People prefer good games over shit ones i am surprised
You sure it isn't the other way around?
From the graphics you can also tell they like horrible games more than average/good games.
And in other news, studies show that the sky is blue.
It makes no sense early acces games can even be rated. Yes you can buy them, but they are still in alpha/beta and most games never should get rated as a finished product then.
[QUOTE=onebit;44626063]Such a shame, a lot of early access games [URL="http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/orion-dino-horde"]get low scores[/URL], even if they make[URL="http://store.steampowered.com/news/?headlines=1&appids=104900&appgroupname=ORION%3A+Dino+Horde&feed=steam_updates"] huge updates later[/URL].[/QUOTE]
Why do early access games get reviewed?
We really should just ignore these x/100 rating systems, they're someone else's opinion. I'd rather watch/read a review and decide based on what was said whether I'd like the game or not rather than judge games as good or bad based on an arbitrary number system.
To me it's really frustrating that Metacritic is so influential, because all they do is provide subjective numbers and thanks to that they can make or break the success of a game.
It's true, Marvel Heroes has like 58 which to me screams "shit" (i really shouldn't pay attention to it) but they have updated the game so much since release and the game is better over all, just some stuff i personally don't agree with like buying bank slots with real money but it might be possible to unlock them through the splinter currency which drops off mobs like you can heroes.
But if it wasn't for my mate telling me how much of a better game it is then I wouldn't of second looked at the game. They should just get rid of it really..
It's sad because Metacritic is shit and its opinion should be discarded.
[QUOTE=Keychain;44626371]It's sad because Metacritic is shit and its opinion should be discarded.[/QUOTE]
Metacritic doesn't have an opinion, it aggregates publications.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;44625873]From the graphics you can also tell they like horrible games more than average/good games.[/QUOTE]
well almost all my friends on steam own bad rats
Apologies if I'm not the most informed person ever but Metacritic is a god damn plague and shouldn't influence a single thing in the games industry.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;44626633]You might as well say "Opinions shouldn't influence a single thing in the games industry".[/QUOTE]
So I sound completely dumb then? Cool.
[QUOTE=VietRooster2;44626605]Apologies if I'm not the most informed person ever but Metacritic is a god damn plague and shouldn't influence a single thing in the games industry.[/QUOTE]
You might as well say "Opinions shouldn't influence a single thing in the games industry".
[QUOTE=onebit;44626063]Such a shame, a lot of early access games [URL="http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/orion-dino-horde"]get low scores[/URL], even if they make[URL="http://store.steampowered.com/news/?headlines=1&appids=104900&appgroupname=ORION%3A+Dino+Horde&feed=steam_updates"] huge updates later[/URL].[/QUOTE]
Dino horde wasn't an early access game. It released (as dino beatdown) before early access was even a thing.
this kinda annoys me. metascore is not a substantial metric at all. averaging a bunch of scores that don't follow the same criteria and vary hugely in ways that don't make sense a lot of the time is just such a ridiculous way to judge a game.
[QUOTE=xianlee;44626283]It's true, Marvel Heroes has like 58 which to me screams "shit" (i really shouldn't pay attention to it) but they have updated the game so much since release and the game is better over all, just some stuff i personally don't agree with like buying bank slots with real money but it might be possible to unlock them through the splinter currency which drops off mobs like you can heroes.
But if it wasn't for my mate telling me how much of a better game it is then I wouldn't of second looked at the game. They should just get rid of it really..[/QUOTE]
No that's a slightly above average game.
[QUOTE=bdd458;44626810]No that's a slightly above average game.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.thegamecritique.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Review-Scale.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Keychain;44626371]It's sad because Metacritic is shit and its opinion should be discarded.[/QUOTE]
Remember when Obsidian actively lost money because they were like 4% under the required rating to get their full salary
I remember some devs who had overtime, trying to aim for a specific Metascore before they would get bonuses and they were off 1 or 2 points. think it might have been Fallout New Vegas. unsure how much effect Metascore has on actual sales of games, nor if they're reasonably scored across genres....i wouldn't think there would be much scope between 1st Party games and yearly FPSes.
Scores are just too arbitrary, it's like it ranged from "90 Triple A, must buy" to "85 Good, if possibly great" to "79, avoidavoidavoid", it's like the the 10 point system, good games just ranged from 8 to 10, personally im partial to the star system or at least have different reviewers to rate scores based on their genres rather than what current standards are. (i could see non-final fantasy games slip under the radar)
Dragon Quest
4: 80 (8.2, 40)
5: 84 (8.4, 45)
6: 78 (8.5, 22 ratings)
7: Note, Playstation, not the JP 3DS Remake. 78 (9.3 22 ratings)
8: 89 (8.6 user, 171 ratings)
9: 87 (8.8, 151)
8 suffers from the Final Fantasy 7 effect, where a game for the first time sees worldwide recognition thus doesn't suffer from being a remake that might not cut with the times 10 years later, 9 suffers from Persona-ism where a drastically different game is more popular than previous ones. (if the amount of user reviews totals more than the previous games means anything, barring 8)
7 is a slightly sad case, because by the time it came out, there was newer consoles and games around the corner at the turn of the millennium, for Americans, the last main Dragon Quest (Warrior) title came out 1992 and that was with 4. thus it might be skeptical for reviewers, but more loved by userscores.
But the bottom of the line, a Metascore should be based on the playability/enjoyability of the genre they represent, a game should feel responsive with mechanics that makes sense, people should refrain from giving 85-90+'s, unless it actually fills the niche of production value and not by popularity, thatway they don't become the Great standard and avoids vindicting any titles that falls to the 70's or misses off by one point.
Nintendo wise: Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3 got a 91 with a 9.3 user/63 people. Island DS 81 (probably because of the Island name) 7.2 user/40 people. and New Island netting a (justifyably) bad 64 with 5.9 user/76 people, where the critics actually agrees with the fans.
The Yoshi's Island name has a lot of metascore grabby potential, Yoshi's Story: 65 critic. 7.5 user/28 people....Topsy Turvy is such a severe black eye that it's even lower than New Island with 60. only 1 person rated it with a negative. top it off, Touch and Go got a 73 with a 7.0 user/26 ratings...though that might have been spoiled by 2 negatives. guess it depends how the averaging works...said review was from 2013 though, so he was probably spoiled by over 7 years of DS games.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;44626520]Metacritic doesn't have an opinion, it aggregates publications.[/QUOTE]
It weight scores. The score you give and the score they say you give isn't always the same, especially if you don't use a x/100 system.
[editline]24th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;44627024]Remember when Obsidian actively lost money because they were like 4% under the required rating to get their full salary[/QUOTE]
They got an 84 on metacritic, they needed 85 to get the bonus.
[QUOTE=onebit;44626063]Such a shame, a lot of early access games [URL="http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/orion-dino-horde"]get low scores[/URL], even if they make[URL="http://store.steampowered.com/news/?headlines=1&appids=104900&appgroupname=ORION%3A+Dino+Horde&feed=steam_updates"] huge updates later[/URL].[/QUOTE]
didn't the lead dev behind that game steal 10 thousand dollars and leave none for his development team or was that another game
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;44628121]didn't the lead dev behind that game steal 10 thousand dollars and leave none for his development team or was that another game[/QUOTE]
That is indeed the game. It wasn't an early access game either, they had released it under the pretense that it was finished.
Later on however, a new studio picked it up and truth be told it is much better than it used to be, phenomonally so. It's a very solid game, kind of reminiscent of Halo's wave mode (whatever it's called), mainly because they borrowed a lot of the vehicles from it (nothing wrong with that, they are pretty generic ideas to begin with). It's a decent game though, definitely worth the 1 whole dollar I paid for it.
Anyways, on topic, I don't understand how worse games sell better than games with 70-79? Is that considered like the dead zone or some shit? "Too Average to be any good at all" ?
[QUOTE=onebit;44626063]Such a shame, a lot of early access games [URL="http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/orion-dino-horde"]get low scores[/URL], even if they make[URL="http://store.steampowered.com/news/?headlines=1&appids=104900&appgroupname=ORION%3A+Dino+Horde&feed=steam_updates"] huge updates later[/URL].[/QUOTE]
That's due to metacritic users being complete idiots who should never be allowed to go near a "makeyourownreview" website.
Either they don't understand that a game is, for example, in early access, or they give it an extremely low score, or simply just a 0, basing themselves on "I didn't like the game because I didn't like it" or in prequel fanboyism, like what happens with FF games where you get people praising FF7 and calling every other FF game "a piece of dirty trash".
I like it how people say we can't trust professional reviews because of bribes. They aren't wrong, but trusting user reviews is even worse.
Look at dota 2. People give it a 0 because they lose games.
[QUOTE=blackachu;44625989]And in other news, studies show that the sky is blue.[/QUOTE]
Coming up at 8, somebody will make a witty remark that the sky is blue.
[QUOTE=onebit;44626063]Such a shame, a lot of early access games [URL="http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/orion-dino-horde"]get low scores[/URL], even if they make[URL="http://store.steampowered.com/news/?headlines=1&appids=104900&appgroupname=ORION%3A+Dino+Horde&feed=steam_updates"] huge updates later[/URL].[/QUOTE]
Is that worth playing at all these days?
I got it when it was Beatdown and regretted every second I had it running.
It probably has something to do with the magnitude of game titles available on most market places now. No one person could personally check every game in a reasonable amount of time; so people filter the list by best to worst and work with the resulting list filled with 90+ games at the top.
[QUOTE=Niklas;44627007][img]http://www.thegamecritique.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Review-Scale.png[/img][/QUOTE]
It's funny because it's true. It isn't a school grade, it's a review grade.
5 is an average game, etc...
Just to stop the spread of a common misconception, metacritic scores have almost no effect on developers.
No contract with a publisher based on a RFP has ever included a stipulation on Metacritic scores that isn't bonus related.
If a developer agrees to a Metacritic-related condition, it's only to earn a bonus of a million dollars or so, which is peanuts compared to the total dev costs.
No studio has ever suffered due to a low metacritic score other than Obsidian, because their producers decided the bonus money would be their cushioning for going over-budget.
A better solution would have been for Obsidian to stop lowballing the expected cost in their greenlight pitch, which they've been doing for years. It has always backfired.
e: testing to see if an edit in the news node quotes the post
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.