• Should we kill Metacritic
    89 replies, posted
[url]http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/time-to-kill-metacritic/0139824[/url] [quote]I always used to be perplexed by video game reviews because, on the whole, all the critics seemed to agree with each other. If one journalist gives a game an 8, then you can guarantee that most others will, too (give or take a point). The occasional outlet that dares to go with a 6 will be accused of click grabbing. Compare that to film or music. Film critics are always disagreeing on the quality of the latest release, and even the biggest blockbusters can receive drastically different scores. That doesn’t seem to happen in games. Maybe the critics are just too similar, or maybe too many journalists try to be objective in their criticism. Nevertheless, I was still surprised everyone seemed to think BioShock Infinite and The Last of Us were 9/10s. Surely someone wasn’t that satisfied? However, the reviews that have come out recently, whether it was for Destiny or FIFA 15 or Alien Isolation or The Evil Within, have been far more conflicted. ... The problem with such subjective viewpoints, and something I'm sure partially inspires the backlashes against them, is Metacritic. Metacritic matters. And I mean really matters. For some reason, the Metacritic number is – or at least appears to be – the final say on whether a gamer should or should not buy a game. It got a 91 Metacritic score? I’m in! Only 77? Yeah, maybe pre-owned. It’s a ridiculous notion. Why is the Metacritic score – which includes the feelings of the reviewers you don’t agree with – more important than the scores from individuals that you do agree with? ... What’s worse is that publishers even give developers bonuses based on the Metacritic performance…. I dread to think how many times a group of talented people didn’t get their extra money because one journalist didn’t like their game quite as much as the next guy. Metacritic's scores seem to have this illusion that by combining everyone's scores, it reduces the subjectivity. But that's not true at all. And to the fans, these Metacritic scores actually matter. I’m a Zelda fan, and even I feel somewhat disappointed when a new Zelda title gets below 90 on Metacritic. I’ll even try and look at that reviews that marked the game down and, normally, I find the critic would moan about the fact that this Zelda ‘is too much like the other ones’. Which in my view is no criticism at all, and I’ll find myself itching to write down how wrong they are in 140 characters. It’s silly. That reviewer is fed up of playing ‘the same old’ Zelda game, I’m not. Two different opinions, which are equally valid. It shouldn’t matter. But because of Metacritic and the monetary value publishers place on its scores, it does matter. So what’s the solution? Prominent YouTuber Total Biscuit wrote in one of his long tweets recently that we should ‘abolish scores’. The sentiment is right, but it’s unrealistic. People are busy. They don’t always have time to read the whole critical analysis. Some just want to know if it’s good or bad. If we abandon the review score, will it condition gamers to read the whole review? Or just stop them reading altogether? I hope for the former, but expect latter. [/quote] I think we seriously should kill Metacritic. From consumer standpoint the only thing it really does well is that it's convenience. But that convenience has a price. For example, Fallout New Vegas developers didn't get their bonus simple because they didn't get an 80 on Metacritic. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't allow for subjective views about topics, or enforces those subjective views too much.
Yes.
What's the point? People are going to get their knickers in a twist regardless of whether it's Metacritic or somewhere else saying it's shit.
Yes, we should. Will we? No. Publishers created this monster, and they have no desire to kill it as long as it remains a convenient tool to cherrypick from for marketing and raise a nonexistent carrot for developers to scramble for. If it was an ACTUAL aggregate instead of a cherry picked miasma, it would probably be a pretty accurate sentiment and gradient indicator.
I am still angry that Obsidian got fucked out of getting well-deserved royalties for making Fallout New Vegas purely because their Metacritic score was 1/100th too low.
[QUOTE=Jordax;46279081]I am still angry that Obsidian got fucked out of getting well-deserved royalties for making Fallout New Vegas purely because their Metacritic score was 1/100th too low.[/QUOTE] And from what I hear, it was Bethesda's fault that happened because they didn't give them enough time to bug test.
[QUOTE=Jordax;46279081]I am still angry that Obsidian got fucked out of getting well-deserved royalties for making Fallout New Vegas purely because their Metacritic score was 1/100th too low.[/QUOTE] As am I. Only game I've ever pre-ordered and I feel it was worth every cent of that money. Currently playing it with Tale of Two Wastelands, matter of fact. Ridiculously good game and Obsidian deserved the bonus they were denied. [editline]19th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Trebgarta;46279091]Why does metacritic receive flak? Genuine quesiton.[/QUOTE] Because it's inaccurate yet held to a ridiculous standard. Because devs get gypped out of their bonuses based not on the quality of their work but what number they get on metacritic.
[QUOTE=Whatsinaname;46279089]And from what I hear, it was Bethesda's fault that happened because they didn't give them enough time to bug test.[/QUOTE] New Vegas is amazing and a huge beast, but it was originally supposed to have a LOT more dev time. There were supposed to be tons of quests that got cut, as well as a big map extension east. I just like to imagine what could have been.
for games yes but all gaming reviews and criticism and journalism and the industry as a whole is awful anyway so it's a given
Why is Metacritic to blame for other people putting way too much value in it? By that logic, something like RT should go away too.
I like being able to see all of a game's reviews listed on a single site, but condensing everybody's opinion into a single number is absurd.
[QUOTE=TestECull;46279106]Because it's inaccurate yet held to a ridiculous standard. Because devs get gypped out of their bonuses based not on the quality of their work but what number they get on metacritic.[/QUOTE] Isn't that kind of the fault of the publisher since that was the publisher's policy?
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;46279142]That is shit. Until now, I thought those numbers didn't mean anything (at least they dont for me) and I always took time to read through both positive, ,negative and in-between reviews before buying something. If publishers hold it as an objective reference, then they are idiots, for the very least.[/QUOTE] They aren't idiots, they are just trying to get more money, and cheating devs out of that is a very easy way to.
Based on a Metacritic score, I go looking for video reviews or gameplay. The internet has empowered us to look into games further than a simple score, but having that score helps to highlight which games may be worth looking at and which games are likely trash. One would hope that pooling all scores together would dilute any biases, and I find it hard to believe that there's such a high level of collusion that it can't be a gauge of what's what.
please tell me why the gaming industry as a whole is so dumb and immature i dont even play games or follow anything gaming related anymore
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;46279173]Isn't that kind of the fault of the publisher since that was the publisher's policy?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;46279139]Why is Metacritic to blame for other people putting way too much value in it? By that logic, something like RT should go away too.[/QUOTE] I think "kill Metacritic" is supposed to mean killing the ridiculous amount of influence it has, because it has become too much of a focus for publishers and consumers.
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46279126]New Vegas is amazing and a huge beast, but it was originally supposed to have a LOT more dev time. There were supposed to be tons of quests that got cut, as well as a big map extension east. I just like to imagine what could have been.[/QUOTE] They had just 13 months to make New Vegas from scratch. Two months were lost in coming up with all the concepts, which just left 11 months for Obsidian to actually make the game. Which makes it all the more impressive that they managed to put in triple the amount of weapons in Fallout 3 and double the amount of quests, even on a really tight deadline. Imagine what they would have done with six months more. Or if they weren't limited by the restrictions the GameBryo engine and consoles brought . (This caused the New Vegas Strip to be toned down immensely in comparison to its concept art due to the engine limitations, for example)
IF you kill Metacritic a new one will popup in it's place, because all Metacritic does it grab reviews from other sources and average them. You literally can't stop it unless other companies stop giving out numerical reviews.
What I hate about metacritic is any time a big budget game is released and people find flaws they don't like, they swarm together and give it a 0. so they can go LOOK WATCH DOGS HAS A 3.3 ON METACRITIC!!! Now, I don't particularly care about Watch_Dogs, but I just think that's immature. It's not indicative of the actual content of the game just because you felt cheated that you pre-ordered and didn't like what you got.
A demo will remain the greatest deciding factor in buying a video game.
[QUOTE=Megadave;46279263]A demo will remain the greatest deciding factor in buying a video game.[/QUOTE] Even then, demos can be misleading. There are some great games with awful demos.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;46279020]For example, Fallout New Vegas developers didn't get their bonus simple because they didn't get an 80 on Metacritic. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't allow for subjective views about topics, or enforces those subjective views too much.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Jordax;46279081]I am still angry that Obsidian got fucked out of getting well-deserved royalties for making Fallout New Vegas purely because their Metacritic score was 1/100th too low.[/QUOTE] So what, Metacritic is to blame for that? F:NV editors, or whoever was paying Obsidian, did absolutely nothing wrong by deciding whether to pay developers extra based on a biasable source? You can't be serious.
[QUOTE=markg06;46279041]What's the point? People are going to get their knickers in a twist regardless of whether it's Metacritic or somewhere else saying it's shit.[/QUOTE] It's more of a problem with publishers using metacritic as a base for the devteam's bonuses and salaries.
When I use metacritic I only view user scores
I don't listen to metacritic
I don't often look at metacritic ratings but they're usually a good indication of whether a game is good or not. That's as simple as I see it. I think the whole F:NV metacritic controversy was insanely moronic on their publisher's part, though I wouldn't want Metacritic to go away just because of it, as others say it would be pointless. Saying "should we kill metacritic" is also an arrogant and dumb thing to say as well.
The only rating I don't completely ignore is the steam rating, actually.
GameTrailers for me is where all the answers to the question of "is this game good?" are found. I've been using it for years, hasn't let me down, though only rarely.
I still only trust Adam Sessler when it comes to video game journalism. Edit: I thought we all loved Adam Sessler and his reviews?
I don't get the hate on it, it's stupid that companies base bonuses etc (Like the NV incident) on it but that doesn't really seem like a problem with metacritic, more with the game studio. That said, I generally ignore the "official" rating and only really pay attention to the user rating, it seems to be a much better indicator.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.