Jimquisition: Metacritic Isn't the Problem

[The Lugz]

well, this one was better jim
but it's still not life as we know it

it is of coarse, impossible to argue that a review / average score site is to blame for crummy game review scores

it's clearly just developers making terrible games and reviewers ripping the crap out of them publicly instead of people being mildly aggravated by a game mechanic, or whatever now they just skip the game entirely

seems a bit harsh, but that's life these days seems if you aren't exceptional your nobody, i blame the Americans and their pop idol attitude to life oozing over into the rest of popular media

 

[Awexsome]

This was the first Jimquisition episode I watched and... well...

While I thought the argument was solid (if a bit too easy) and agreeable... I gotta say I'm not a fan of the over exaggerated ego character Jim goes with.

 

[Russian_Assassin]

I love this guy! I also watched his youtube videos and I'm really glad he is on board the escapist boat! I just hope the haters don't force the "Bosses" to kick him off the site. I feel like he belongs in the escapist family, one that is home to critics that deliver valid points of views, each in his unique way (though I am fairly certain that Mr. Croshaw is the source of inspiration for many of them and not only on the escapist ).

Long live Yahtzee, Moviebob, James, Daniel, Allison, Jim and every other content provider! You guys are awesome

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Metacritic Isn't the Problem

Oh you poor, sad little cretins. You are all so wrong. Always. Forever. Jim Sterling illuminates your path, but what good does that do when you refuse to open your eyes? Oh, he's so much better than you.

Watch Video

Very good points.

Though I see it as only a very small bit like 20% that is the fault of publishers on this subject , I see it as 70% a problem created by as you said it OCD Fanboys. These people don't understand how to give a review and a reasonable review score for the situation.

Dragon Age 2 is a good example. In my opinion, the only flaw was the repeat dungeons, so I only take a point off for that, so I gave it 9 out of 10.

Now, all the things that people were bad mouthing the game for(other than the repeat dungeons), the slight change in the inventory system, the overhaul of the skills system, the dialogue wheel that just makes dialogue clearer so that people don't have to guess what will happen when they say something, and the slight change in combat(seriously, the only thing they changed was that they gave the player control over their normal attack instead of making it automated, oh and the player can actually run and move instead of walking at a snails pace), in reality are things that only effect gameplay slightly. The game still runs and the graphics are a good bit better, and if one plays every piece of content out for the game, it is easily a 50 to 60 hour game.

But these fanboys of the first game, instead of looking at any of the possible good points that they don't mention and they must have been good since they didn't bad mouth them, they just state what they didn't like about the game and then give it a zero.

A zero? A zero to two is for a game that is so bad that it can't be completed/beat because it is incredibly glitched up. Whether the game gets a zero, one, or two depends on how far the player was able to get in said glitched game. Three to five is for a game a player that didn't like a game but it still functioned. Six to Seven is for mediocre to okay, and eight to ten is for good to great.

One reason that the fanboys give the zeros is because they pathetically think that the developer will think that they made a big mistake somewhere and change the game back to what the first installment use to be, though any smart developer will just laugh at the whiner that doesn't give a reasonable score because said whiner is just crying for attention, "Boohoo, I wasn't able to customize my character right down to the shape and color of his toenails!"

Lastly I do lay 10% of fault on Metacritic. They could easily remove problem reviews that abuse the system because the reviewers weren't being rational. They could also remove the "professional" reviews that don't actually take a professional stance and act just as like those OCD fanboys and throw temper-tantrums like two year-olds and throw undeserved bottom scores. The reason I think this is import is because these reviews do influence people(though people that don't look closely). My example goes back to DA2, and a fellow Escapist user that went sometime without buying it because they saw the user review scores were so bad on Metacritic, when he finally tried the game, he found it was really great and wished he hadn't waited so long to get it. So such user reviews and unprofessional "professional" reviews are harmful, and Metacritic should take that into account and at least do some regulation on what get's put up and added to the review total.

 

[ManInRed]

I agree placing the real blame where it lies, and when people insult Meta Critic I think they are in fact insulting these groups, the dumb believers of Meta Critic. If we all shout that we hate Meta Critic enough, maybe the idiots that believe in it will stop.

Still, that isn't to say you can't hate Meta Critic for what it is. Using the same analogy of blaming a Knife Manufacturer for people getting stab, a company can create a product that makes it more dangerous than it needs to be.

Meta Critic claims to be able to sum up scores of all critics, and that's a dangerous thing to get people to believe in. Meta Critic avoids taking responsibility for the results of a system they designed. Meta Critic avoid building an archive of old famous games to use as an example or test to validate their scoring system.

A lot of nice well intention people work together to take a small part in creating an utter disaster. They can do it be cause they think their blame less. No rain drop thinks it's the blame for the flood. But they do play a part in this, and there are things they could do to make things better. The fact that they don't is why its so easy for everyone to pile on the blame on them.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Whats a Metacritic and why does it bother people so much?


Im not trolling I just dont get the fuss...

This is Metacritic:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dragon-age-ii/user-reviews?dist=negative

This is also an example of why people don't like it, because people when they don't like a game instead of giving a reasoned review and score, they just give the game a zero and move on, which actually hurts how prospective buyers make their purchases and hurts the sales of the game. With Dragon Age 2, if you remove all the unreasonable no thought given zero scores the user score would be around 7.5 instead of 4.4. It really should make a viewer wonder why the professional review average is a 79 out of 100(basically a 7.9). Of course people wrongfully make up stories that reviewers are bribed(while it happens, it probably only effects 1 out of every 100 professional reviews). So the only thing the gap can mean is that the professionals were reviewing the game professionally, while 90% of all the low score user reviews were unreasonable and should be taken down because they add nothing to situation and artificially lower a game's score.

 

[Callate]

It's not metacritic's fault that people use their scores in ways never intended, yes.

It is metacritic's fault that the way which scores are chosen and how they're weighted and retabulated- on both the critic- and consumer-review sides- is non-transparent and possibly ill-suited to the task of providing accurate critical consensus.

And I do think that perhaps Metacritic has to take its share of lumps in this idea that every game has to have a score within a handsbreadth of 80; they don't have to put everything into traffic-light coloring systems, and even Rotten Tomatoes does a better job of illuminating what's actually behind the "average" critical response.

 

[Swifteye]

Some good points made here, but unfortunately a lot too much arrogance for me to actually like this video.
A little less ego and a little more depth on exactly why the misuse of Metacritic is harmful, and here I mean that in videogame reviews for some insane reason a '70' means mediocre and a '60' means horrible, and the video would have been much better.

Your in trouble. Ego IS his hook you might as well ask yahtzee to stop being cynical or movie bob to stop being a nerd.

 

[gritch]

I think this will be the last of Jim's video's I attempt to watch. What's frustrating is he might genuinely have interesting insight but the persona he's chosen to embrace for the videos I find unbearable. I had to stop once he got the the "Jim's kitchen of truth". I know it's all an act - there's no way someone could really be that full of themselves - but I simply find it obnoxious.

 

[Metalrocks]

i never really believe these reviews. i do read them at times when i am interested in a game and want to get some infos but at times i dont agree with what i read or hear. most of the times you can believe comments as long they really cover the points properly.
otherwise i just get the game my self and make up my own mind.

you remember yahtzees review of bulletstorm? he complained about the controls and other things but the comments pretty much stated otherwise. i also played the game and i enjoyed it a lot. dint had any issues with the controls(PC)and hardly spend behind cover.

shadow harvest got from metacritic a 37%. i think this rate is really low. yes, the game has flaws and is by far not perfect, but i do enjoy the game a lot and some others too. the gameplay was fine, i dint had any issues with the controls as some reviews state, so as other problems the reviews said.

the reviews for me are informative but it never really told me to buy a game or not.

 

[MB202]

Metacritic does the same basic thing as GameRankings and Rotten Tomatoes, right? No one seems to complain about the, so what makes Metacritic so special?

 

[MrDefo]

I was not aware that Metacritic was such a big issue until now, but I think I have a pretty good idea why people put so much weight on the numbers for a game review, more so than any other genre.

Unlike film and music, there isn't a cheap way to enjoy a game outside of out and out piracy. There's no dollar theatre for video games, people aren't playing games on a radio, and video game rental is just not as simple as it once was. Games are priced so high that players are demanding a certain level of "excellence" out of them to justify the $60 purchase price. I can't imagine impulse buying a game over $20. Impulse buying a $20 DVD, well they're all about $20 now, aren't they? If the developers would look at their model, spend less time worrying about pushing the technological envelope now that that's pretty much over and done with, and use that cost cutting measure to release a series of cheaper games, I think people will have fewer qualms with playing a mediocre game. Tons of people play Angry Birds, and what is that? Bare bones gameplay, and a price point to match it.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Why are you trying to be annoying Jim, you know most people are too sensitive.

Anyway, I never pay too much attention to scores and percentages on Metacritic anyway, it's always opinion based and there is never a breakdown of all the aspects of the game, so you just read what each reviewer wants you to read.

This website has a much better reviewing system, even if it is only one person reviewing the games. (It doesn't matter if it's for Xbox games)

 

[Kenji_03]

Ya know, I think Jim finally has figured out his tone. "Everyone here hates me, and I like it that way". I'm starting to like Jim now, didn't think I'd say that at the start.

 

[Eri]

For people that hate his show, they sure keep watching it. Lol

 

[Sabinfrost]

I think Jim hit the nail on the head, even though he certainly wasn't the first. The industry needs to get over aggregates, point in case, Homefront dev losing the franchise over mediocre review scores (not outright terrible ones) despite the game having massive sales success. Now, I'm not a Homefront fan, but if a game sells in numbers the dev should have the opportunity to look at whatever went wrong, and fix it. Not have it taken away from them because some aggregate site scared the big bad publisher.