Jimquisition: Metacritic Isn't the Problem

Tom Hill

New member
Jun 28, 2010
26
0
0
I do have a problem with metacritic though! If it took reviews from only business related sites that would be fine, but because it can take any fools reviews it makes it an invalid test.

p.s. I do not like this man.

Even his theme tune puts my back up, i want him to go far, far away.
 

Lord_Gremlin

New member
Apr 10, 2009
744
0
0
Thank god for him. Too bad he didn't mention the hypocrisy of most reviews, you knwo, the ones that suppose that anything below 7 is shit. Which is retarded.
And lead to many cases when game, which deserves 3 or 6 gets 7.
 

DeaDRabbiT

New member
Sep 25, 2010
139
0
0
Juuel said:
I love Jimquisition's arrogant style, people seem to be taking him too seriously. I don't get all the hate he's getting.
Search Jim out on Youtube, he's a fucking asshole.

If the topic this week seeks to bring anything to light, it's that I seriously use metacritic to check the watermark, and get the fuck out. I don't read reviews unless it's straight from the sites I frequent, who's content I enjoy (ala Joystiq, GiantBomb, The Escapist)

The reality is, is that if you are going to dictate your own buying/playing policy with the reviews of others, then you should try to take in information from people you deem to have similar interests as yourself. Metacritic "seems" to offer nothing more than a general consensus, laid out by those allowed to submit their opinions. I wonder if there is a categorical shift in personality in people that review films on RT versus those that review games on MC.

As scattered as these thoughts are, the one thing that remains clear is I've ALWAYS found RT to be more accurate of my like/dislike barometer, than MC ever was.

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBdXq13sN1I

A hapless clown surrounded by guffawing minions...

EDIT 2: Folding the rubber cocks back into your videos I see Jim.
 

Eomega123

New member
Jan 4, 2011
367
0
0
Once again, nicely done. Whatever people say about him, he makes good points.
Thank god for Jim.
 

Moonlight Butterfly

Be the Leaf
Mar 16, 2011
6,157
0
0
I enjoyed this one although it got a bit blathery towards the middle. He's right a review site isn't evil in itself. It's just how people use and interepret the reviews. The biggest irony is that metacritic reviews are from anyone so surely we should be looking to ourselves and our own action an inaction to have an effect on the industry. Personally I'm not sure metacritic is a good idea as it can be abused but in most cases as in Dragon Age 2 this is pretty obvious (although DA2 did suck badly)

I found it a little strange that the woman wanted Jim to remove his reviews from the site? Surely one persons view isn't going to disrupt the things badly and even then he's got a right to his own opinion surely?

I also found the images and vids used in this one to be a little distracting from the discourse but at least its more upmarket than the previous attempts.

As for those who are against him, I'm not his biggest fan but I think it's good that he is attempting to change his tone and presentation a little for The Escapist. He's obviously capable of intelligent thought behind that arrogant exterior.
 

Macrobstar

New member
Apr 28, 2010
896
0
0
Pr0 said:
Thanks for the warning, I'll keep in mind that only site contributors are allowed to insult people from now on! I shall move back to my life of being a sad little cretin.
Good, make it easier for us to enjoy these great videos in peace
 

Zom-B

New member
Feb 8, 2011
379
0
0
Still Life said:
Zom-B said:
He's essentially right. And furthermore, you don't hear anyone complaining about how RottenTomatoes.com is ruining the movie industry.

As usual, a whiny minority seeks to change/ruin something for everyone else because they got their knickers in a twist of a perceived slighting.
Minority groups can be a good thing and can provide unique perspectives on matters. I would argue that the industry need super-hardcore fans, because quite often they're in tune with the essence of a game/series and can provide great feedback to developers. Bioware Social is a great example of a hardcore fanbase which contributes to the development process of Bioware games in a positive way. I frequently loiter around the Mass Effect forums and the developers have taken ques from community requests.

I feel that you've kinda missed the point, as it's not so much those OCD gamers who moan over score inconsistencies, but that it is ultimately the industry itself which has created a phenomena that works against the production of more innovative and risk-taking games. Sure, there's a small and vocal minority of people out there -- just like there is here on the Escapist -- who take issue with every detail in reviews and at the end of the day: it's their burden.

When will people learn that a 60, or a 70 does not necessarily equate to a bad game?

Love your videos, Jim! Make 'em angry :)
First of all, I'd like to point out that there's a difference between a "whiny minority" and a "minority group". Perhaps it wasn't your intention to equate the people who I was referring to- the whiny people who think Metacritic is bad or ruining something- to a minority group along ethnic or religious lines, for example.

I think you sort of missed the point. It's not about OCD gamers moaning over score inconsistencies. It's about a vocal minority who think a tool that can be abused by it's user base is necessarily a bad thing. And in contrasting it to a website like RottenTomatoes, it shows that it really is just a vocal minority who don't understand what an aggregate tool is and how it's both used and abused.

The public user base certainly abuses Metacritic. Regardless of whether or not a "professional" review is viewed as genuine, there's enough variety on a site like Metacritic to generally ensure that critic reviews are a good general indicator of a game's quality. It should not be the be all, end all tool that people make decisions on.

I agree that the video game industry has created a phenomena that is harming some developers, but putting too much stock in Metacritic scores. Not only is it foolish of the industry, but it's short sighted as well. Taking a handful of reviews, a tiny percentage of people that have played/reviewed a given game, and making business decisions is massively foolish. The industry has shot itself in the foot by listening to a vocal group of players/reveiwers, which is why we get more sequels and less new IPs. They've decided based on the most vocal of gamers to give all gamers the same products.

Metacritic is not the problem. Abuse of the system and an industry frightened of failure is the problem.
 

StrixMaxima

New member
Sep 8, 2008
298
0
0
While the general gist of the piece is agreeable, I think the analysis presented here is overly simplistic and bland. No popular site is "only a site". There are trends and behaviors going on in them that deserve to be studied and understood. Flattening the comments of those who disagree with you is, at best, dishonest and hypocritical.

My biggest issue, however, is this obnoxious, totally unfun and unlikable persona. The text is not witty enough to warrant such arrogance and finger-pointing. It is, by far, my least-liked feature on Escapist, specially side by side with Zero Punctuation and Extra Credits, which are exquisitely written and delivered.
 

NKnight

New member
Jul 31, 2010
90
0
0
Spot1990 said:
NKnight said:
""""Leigh Alexander recently wrote a columm asking me to remove my reviews from Metacritic. Since I'm well know for a ratter divisive writing style, and my reviews don't always march in line with common thinking""""

I hate Jim for his lack of dualism. His own (usually distorted) perspetive is king. And the rest is considered non existent. I'm sure what Leigh Alexander critiqued in her column is NOT his "divisive writing style" and his tendendence to "go against common thinking". Way to look the hero, Jim. Serioulsy, that's just my opinion (probably not just mine), but this is ridiculous.
Actually it basically was.

http://sexyvideogameland.blogspot.com/

Lack of dualism? You just assumed Jim was wrong because you don't like him without even reading the blog in question.
Stop pointing fingers. Even if I do lack sense of dualism it doesn't excuse other people of doing so, especially if they are reviewers. "2 wrongs doesn't make one right". Secondly, I did read her column, and I don't remember seen any reference to his "lack of common sense" or "divisive writing style", that's just a distorted interpretation of the text. It's a 2500 words text filled with criticism (good and mainly bad) that Jim resumes as complains about his "lack of common sense" and "divisive writing style". It's basically about how popular silly reviews damages professional ones and the industry as a hole. So I'm sorry, but I disagree with the all powerful and blessed Jim.
 

Toraylin2

New member
May 6, 2011
9
0
0
Honestly, I really doubt this guy is like all self absorbed in real life. Otherwise I doubt he'd be on here in the first place. I like his material personally. A lot of it is funny.
 

Grabbin Keelz

New member
Jun 3, 2009
1,039
0
0
Bob needs to take some tips from you, he's always trying to appease his haters.

I always liked Metacritic and I always knew what it was for, a compilation of all the critic reviews onto one final score. Usually there might be some problems with it (I remember Portal 2 got a 100) but so far it's done a pretty good job.

Also, anyone notice that the metacritic score for Duke Nukem Forever seems to be constantly going down? It's at like 50 now, which I find hilarious.
 

mandaforever

New member
Feb 16, 2011
164
0
0
ManupBatman said:
Easy fix, just don't take metacritic seriously. Find a few reviewers who share your views and trust their judgement, or rent the game and trust your own.

This industry takes itself too seriously.
As someone trying to get employed in this industry, I COMPLETELY agree.
 

mandaforever

New member
Feb 16, 2011
164
0
0
Toraylin2 said:
Honestly, I really doubt this guy is like all self absorbed in real life. Otherwise I doubt he'd be on here in the first place. I like his material personally. A lot of it is funny.
Pretty sure the whole thing is just a "character", that's part of the humor.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Glad to see Jimquisition still hasn't lost his touch of projecting his contempt of his audience with the intention of creating ironic humor. Of course, it's not even funny or insulting at this point; it's just trite. Oh wells. You can't all be Yahtzee or the AVGN.

So I skipped over the requisite trolling this time to see if there was a point...
...And amazingly, there was. Oh snap!

So...Metacritic. Yeah, I actually haven't commented on this yet.
Jim broke it down to 3-parties in his video, so I'll do the same.

It's fairly obvious why Publishers have started using Metacritic as a paycheck barometer; they find it convenient when they remove themselves (but not their initial mandates) so far from the game creation process in the first place. Besides, policies like those give them an excuse to shunt all the blame onto the developer if the game bombs, and keep the extra cash in their pockets if the game sells well anyway.

On the reviewer side...well, it's impossible to definitively argue for or against the reviewers simply because they aren't all from the same source material (unlike Associated Press content, in comparison).
Most of the current popular review sites have such amazing bias and lack of objectivity that they are certainly being slipped money under the table by the publishers...but not at all times and certainly not for all games.

Of course, that's the beauty of Metacritic; you have an active archive of a variety of reviews. So when you're done watching Big Name Review Site X hype Game Y beyond believability, you can flip to more moderate or even negative reviews.
This is really the only thing that the pre-aggregate review score is good for; sorting everything from the All-Hype (often bought) reviews to the Jaded Dude who had to buy the game out of their own pocket.

A pure "review" of a game should consist of the Heart Review and the Head Review; Objectivity and Subjectivity; and it should be clear which is which at all times.
However, in the interest of money we have a growing trend in the gaming journalism world which is hurting the objective value of a review in the first place: "Rant-views", or raving blindly during a review for the sake of being entertaining.
Here we have an objective-oriented task about procuring new entertainment (checking reviews for a game you are interested in, but unsure of) that is being turned more and more into entertainment itself!

Look at Zero Punctuation. It's an immensely popular show (and probably the main reason most of the users here are even on the forums) that has lost just about all of its objective credibility over the years in favor of showcasing Yahtzee's contempt of the world as entertainment. You can find the same story with most of the Blistered Thumbs episodes or AVGN clones out there too.

So how is this relevant to Metacritic?
1) An "Entertainment" review is going to be less overtly objective, but more popular to watch which brings in the ad-hits that pay the bills (good thing Yahtzee doesn't provide scores). As a result, this reviewing style is becoming increasingly popular in the game gaming press.
2) Said reviews that get added to Metacritic will have their score (if any is given) added to the aggregate. This means that these less/non-objective reviews will still produce an objective score.
3) Then we have these Publishers making ludicrous payment policies based on these scores.

Honestly, nobody important in the business actually listens to the rants of fanboys. Many of these are individualized or isolated, and business/marketing cares more about what common ground they can find or create in their audience [sub](ever notice how RPG elements keep creeping into shooters even when they ultimately serve no purpose other than to add grind to a game? That's no accident.)[sub] unless its unilateral, consistent, and objective in nature (like changing/removing a feature; remember when everyone bitched about the Mako in Mass Effect 1? It's just gone in Mass Effect 2); Most fanboy braying has none of that.
 

Sonicron

Do the buttwalk!
Mar 11, 2009
5,133
0
0
... Ehhh. I heartily approve of the message Jim conveys here, but the presentation still makes me cringe. I'm fine with the dub parts (aside, perhaps, from the resolution of the videos), but those bits with him in front of the camera need to go. Badly. Aside from the fact that the 'acting' makes my eyes and ears bleed, this guy needs to adjust his wardrobe. Casual works; suit and tie works; suit and tie plus coat works; coat plus t-shirt... yeah, not so much.
 

Gunjester

New member
Mar 31, 2010
249
0
0
"....You prick.."
I fell off my chair.
Well Done sir, the series is getting better every episode.
For those who hate, calm down for a second and maybe, I don't know...stop watching instead? maybe? hm?