I mostly use the reception part on wikipedia to see if a game (or a film) is any good. And I use the IGN video revieuw to see if I should buy it.
Metacritic is evil.
- Thread starter BanicRhys
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Question, isn't the whole point of a review to get a biased opinion? I mean, in a world of advertisements--which hype things up the ass--we need something to chop down some of that hype.
The fact is: no experience will ever be purely objective. I mean, some people don't like water. Water--the most basic form of sustenance. How would one go about critiquing water? Using words like "refreshing" or "bland" are inherently subjective. To tie this in to the topic: to ask a critic to put objective words on paper describing an experience is asking a lot of him or her. As someone once said at some point in time: "You only know what you know". Objectivity is speaking for everyone and, since we're not everyone, we can't be objective without being noncommittal or just plain useless.
I actually believe there was a "Describe Water" thread somewhere on this forum. I don't think I ever looked at it.
The fact is: no experience will ever be purely objective. I mean, some people don't like water. Water--the most basic form of sustenance. How would one go about critiquing water? Using words like "refreshing" or "bland" are inherently subjective. To tie this in to the topic: to ask a critic to put objective words on paper describing an experience is asking a lot of him or her. As someone once said at some point in time: "You only know what you know". Objectivity is speaking for everyone and, since we're not everyone, we can't be objective without being noncommittal or just plain useless.
I actually believe there was a "Describe Water" thread somewhere on this forum. I don't think I ever looked at it.
1up reviews.
They don't use numbers or any real sort of rating system. Just a review and thats it. No score.
They don't use numbers or any real sort of rating system. Just a review and thats it. No score.
I agree. He's a bitunfair to most of the games he reviews but I'm fairly sure he does that on purpose. I usually watch under the assumption that everything he doesn't mention is fine, unless of course he completely and openly hates a game in which case everything is probably shit.Lonely Packager said:
I dislike Meta critic for the reason people do scores for different reasons.
For some like Destructoid (Fight the power Jim screw with meta critic XD)the score is based around
10 -- Flawless Victory (10s are as close to perfect as you will get in a genre or on a platform. Pure, untarnished videogame ecstasy.)
9 -- Superb (9s are a hallmark of excellence. There may be flaws, but they are negligible and won't cause massive damage to what is a supreme title.)
8 -- Great (8s are impressive efforts with a few noticeable problems holding them back. Won't astound everyone, but is worth your time and cash.)
7 -- Good (7s are solid games that definitely have an audience. Might lack replay value, could be too short or there are some hard-to-ignore faults, but the experience is fun.)
6 -- Alright (6s may be slightly above average or simply inoffensive. Fans of the genre should enjoy them a bit, but a fair few will be left unfulfilled.)
5 -- Mediocre (5s are an exercise in apathy, neither Solid nor Liquid. Not exactly bad, but not very good either. Just a bit "meh," really.)
4 -- Below Average (4s have some high points, but they soon give way to glaring faults. Not the worst games, but are difficult to recommend.)
3 -- Poor (3s went wrong somewhere along the line. The original idea might have promise, but in practice the game has failed. Threatens to be interesting sometimes, but rarely.)
2 -- Bad (2s are a disaster. Any good they might have had are quickly swallowed up by glitches, poor design choices or a plethora of other issues. The desperate or the gullible may find a glimmer of fun hidden somewhere in the pit.)
1 -- Epic Fail (1s are the lowest of the low. There is no potential, no skill, no depth and no talent. These games have nothing to offer the world, and will die lonely and forgotten.)
However but personally the game needs to insanely unique or revolutionary in all areas to warrant triple 10s for an overall score
For some like Destructoid (Fight the power Jim screw with meta critic XD)the score is based around
10 -- Flawless Victory (10s are as close to perfect as you will get in a genre or on a platform. Pure, untarnished videogame ecstasy.)
9 -- Superb (9s are a hallmark of excellence. There may be flaws, but they are negligible and won't cause massive damage to what is a supreme title.)
8 -- Great (8s are impressive efforts with a few noticeable problems holding them back. Won't astound everyone, but is worth your time and cash.)
7 -- Good (7s are solid games that definitely have an audience. Might lack replay value, could be too short or there are some hard-to-ignore faults, but the experience is fun.)
6 -- Alright (6s may be slightly above average or simply inoffensive. Fans of the genre should enjoy them a bit, but a fair few will be left unfulfilled.)
5 -- Mediocre (5s are an exercise in apathy, neither Solid nor Liquid. Not exactly bad, but not very good either. Just a bit "meh," really.)
4 -- Below Average (4s have some high points, but they soon give way to glaring faults. Not the worst games, but are difficult to recommend.)
3 -- Poor (3s went wrong somewhere along the line. The original idea might have promise, but in practice the game has failed. Threatens to be interesting sometimes, but rarely.)
2 -- Bad (2s are a disaster. Any good they might have had are quickly swallowed up by glitches, poor design choices or a plethora of other issues. The desperate or the gullible may find a glimmer of fun hidden somewhere in the pit.)
1 -- Epic Fail (1s are the lowest of the low. There is no potential, no skill, no depth and no talent. These games have nothing to offer the world, and will die lonely and forgotten.)
However but personally the game needs to insanely unique or revolutionary in all areas to warrant triple 10s for an overall score
Metacritic isn't evil; it's the users. They're pricks. 
Anyway, as for the system of numbers, I feel that in essence, it's a good idea, but that it's been totally fucked up over time. For instance, the IGN approach: Everything is worth eight unless proven otherwise, a terrible triple A game will always score a six, we never even use five and under, A nine is not a representation of near perfection, but a number given out like candy to triple A games, and all of those rules are negotiable for enough money.
I'm not saying that the reviews aren't useful; knowing the ups and downs of a game is good, and I love the reviews that at the end summarise the particular strengths are flaws, but I don't feel that a numerical score fully encapsulates that, and, more to the point, that a system that's limited, for the most part, between seven and nine is utterly useless.
Anyway, as for the system of numbers, I feel that in essence, it's a good idea, but that it's been totally fucked up over time. For instance, the IGN approach: Everything is worth eight unless proven otherwise, a terrible triple A game will always score a six, we never even use five and under, A nine is not a representation of near perfection, but a number given out like candy to triple A games, and all of those rules are negotiable for enough money.
I'm not saying that the reviews aren't useful; knowing the ups and downs of a game is good, and I love the reviews that at the end summarise the particular strengths are flaws, but I don't feel that a numerical score fully encapsulates that, and, more to the point, that a system that's limited, for the most part, between seven and nine is utterly useless.
So a system that aggregates data from several sources, weights those sources based on their own system and converts different rating systems based on their own oppinion is unbiased ?Hisshiss said:
Now thats a novel interpretation of unbiased...
And btw, why do you think that publishers restrict the publication of reviews based on the score of the review ? E.g. "You can only publish this review at release if you give it a 10/10."
Right - it's to manipulate the metacritic scores.
No, you can't expect major sites to give objective or even accurate reviews anymore. Inmo, it's easier to find some casters or "indi" reviewers that closly match your own taste.
Totalbiscuit (although he's NOT reviewing games and just provides impressions on them) and Angry Joe are held in high regards in my evaluation of new games. If they dislike a game, I have a high chance of finding fault with it as well - thats just because their tastes are similar to mine.
Angry Joe is probably the best larger reviewer on the internet, as he has nothing to lose by giving a game a bad score. He also does long detailed video, as well text, reviews, unlike IGN who try to cover it all in 3 minutes.
its evil I tell ya, EVVVVIIIILLLLLL
Come on OP, so a website which collects the reviews of everyone on the internet is evil? Did it kill a puppy or anything. You really need to start learning what evil actually is man.
Come on OP, so a website which collects the reviews of everyone on the internet is evil? Did it kill a puppy or anything. You really need to start learning what evil actually is man.
Why does it matter that a reviewer is bias? As others have pointed out, a purely objective review accomplishes nothing. Certain biases and subjectivity are inherently required to score and analysis the problems of games. Subjectivity isn't a bad thing, you know. Now, are there certain websites and critics who are better than IGN? Sure, of course, but that doesn't mean all reviewers are "corrupt" or something. Tell me: why should I care that a reviewer has a bias? I have two eyes and a functioning brain: I can read the review and figure out if I place credence in the opinion of that particular critic.
Even further, how is Metacritic evil? All it does is aggregate scores: that's about as objective as you can possibly get. How does aggregating make it evil?
Even further, how is Metacritic evil? All it does is aggregate scores: that's about as objective as you can possibly get. How does aggregating make it evil?
You can argue corporate corruption all you like, if you take 20 instances of a 1 to 10 score, add them all up, and then divide by 20, the number you get is for all intent and purpose, the average of the variables in question. Now if those numbers were rigged beforehand or weighted incorrectly, well that's a whole new issue entirely, but at the very least, the system metacritic uses is atleast supposed to be unbiased.LorienvArden said:
That being said, I don't know anything about the political side of this stuff, I was just expressing the math behind their system, your suggestion of just finding someone with similiar tastes and letting them tell you what to buy probly works better anyways.
Destructoid has always been somewhat good. They still have the courage to hand out low scores to games published by the big companies.
If a game gets a low score on Destructoid that's a warning sign. High scores in their reviews still don't tell you much though.
angryjoeshow.com is very silly, but Joe usually makes fair points and he's not afraid to be critical.
A low aggregate user scores on metcritic, if enough people have voted (say 100+) is also something to watch out for. Usually the hated game really is poor, IMO. Spore. DA2. C&C4.
If a game gets a low score on Destructoid that's a warning sign. High scores in their reviews still don't tell you much though.
angryjoeshow.com is very silly, but Joe usually makes fair points and he's not afraid to be critical.
A low aggregate user scores on metcritic, if enough people have voted (say 100+) is also something to watch out for. Usually the hated game really is poor, IMO. Spore. DA2. C&C4.
Another thing I find really stupid is how the majority of the gaming community thinks a 3 out of 5 or a 7 out of 10 is bad. Seriously, it's like 6 is a 0 now.
Really, I just use metacritic as a huge load of links to other reviews sites. I read a ton of reviews, and try to get the truth out of it all.
I do trust the escapist's reviews most of the time, but due to perhaps the fact that they cover so much more than reviews, they only review a fraction of releases.
I do trust the escapist's reviews most of the time, but due to perhaps the fact that they cover so much more than reviews, they only review a fraction of releases.
So in short, anyone who says that many reviewers are ~not~ on the payroll of the publishers of video games is wrong, right?BanicRhys said:
Well, sorry to say, they'd be right. =p That only applies to the biggest sites and even then they aren't sponsored by all publishers. And even ~then~ it doesn't always mean it'll influence the review. I still have vivid memories of the official Sega Saturn and Dreamcast magazines giving Sega made games bad scores if they, y'know, were bad, sponsorship be damned.
But if you're that uptight about the EVUL CORPORATIONS breaking the fingers of reviewers if they don't give bad games favourable scores, you could always try reading reviews on smaller sites, they often have to buy their own games. This also often means that their reviews are later than those of sites who get copies sent by the publisher, but, y'know, c'est la vie. And rest assured, getting free copies doesn't stop many sites and magazines from blasting truly awful games.