Metacritic versus Gamespot scores -- which is more accurate

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

Average of opinions>>>>>Ones opinion.

i tend to look at metacritic before anything else.

I tend to trust an aggregate of score more, but ActicEdge recently pointed out a good point. They're reviewed by different standards, so the average doesn't really mean anything. What it does give is an idea of how the general public will think about the game. Look at Persona PSP. Floored by GS, praised elsewhere.

I mainly follow GS scores but I guess Metacritic scores are more accurate considering it's an average of a number of reviews instead of just one review.

Ofcourse Metacritic.

how many times...

you cant use meta critic to compare overall scores its flawed in its nature.

you can only compare scores from the same site.

metacritic doesnt take bias and different meanings behinds scores into account

a review from xboxfanboy.com holds as much weight as a review from gamespot.

also it doesnt take into account that different scores mean different things it just reads numbers.

a 70 from pc gamer =/= a 70 from gamespot

also it doesnt take standards into account

example halo wars. some sites reviewed it as a console RTS agaisnt console standards others like GS reviewed it agaisnt standards of the genre as a whole.

theres also sites like gametrailers that review games as a casual console gamer.

theres too many factors that differ between review sites to compare a score thats just an average of all the numbers.

it has to be site to site or at least reputable site to reputable site or internal or nothing

Metacritic obviously. How can you attempt to determine whether or not a game is good or bad by looking at one review? Looking at a compilation of many reviews on Metacritic is really what helps you determine how good or bad a game is imo.

GS in terms of actual content in the review. Even though I only trust IGN in their reviews. They don't act like snobs when judging a game and when they say it's bad.. it's bad, other websites don't really fall as close to my opinion most of the time as they do. Metacritic is inflated by bias magazines and websites, it's no where accurate.

GS in terms of actual content in the review. Even though I only trust IGN in their reviews. They don't act like snobs when judging a game and when they say it's bad.. it's bad, other websites don't really fall as close to my opinion most of the time as they do. Metacritic is inflated by bias magazines and websites, it's no where accurate.

Espada12

I prefer Metacritics (IMO Gamerankings is even better).

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

GS in terms of actual content in the review. Even though I only trust IGN in their reviews. They don't act like snobs when judging a game and when they say it's bad.. it's bad, other websites don't really fall as close to my opinion most of the time as they do. Metacritic is inflated by bias magazines and websites, it's no where accurate.

Doolz2024

I'm talking about sites like PSU and Team Xbox....

none, what you think of a game is the most accurate score it can get

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.

foxhound_fox

This is straight from the Metacritic site so it refutes your claim that it values each magazine review the same.

The METASCORE is considered a weighted average because we assign more significance, or weight, to some critics and publications than we do to others, based on the overall stature and quality of those critics and publications.

I will stick with Metacritic for my buying needs but understand that for SW it is solely based on who ever reviews the game at gamespot.

This has to be one of the more stupid threads I have witnessed.

How can you attempt to determine whether or not a game is good or bad by looking at one review? Looking at a compilation of many reviews on Metacritic is really what helps you determine how good or bad a game is imo.

Doolz2024

This is straight from the Metacritic site so it refutes your claim that it values each magazine review the same.

The METASCORE is considered a weighted average because we assign more significance, or weight, to some critics and publications than we do to others, based on the overall stature and quality of those critics and publications.

I will stick with Metacritic for my buying needs but understand that for SW it is solely based on who ever reviews the game at gamespot.

3rdbass

[QUOTE="Doolz2024"] How can you attempt to determine whether or not a game is good or bad by looking at one review? Looking at a compilation of many reviews on Metacritic is really what helps you determine how good or bad a game is imo.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Doolz2024"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

GS in terms of actual content in the review. Even though I only trust IGN in their reviews. They don't act like snobs when judging a game and when they say it's bad.. it's bad, other websites don't really fall as close to my opinion most of the time as they do. Metacritic is inflated by bias magazines and websites, it's no where accurate.

Espada12

I'm talking about sites like PSU and Team Xbox....

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]metacritic sucks more as they don't explain their score reviews with words > reviews that are just scores.Shhadow_Viper

[QUOTE="3rdbass"]

This is straight from the Metacritic site so it refutes your claim that it values each magazine review the same.

The METASCORE is considered a weighted average because we assign more significance, or weight, to some critics and publications than we do to others, based on the overall stature and quality of those critics and publications.

I will stick with Metacritic for my buying needs but understand that for SW it is solely based on who ever reviews the game at gamespot.

foxhound_fox

Why wouldn't they weight the GS score higher than the say the Games Radar score for any particular game? I haven't beentoo muchdissapointed in games I bought this gen besides the 2 I hate most and so happen to be the lowest 2 on Metacritic also that I own LOTRC and POC(G/F wanted the game). I should have waited for the Metacritic scores to come out for LOTRC before buying that piece of trash. Well maybe Infamouswas misleading with an85 on Metacriticalso as I don't really like that game also and it scored so high.

[QUOTE="Doolz2024"] How can you attempt to determine whether or not a game is good or bad by looking at one review? Looking at a compilation of many reviews on Metacritic is really what helps you determine how good or bad a game is imo.

foxhound_fox

Aside from that you do realize metacritic has every review it uses on the page so you can compare the text with the numerical score all at once with multiple reviews? To me any fool can be a critic, so I like to judge more than one source if I am ever looking for assistance with a purchase decision.

if youre looking at what games to buy meta critic is your best option. the average gives a quick overview as to what the community in general thought of the game.

if youre comparing 2 games in an arguement. then if you want to throw scores i nthe mix you can only compare between the same site

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="Doolz2024"] How can you attempt to determine whether or not a game is good or bad by looking at one review? Looking at a compilation of many reviews on Metacritic is really what helps you determine how good or bad a game is imo.

Shhadow_Viper

Aside from that you do realize metacritic has every review it uses on the page so you can compare the text with the numerical score all at once with multiple reviews? To me any fool can be a critic, so I like to judge more than one source if I am ever looking for assistance with a purchase decision.

Yeah, I agree and you will notice a few outliners on both sides and see why they differ so much with the concensus. You just have to read multiple reviews which to me is better than reading just one review from a particular site. I think Metacritic is very useful because it gives multiple opinions from different magazines to read and form a good basis on what the game plays like since you see from many different eyes. There is normally a common thread though in all the reviews that you can pick out.

[QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"][QUOTE="Jandurin"]metacritic sucks more as they don't explain their score reviews with words > reviews that are just scores.Jandurin

Not everyone feels the same way you do. I prefer looking at more than 1 review, you don't. Simple as that.

Doolz2024

So a numerical value is worthless if it is aggregate, but not is if it is individual? Sorry if I misinterpreted that.

Aside from that you do realize metacritic has every review it uses on the page so you can compare the text with the numerical score all at once with multiple reviews? To me any fool can be a critic, so I like to judge more than one source if I am ever looking for assistance with a purchase decision.

Shhadow_Viper

While opinions can't reallly be more accurate then other opinions, I'd rather have a large number of opinions then a single opinion. Only using a single review source you run the risk of having the review greatly underate or overrate a game depending on the reviewers personal tastes. With a large number of opinions you get a better idea of wether a title is worth a buy as it's less likely that everyone would all have the same tastes in games causing a score to be grossly exaggerated in either direction.

It's still not fool proof in any case as there's always the massive hype train that follows some titles that can have an influence across the board as well as your own personal tastes that make you love games the majority dislikes. (Yes, I really liked Lost Planet... there I said it).

While opinions can't reallly be more accurate then other opinions, I'd rather have a large number of opinions then a single opinion. Only using a single review source you run the risk of having the review greatly underate or overrate a game depending on the reviewers personal tastes. With a large number of opinions you get a better idea of wether a title is worth a buy as it's less likely that everyone would all have the same tastes in games causing a score to be grossly exaggerated in either direction.

It's still not fool proof in any case as there's always the massive hype train that follows some titles that can have an influence across the board as well as your own personal tastes that make you love games the majority dislikes. (Yes, I really liked Lost Planet... there I said it).

myke2010

[QUOTE="Doolz2024"]Not everyone feels the same way you do. I prefer looking at more than 1 review, you don't. Simple as that.

foxhound_fox

So a numerical value is worthless if it is aggregate, but not is if it is individual? Sorry if I misinterpreted that.

Aside from that you do realize metacritic has every review it uses on the page so you can compare the text with the numerical score all at once with multiple reviews? To me any fool can be a critic, so I like to judge more than one source if I am ever looking for assistance with a purchase decision.

Shhadow_Viper

You know Metacritic has links to almost every score they have that make up the Weighted Average Scores? All you have to do is clink the link and read the review that makes up the score. LOL.

Numerical scores are useless unless paired with the written justification and explanation of what the game contains. The purpose of a review is to give us the gamers the ability to see what the reviewer likes (which allows us to contrast what we know about their tastes to ours) and what the game actually contains. A 8.5/10 doesn't tell us that the game doesn't have multiplayer, or has a bad framerate, or has impressive visuals, etc. It just tells us how much a reviewer liked the game. Everything important is contained within the review itself.

When all you do is take a score from multiple sources, you don't find out what's in the game or how well it works. You just get an average of how much those particular reviewers enjoyed the game. Which is absolutely no guarantee that you will enjoy it as much or as little as they did. Which is why I've constantly been positing that numerical scores are wholly flawed, from every source.

But at least in System Wars, when we take one source into account, its better since its easier to compare since weighting and standards don't change (much) on this particular site. While they vary highly between sites (Eurogamer as an example). I'm saying do away with numerical scores altogether and discuss the meaty part of the reviews.

foxhound_fox

Now, as I have said a few times in this thread metacritic has the text of every review is sources on the page. I also place more value on the text behind any review, and seek to see the justification for every score I actually take seriously. That is why metacritic gives me the best possible experience when it comes to a review. They have an aggregate numerical score, which I value over any one single reviewers score. They also have the justification for every score they use in that aggregate on the page! I can see why someone gave a specific game a 7.5, and another gave it a 10. Also, I can take these multiple varying scores and their respective reviews and start to make my own judgments about specific reviewers credibility and integrity. All the info is in one place for me to draw my own conclusions, just the way I like it.

You know Metacritic has links to almost every score they have that make up the Weighted Average Scores? All you have to do is clink the link and read the review that makes up the score. LOL.

3rdbass

I think metacritic is more accurate since its based on multiple opinions. From all individual sites i think gamespot it the most accurate

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Doolz2024"]Magazines like PSM and OXM's review scores for a game don't even count toward the Metacritic avg. Doolz2024

I'm talking about sites like PSU and Team Xbox....

Yea they do, it's in thieir faq, they show exactly what they count.

[QUOTE="3rdbass"]

You know Metacritic has links to almost every score they have that make up the Weighted Average Scores? All you have to do is clink the link and read the review that makes up the score. LOL.

foxhound_fox

Actually they do quote text from every review on Metacritic. What do you want them to have the whole indepth article pasted on their site also? I mean the only opinion that matters is your own though going to the Metacritic site and reading more than one review and the scores gives most readers a better informed idea about a particular game than just one GS review when making a decision about it.

One source is better for consistency and clarity. Having many sources doesn't really change much, overrated games are still overrated most of the time. At least with one source it's easier to keep track of what was perhaps overlooked in the review, how it compares to other games they reviewed etc.

There are many sites there who review games before the online is available or other crap like that, GS might have some stains in its record too, but better the devil you know...

What do you want them to have the whole indepth article pasted on their site also?.

3rdbass

[QUOTE="3rdbass"]

What do you want them to have the whole indepth article pasted on their site also?.

Jandurin

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="3rdbass"]

What do you want them to have the whole indepth article pasted on their site also?.

Shhadow_Viper

[QUOTE="3rdbass"]

What do you want them to have the whole indepth article pasted on their site also?.

Jandurin

Well that is why they have links to almost all the articles so you can read them. I mean I would think most of you guys would read the articles and not just look at the scores. Either way it is nice to have a 1 stop shop to look at multiple opinions.

[QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"][QUOTE="Jandurin"] yes, what's the point in reading a small snippet for a video game. Unless the game is totally broken or the "best game evar"Ibacai

metacritic links every score to the actual review

[QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"][QUOTE="Jandurin"] yes, what's the point in reading a small snippet for a video game. Unless the game is totally broken or the "best game evar"Ibacai

Well nobody said that Metacritic is giving their own reviews but they are creating a great one site source to see all the reviews and a weighted average score for them. There weighted average scores are normally quoted when talking about movies, books , and games in major publicationsso they are respected by the national media. They aren't the bible though as the only true reviewer is you and only you the player.

We go buy Gamespot always have always will. That is just the way this board works so if you don't like it theres not much you can do sorry. Be side's while meta or GR are good to use as a barometer, they also aren't absolute by any means. They relie on to many no name sites to come up with the averges. When I look at reviews I go with GS, GT,IGN, GI, 1up, GP, GS, GR, and C&G to get my base readings.

We go buy Gamespot always have always will. That is just the way this board works so if you don't like it theres not much you can do sorry. Be side's while meta or GR are good to use as a barometer, they also aren't absolute by any means. They relie on to many no name sites to come up with the averges. When I look at reviews I go with GS, GT,IGN, GI, 1up, GP, GS, GR, and C&G to get my base readings.

2beers_in_hand

yet the averages are always consistent with the general consensus... its a moot point