Charlie Feb 13, 2013 @ 4:05pm
Both user score and press score of metacritic are on store page now
has anyone noticed that? A little good improvement there. Press scores are always strange. User scores are better.
Showing 1-11 of 11 comments
< >
lithious maximus Feb 13, 2013 @ 5:05pm 
No one trusts metacritic, it has caused more trouble then its worth.

1. its closed down some good game studios cause they did'nt get 85% or higher

2, its biased as hell and most are probably paid to rate it high

3, How good a game is a personel preference, some people like this and others like that etc

Metacritic is a joke that puts a arbitary value of score with some secret mathmatical bs to make it seem legit and they never release the forumla of how score is generated?, i would'nt be surprised if they do it to manipulate the games industry or who pays them the bigger bribe.

ignore metacritic
Vitdom Feb 14, 2013 @ 9:18am 
Metacritic is actually a quite bad rating service. I know one critic review of Natural Selection 2(Great game!) here on Steam that got pulled by the critic review publishers for erroneous information, and Metacritic refused to remove the troll-score. So now it lists a lower than average troll-score of a review that in reality does not even exist anymore after even the publishers made an official apology announcement.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/natural-selection-2-review-pulled-6399748

They even published a new critic review with a new score and still Metacritic refuses to remove the old score or even add the new one.
Last edited by Vitdom; Feb 15, 2013 @ 3:48am
Τhe Rolling Candy Cane Feb 14, 2013 @ 11:05am 
Metacritic is inaccurate because people users can just form raids and 0 score bomb any game. You can do this because metacritic doesn't require you to own the game before reviewing.

While critic score maybe bias, user score is almost always wrong.
Satoru Feb 14, 2013 @ 11:50am 
Originally posted by The Rolling Cheese:
Metacritic is inaccurate because people users can just form raids and 0 score bomb any game. You can do this because metacritic doesn't require you to own the game before reviewing.

While critic score maybe bias, user score is almost always wrong.

Critic scores you can generally average out, the outliers. I mean look at Aliens:CM. For reasons only known to their drug dealers, EGM and the Guardian gave the game 90+?!?! However you can then see those are drowned out by the consusus that the game is pretty terrible.

But as you noted review bombing is far more trivial with users. I recall AC2 was review bombed on Amazon simply because of the always on DRM. Whether you agree with the DRM strategy or not you can't 'review' a game when your comment starts with "I dont own this game but..." which was literally 99% of the negative reviews for AC2. Which gave users absolutely no idea what the actual game quality was.
Last edited by Satoru; Feb 14, 2013 @ 11:50am
Jawaka Feb 14, 2013 @ 12:15pm 
Originally posted by Satoru:
Users are by far not very good at reviews

But at least they're not paid for their positive review scores.

But anyways, It's an ignorant person who makes game purchasing decisions solely based on Metacritic scores. It's also an ignorant person who completely dismisses them as well.
Last edited by Jawaka; Feb 14, 2013 @ 12:33pm
Gus the Crocodile Feb 14, 2013 @ 12:31pm 
Originally posted by Satoru:
Users are by far not very good at reviews

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/empire-total-war
9.0 vs 6.8?

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/assassins-creed-ii
8.6 vs 5.4?

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/call-of-duty-black-ops-ii
8.3 vs 4.4?

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-3
8.9 vs 4.6?
I'm sure if you wanted to you could show at least that "some users are not very good at reviews" by actually quoting some of them, but simply identifying a score disparity is not a demonstration of anything, except perhaps that different people think differently.
lithious maximus Feb 14, 2013 @ 12:32pm 
The only person who decides a game has value is me, relying on other peoples opinions is a bad idea. You can consider what they have put, thats how get perspective from concidering what people thought thats the base of learning and conversation.

People are gonna agree or disagree so really its down to the person and what they're looking for in games, relying on a universal score is fundamentaly dumb. i decide what is good and my thought can be influence if it can by pass my inbuilt "is this ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥" detector thats why reviews are importent some say this is a good feature others say this is stupid so a universal score can't compete.

Saying ignoring metacritic is ignorent, nah it has no value to take it seriously if it told use how it generated score instead keeping secret i might give it chance?. The best way to know a game is good is to play or give the demo a go? before it comes out you can see interviews and how the game is progressing in the press, the press is a means of the pr department to say this is good(when it could be a polished turd or false information to generate hype) or you could think for yourself and deside yourself.

metacritic is garbage
Last edited by lithious maximus; Feb 14, 2013 @ 12:33pm
Satoru Feb 14, 2013 @ 1:45pm 
Originally posted by Gus the Crocodile:
I'm sure if you wanted to you could show at least that "some users are not very good at reviews" by actually quoting some of them, but simply identifying a score disparity is not a demonstration of anything, except perhaps that different people think differently.

The user scores I showed are the AGGREGATE user scores for the respective game. I was also careful to choose games that high numbers of reviews thus ensuring the average score had statistical meaning. Which means that users were in aggregate scoring games 30-40% lower than the average critic score. No particular user is at fault since the score disparity is across the entire user base that submitted a review. Thus quoting any particular user isn't relevant. it's also not relevant since the OP wanted 'user metascore' not 'user A's review of the game'.

It shows that user meta scoring is highly prone to review bombing. While critic scores generally smooth out aberrant scores, as I aptly showed in a previous comment concerning Aliens:CM where 2 reviewers who were outliers did not impact the overall critic meta score.

Therefore the critic metascore is a more RELIABLE indicator of game quality than user meta score is. Thus adding the user metascore is at best redudnant and at worst basically just wrong.
Last edited by Satoru; Feb 14, 2013 @ 1:46pm
Mivo Feb 14, 2013 @ 2:02pm 
I see little value in the user metascore. The press one is fine since it is just an average of the scores that a game got on review sites. It is convenient for orientation, and you can easily access the full reviews. But the user score is often completely misleading and pretty much an outlet for trolls.

Including it to the store pages is a victory for trolls and fanboys alike.

I would like a score based on votes by players who bought the game on Steam, however. That would have some value, since it would only be based on the opinions of people who actually spent money on a game. (And therefore actually do own it.)
Gus the Crocodile Feb 14, 2013 @ 10:26pm 
Originally posted by Satoru:
The user scores I showed are the AGGREGATE user scores for the respective game. I was also careful to choose games that high numbers of reviews thus ensuring the average score had statistical meaning. Which means that users were in aggregate scoring games 30-40% lower than the average critic score. No particular user is at fault since the score disparity is across the entire user base that submitted a review. Thus quoting any particular user isn't relevant. it's also not relevant since the OP wanted 'user metascore' not 'user A's review of the game'.
Uh, I'm aware of all of this, it doesn't affect what I said. But pointing out that two groups have different average scores of something does not imply there's a problem with either score.

It shows that user meta scoring is highly prone to review bombing.
No, it doesn't. That may be true (it is, clearly - though the critic score is just as vulnerable, it's just that critics tend not to be thirteen year olds), but the disparity only shows there is a disparity. To demonstrate "review bombing", you need to show that a significant proportion of the users scoring it low are not being honest in their rating. Which a simple numeric comparison does not do.
Showing 1-11 of 11 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Feb 13, 2013 @ 4:05pm
Posts: 11