matter much at all. I figured this was common knowledge. Isn't finding the general consensus of a game's quality the entire reason sites like Metacritic and Gamerankings exist?

I think Metacritic is more important for gamers except here where of course GS rules in SW. I mean of course many reviewers and the magazines in Metacritic are biased both ways so they kind of even outand thus better than just one reviewfrom GS. What I wish Metacritic and Gamerankings had was just a list of say 40 officiaal sites that they would take the average from and not just random sites that they deem worthy of reviewing a game. I mean if you look at some game reviews and take out the magazines affiliated withPS3, XBOX 360 and WII the other reviewers aren't consistant. Why not just take 40 non related to a gaming systems magazines and only use their reviews. Also, I hate how a game can get a B- in a magazine and metacritic because of the how the review is worded will give it a 67. Now that is reading too much into it shouldn't it get an 80-82? I think having a consistant standard of top non-affilated magazines rate the games would be best. Though right now we don't have that so Metacritic and Gamerankings will have to do.

[QUOTE="Alpha-Male22"]

[QUOTE="h575309"]

That's exactly what it is, but if one is to draw a conclusion for a game it makes sense to draw that conclusion from a majority rather than one opinion.

ZIMdoom

No...it makes sense to draw a concolusion based on the review, not the score.

Regardless (And I'd agree with you), it's better to get an opinion from a mass sample, instead of basing it off of one sample.

But when that mass sample includes fansites, and this is true for all consoles, it is no longer a viable source. It is simply a diluted mess of opinions.

They are both opinions. If anybody uses a review score to claim ownage I will not take them seriously.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

[QUOTE="Alpha-Male22"]

No...it makes sense to draw a concolusion based on the review, not the score.

tempest91

Regardless (And I'd agree with you), it's better to get an opinion from a mass sample, instead of basing it off of one sample.

But when that mass sample includes fansites, and this is true for all consoles, it is no longer a viable source. It is simply a diluted mess of opinions.

I don't think fansites will sway the overall ballpark of a game's quality when using reviews to determine it.

A mass sample isn't pure anyway, as there bottom scores can sometimes be far from the highest score-- but the point is that a median/average can be determined which can indicate something about a game.

I trust kevin-v's reviews, for all other reviews theres metacritic...

Average of opinions>>>>>Ones opinion.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

[QUOTE="Alpha-Male22"]

No...it makes sense to draw a concolusion based on the review, not the score.

tempest91

Regardless (And I'd agree with you), it's better to get an opinion from a mass sample, instead of basing it off of one sample.

But when that mass sample includes fansites, and this is true for all consoles, it is no longer a viable source. It is simply a diluted mess of opinions.

Metacritic is a weighted average, the more respected sites get a higher weight on the average. Thatt more or less solves the problem you are talking about.

[QUOTE="jamejame"]

I usually trust GS's reviews, but Metacritic of course is more accurate as it's not a review site. Compiling all of the opinions of a game into one score > one person's opinion. Sorry.

HarlockJC

Don't those sites use standard deviation and remove outliers?

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

Regardless (And I'd agree with you), it's better to get an opinion from a mass sample, instead of basing it off of one sample.

Alpha-Male22

But when that mass sample includes fansites, and this is true for all consoles, it is no longer a viable source. It is simply a diluted mess of opinions.

I don't think fansites will sway the overall ballpark of a game's quality when using reviews to determine it.

A mass sample isn't pure anyway, as there bottom scores can sometimes be far from the highest score-- but the point is that a median/average can be determined which can indicate something about a game.

i agree. there hasnt been 1 example of fansites throwing off an average...

Whichever is more convenient for a certain faction at a certain moment of course.

Average of opinions>>>>>Ones opinion.

Revolution316

[QUOTE="Revolution316"]

Average of opinions>>>>>Ones opinion.

SpiritOfFire117

Gamespot scores are an opinion. Metacritic is a collection of opinions. Neither is accurate. Metacritic is closer to a consensus, but it's still not even that.Couth_

This. I find it troubling that people don't see this and try to promote metascores as the truth, when in fact they are just merely above an opinion.

[QUOTE="Revolution316"]

Average of opinions>>>>>Ones opinion.

SpiritOfFire117

not anywhere, ever

[QUOTE="SpiritOfFire117"][QUOTE="Revolution316"]

Average of opinions>>>>>Ones opinion.

CaptainHarley

not anywhere, ever

in terms of getting an idea of the quality of a videogame, movie, music, art, etc... yes. always

still may not prove if you will like it or not

[QUOTE="Couth_"]Gamespot scores are an opinion. Metacritic is a collection of opinions. Neither is accurate. Metacritic is closer to a consensus, but it's still not even that.glez13

This. I find it troubling that people don't see this and try to promote metascores as the truth, when in fact they are just merely above an opinion.

[QUOTE="CaptainHarley"]

[QUOTE="SpiritOfFire117"] Not on here.ogvampire

not anywhere, ever

in terms of getting an idea of the quality of a videogame, movie, music, art, etc... yes. always

still may not prove if you will like it or not

Niether is "accurate" to begin with. Its all opinions.

But if you have to ask what is "better" in terms of discussion, a single source with a written piece is much more reliable than an aggregate score on some averaging website.

1) those aggregate sites don't take into account certain sites weighting or standards, 2) a 7/10 on Gamespot is different than a 7/10 on Eurogamer, 3) a 5/5, 10/10 and 100/100 are not the same score, not in the least, 4) a "score" tells you nothing about what a game contains and 5) without a written part to a review, from a consistent source, you won't be able to discern whether or not the game you are looking into is for you. Just basing an evaluation off a score is meaningless and a waste of time.

Ignore the score and read the review(s). All a score tells you is how much that particular reviewer enjoyed the game.