I didn't realize anyone took Metacritic (or critics in general) seriously.
Those people must waste a lot of money.
Those people must waste a lot of money.
Jimquisition: Metacritic Isn't the Problem
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Exactly. If anyone has tainted Metacritic it is the suspect practices of publishers buying positive reviews as well as debacles like the DNF publicist episode where that idiot tweeted that he would withhold review copies in the future. That may have been the most outrageous and obvious case of review manipulation, but I think it was pretty well known that that sort of thing was happening anyway. Same goes for buying positive reviews.Still Life said:
While user reviews on any site- Amazon, RottenTomatoes, etc.- can be a battleground for fans and detractors, I think we still can take something away from aggregate scores of particularly biased reviews, even if it's just in the form of seeking out more opinions.
Anyway, my first point is the most important point: Publishers are giving all reviewers a bad name and reducing the trust we, as consumers, are willing to put into their reviews.
Thanks Jimquisition.
I don't know if it's just me or the majority of the Escapist, but this one was a bit like preaching to the choir. I don't care what most related sites such as Gamespot have to say about a game, let alone Metacritic. I'm surprised the few times I do hear it brought out, such as when Dragon Age 2 or Witcher 2 got bad reviews. (Though perhaps in retrospect EA will stop watering down their strategy games for the masses if the masses give them ****ty ratings anyway).
I don't know if it's just me or the majority of the Escapist, but this one was a bit like preaching to the choir. I don't care what most related sites such as Gamespot have to say about a game, let alone Metacritic. I'm surprised the few times I do hear it brought out, such as when Dragon Age 2 or Witcher 2 got bad reviews. (Though perhaps in retrospect EA will stop watering down their strategy games for the masses if the masses give them ****ty ratings anyway).
Again I share Jim's sentiments, as the concept of Metacritic isn't what's wrong, but it's usage. My bigger problem with the site is the allowing for user reviews. If I've learned anything from the internet about Metacritic, it'd be these two simple facts:
1) Rampant abuse of the review system happens on a frequent basis.
2) Almost every 'user review' has no concept of using an actual scale.
A good example of the first rule is LBP, which got firebombed by fanboys for some reason I've already forgotten, poor reception of a Halo title or some such. A great example of the second rule comes from Dragon Age 2. A game which was highly flawed, but had some redeeming values to it, so it wasn't a total failure. What do you see if you check the user scores? A dirth of 10's and 0's. It is neither. Definitely not a perfect game, but also FAR from being the worst thing ever made. User reviews almost never have a sense of scale. DA2 was a solid 6 on the proper 10 scale. Lots of flaws, but the few things it did right it did well, such as combat, acting and story(Barring the facepalm ending). It's still a better game than Imagine Party Babiez, which has a higher user review score.
1) Rampant abuse of the review system happens on a frequent basis.
2) Almost every 'user review' has no concept of using an actual scale.
A good example of the first rule is LBP, which got firebombed by fanboys for some reason I've already forgotten, poor reception of a Halo title or some such. A great example of the second rule comes from Dragon Age 2. A game which was highly flawed, but had some redeeming values to it, so it wasn't a total failure. What do you see if you check the user scores? A dirth of 10's and 0's. It is neither. Definitely not a perfect game, but also FAR from being the worst thing ever made. User reviews almost never have a sense of scale. DA2 was a solid 6 on the proper 10 scale. Lots of flaws, but the few things it did right it did well, such as combat, acting and story(Barring the facepalm ending). It's still a better game than Imagine Party Babiez, which has a higher user review score.
I fail to see how this....troll belongs on the same sight of Yahtzee, and Extra Credits. The fact that his review is an act does not negate the fact the he portrays himself as a egotistical jackass. I've seen less inflammatory Anons. Although he makes decent points from time to time, all of them are overshadowed by his pretentiousness, and the fact that he seems to revel in trolling.
Anyway. My point. This video series gives gamers, and the escapist a bad name. Getting insulted in video form by a self-satisfied twat, or someone doing a very good impression of a self-satisfied twat is something that no one actually enjoys. Save your money, and save your time, Escapist, and find a video series worthy of this site.
Anyway. My point. This video series gives gamers, and the escapist a bad name. Getting insulted in video form by a self-satisfied twat, or someone doing a very good impression of a self-satisfied twat is something that no one actually enjoys. Save your money, and save your time, Escapist, and find a video series worthy of this site.
I use Metacritic as a convenient place to get a lot of differing views on a game before making my own decision to try it or buy it. It saves time and energy researching a game to determine whether it's worth investing my time and money. Getting a good idea of what a game is like and whether it will appeal to me, without having to just buy it and play it, requires researching several different opinions and assessments of that game. Metacritic provides a convenient one-stop shop for doing that research.
My only real complaint is one that applies to modern reviews in general; a numerical score to the level of precision as we assign to game reviews is total and complete bullshit.
Honestly, there is no way that 1 part in 1000(scores of 1-1000 or 1-100, with a decimal part) or even 1 part in 100(scores of 1-100 or 1-10, with a decimal part) precision score can really validly be assign to complex, creative work like a video game, especially given that it is difficult to impossible to be completely objective in the review. The personal preferences and tastes of the reviewer inevitably will skew the score by an amount much greater than the precision of the score(i.e. big error bars), and it's just hard to really gauge any element of the game with such high precision(again, big error bars). Scientifically speaking, one simply cannot have large precision errors leading into the calculation of a value and then still try to claim high precision with the resultant value itself.
In my opinion, about the best one could do would be a 1 part in 10 precision, which is either scoring 1-10 or 1-5, with half-integral scores. Even this is more than is necessary for the vast majority. It is sufficient to have a 5 point system that gives an overall qualitative feel: 5 = excellent, 4 = good, 3 = mediocre/okay, 2 = bad, 1 = crappy. This is about the level of qualification and precision that a human being can reasonably be expected to deal with for a general overall feel of a game's quality, and then he would use the actual text of the review/critique to obtain more detailed information before rendering a final decision to try, buy, or skip; in fact, I'd say the text is really the most important component of the review for making the decision because it tells you about all the little nuances and idiosyncrasies(or, at least, it should, if the reviewer did he job correctly). If one wanted to give a little more detail to the specific score, you can break it into components, as is often done, where elements such as graphics, controls, sound, gameplay, and replay value may be measured separately. However, the scores on each of these components would still have the same 5-point, qualitative scoring system because it's just hard for a human being to assess creative works with any greater precision.
Also, the score does not reveal whether the content of the game is of a nature that would appeal to a given individual gamer. The game could be of excellent quality, but the gamer still may not buy it because the kind of game and the themes of the content in the game simply do not interest him. There's nothing that can be done about that, and trying to make games that appeal to everyone is precisely the wrong approach(you'll just end up with a game that no one likes). The better approach is to come to know the particular audience of the game and tune and evolve the game towards their particular tastes and interests.
EDIT: Minor edits for clarity.
My only real complaint is one that applies to modern reviews in general; a numerical score to the level of precision as we assign to game reviews is total and complete bullshit.
Honestly, there is no way that 1 part in 1000(scores of 1-1000 or 1-100, with a decimal part) or even 1 part in 100(scores of 1-100 or 1-10, with a decimal part) precision score can really validly be assign to complex, creative work like a video game, especially given that it is difficult to impossible to be completely objective in the review. The personal preferences and tastes of the reviewer inevitably will skew the score by an amount much greater than the precision of the score(i.e. big error bars), and it's just hard to really gauge any element of the game with such high precision(again, big error bars). Scientifically speaking, one simply cannot have large precision errors leading into the calculation of a value and then still try to claim high precision with the resultant value itself.
In my opinion, about the best one could do would be a 1 part in 10 precision, which is either scoring 1-10 or 1-5, with half-integral scores. Even this is more than is necessary for the vast majority. It is sufficient to have a 5 point system that gives an overall qualitative feel: 5 = excellent, 4 = good, 3 = mediocre/okay, 2 = bad, 1 = crappy. This is about the level of qualification and precision that a human being can reasonably be expected to deal with for a general overall feel of a game's quality, and then he would use the actual text of the review/critique to obtain more detailed information before rendering a final decision to try, buy, or skip; in fact, I'd say the text is really the most important component of the review for making the decision because it tells you about all the little nuances and idiosyncrasies(or, at least, it should, if the reviewer did he job correctly). If one wanted to give a little more detail to the specific score, you can break it into components, as is often done, where elements such as graphics, controls, sound, gameplay, and replay value may be measured separately. However, the scores on each of these components would still have the same 5-point, qualitative scoring system because it's just hard for a human being to assess creative works with any greater precision.
Also, the score does not reveal whether the content of the game is of a nature that would appeal to a given individual gamer. The game could be of excellent quality, but the gamer still may not buy it because the kind of game and the themes of the content in the game simply do not interest him. There's nothing that can be done about that, and trying to make games that appeal to everyone is precisely the wrong approach(you'll just end up with a game that no one likes). The better approach is to come to know the particular audience of the game and tune and evolve the game towards their particular tastes and interests.
EDIT: Minor edits for clarity.
BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Anyway. >
Aside from the one truth kitchen thingy that made my laugh five times as much as shown above for 100 times longer than the time it took me to write, this was a relatively obvious episode. I still liked it though.
Anyway. >
Aside from the one truth kitchen thingy that made my laugh five times as much as shown above for 100 times longer than the time it took me to write, this was a relatively obvious episode. I still liked it though.
Another old saying comes to mind; 'Respect the opinions of others'Woodsey said:
Coupled with; 'If you disagree, don't simply tell the other person to shut the fuck up'...
Both actual proverbs...
I find Metacritic unbelievably useful. However, I don't necessarily take their score at face value. I typically use their website to get to reviews I have interest in. If the score is below 70, I'll likely never pick up the game, but above that, there is a good chance I will enjoy it. The problem is people who only buy games with 90 or higher scores or those who forget that it's a collection of reviews rather than a single entity. Another thing to take into consideration is the 5 star method. The Escapist uses it, and it irks me. It simply doesn't translate well to the 100 point system Metacritic and actually many reviewers use. 3 stars is average for the Escapist; however, that's poor for a 100 point score, as we see it as a school grade. 60. That's a D! I can't see this mentality fixed, but when looking up reviews, keep this in mind. Some may use the 5 star method. Others may only do whole numbers. These will affect scores, so it's important to know why a Metascore is what it is.
I will continue to use the website. Hell, I'm super happy with my latest purchase using their site and the reviews they link to. Strangely enough, the developers of the game I bought thought that this game wouldn't do well if it didn't score a 90 or higher. Forget that! Two of my favorite all time games scored less than 79 for their respected consoles (Mirror's Edge and FEAR 2, if you're wondering). I suppose maybe they didn't do as well as they could, but they're worth purchasing.
I will continue to use the website. Hell, I'm super happy with my latest purchase using their site and the reviews they link to. Strangely enough, the developers of the game I bought thought that this game wouldn't do well if it didn't score a 90 or higher. Forget that! Two of my favorite all time games scored less than 79 for their respected consoles (Mirror's Edge and FEAR 2, if you're wondering). I suppose maybe they didn't do as well as they could, but they're worth purchasing.
This guy has a very good point.
Sure, he seems up himself, but what he said was pretty much 100% true.
Sure, he seems up himself, but what he said was pretty much 100% true.
Exactly the same. I like the topics he tackles and despite some disagreement from me on some things he tends to have a pretty damned good cut and thrust.Relaver said:
But the persona is just infuriating me so much. It's not funny, it's not even annoying, it's just awkward. So in turn it does annoy me because he could be so much better.
I know you need something to stand out but I wish he'd dial it back a bit. If this is actually him (serious doubts) and not a persona then still annoying, sorry Jimbo.
Nonetheless, the subject is interesting enough to look past that for me, especially as it's improving week on week.
I agree with this episode for the most part but do think Metacritic have to do some of the work themselves, as a whole though yeah it's not their fault and the shit they get shovelled for it all the time is really unfair. Agreed.
Great episode. I too think it's silly that people hate Metacritic so much. I don't see why. It's a good place to see what critics generally think about a game. If there's a game I'm actually interested in I will take a look at the actual reviews that Metacritic cites to see exactly why it got the score it did. You should take Metacritic as seriously as any individual critic's review, it's just people's opinions.
With that distinction I meant that it's not a joke that gets repeated like, say, the "one million dollars" joke form Austin powers that has been repeated in every single movie after that, it's a character and is therefore supposed to be a constant.Treblaine said:
I like his fascist routine because I'm Italian and I've never seen a more spot-on caricature of fascist rhetoric in my life except maybe in the great dictator.Treblaine said:
Are you telling me that Jim's megalomania doesn't result ridiculous to you, regardless of how straight it is played?Treblaine said:
Actually he does. He did explain that blaming metacritic for the way people ABUSE it, when its use and its existence have themselves no inherently negative trait, is like blaming violent videogames for the few nutters that actually take a page out of, say, saints row, and go around killing people for fun. Metacritic is not encouraging using its scores as a reference for the success of a game, but people do it anyway, Just as manhunt doesn't endorse plastic bagging people but I'm sure if I ended up doing it somebody would make the connection.Treblaine said:
Don't you dare tell me that I don't enjoy it. I damn well enjoy Jimquisition and I damn well will keep watching. Don't generalise your opinion to others.Mendaceum said: