Metacritic Score?

[Aleddra]

I was looking over the metacritic score and the website it seems to be about.

What is this?

I mean, why would i be looking at this over the steam player's scores?

[crunchyfrog]

Publicado originalmente por Aleddra:

I think i get it. Gamers for CP2077 get stuck with all the bugs and the media mostly looks at all the icing on that cake.

No, not at all.

Professional reviewers still are on the whole more accurate and useful than users.

Go and look at ANY game on metacritic. Pick one you know. Look at the score and the first few professional reviews. You'll likely find you agree with most of them.

Now go and look at the user reviews and see that most are either towards 0 or 10.

General users absolutely SUCK at reviewing. Many think it's all good or all bad. As someone who's worked professional as a gaming journo it ain't like what many people think it is. Your prime attribuite is NOT gaming, but English comprehension and language.

Most people who worked in those positions flit between OTHER magazines. The editor I worked under at the PS magazine left to work at Q magazine (music).

Sure, you will get some reviewers that aren't being honest, but it really isn't THAT much.

Again, this is why I pointed out my guide as I did. All you need to do is FIND reviewers that gel with you and use them in future. If I can buy thousands of games over the last couple of decades and not buy a single one where I didn't know exactly what I was getting, ANYONE can.

What you WILL get and you don't get this spoken about much is that many reviewers are frightened of posting bad reviews, not for the fear of publishers blacklisting them (though that can happen), but for fan backlash.

Go and look at Last of Us 2 - a really polarizing game which is fine in it's gameplay but an absolute abortion for story. Yet it got 10 out 10 across the board, much like recent Star Wars films did from critics.

Because here's the kicker - who wants to be the reviewer who speaks the truth and points out the emperor has no clothes? They'll be railroaded if they're the only one, or even if there's a few of them.

So you should absolutely bear that in mind.

Again, if you stick to my guide, this won't be a problem.

[crunchyfrog]

Publicado originalmente por adz:

would have been a good addition to the new library ui to feature the meta score next to the name of the title on the splash screen. i always thought why it wasn't implemented in the new ui. even the user scores on the steam store like "very positive" could have been implemented to.

I would imagine many publishers wouldn't like that. I can't say for sure, as I'm guessing here.

But many publishers REALLY don't like seeing scores placed too heavily front and centre with the main advertising of a game.

That's typically why you only see scores splashed on game boxes when they're good, and quote mined too. Usually also lower down the page in a smaller font.

[shiel]

Publicado originalmente por Ogami:

"User Score" on Metacritic is more then worthless.
Because EVERYONE can review and rate a game, there is no requirement that you played or even own the game you are reviewing.
Which just leads to hype/hate mobs decending on many games to shower them in 10/10 and 1/10 ratings.

Its absolutely pathetic and makes that score utterly useless.
As flawed as industry scores by "game reviewers" may be, at least they give you a more objective picture about the game on Metacritic then the "user score".

This^

I like Metacritic because it allows me to find reviews that help me make an educated decision. I usually read a good review, a mixed review, and a negative review(assuming all three are available). I find it allows me to form a much more objective opinion (positive reviews tend to gloss over things a game does poorly and negative reviews tend to focus on the things it doesn't do well).

Steam reviews are a lot of BS reviews with some reasonable ones mixed in.

Both have their uses.

[crunchyfrog]

Publicado originalmente por shiel:

Publicado originalmente por Ogami:

"User Score" on Metacritic is more then worthless.
Because EVERYONE can review and rate a game, there is no requirement that you played or even own the game you are reviewing.
Which just leads to hype/hate mobs decending on many games to shower them in 10/10 and 1/10 ratings.

Its absolutely pathetic and makes that score utterly useless.
As flawed as industry scores by "game reviewers" may be, at least they give you a more objective picture about the game on Metacritic then the "user score".

This^

I like Metacritic because it allows me to find reviews that help me make an educated decision. I usually read a good review, a mixed review, and a negative review(assuming all three are available). I find it allows me to form a much more objective opinion (positive reviews tend to gloss over things a game does poorly and negative reviews tend to focus on the things it doesn't do well).

Steam reviews are a lot of BS reviews with some reasonable ones mixed in.

Both have their uses.

The key thing being it boils down to one common denominator.

NOt scores, the written review.

Nothing tops it.

[shiel]

Publicado originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Publicado originalmente por shiel:

This^

I like Metacritic because it allows me to find reviews that help me make an educated decision. I usually read a good review, a mixed review, and a negative review(assuming all three are available). I find it allows me to form a much more objective opinion (positive reviews tend to gloss over things a game does poorly and negative reviews tend to focus on the things it doesn't do well).

Steam reviews are a lot of BS reviews with some reasonable ones mixed in.

Both have their uses.

The key thing being it boils down to one common denominator.

NOt scores, the written review.

Nothing tops it.

Definitely. Unfortunately too many people see a high or low score and don't look any further. And don't even get me started on how poorly weighted review scores are... a 65% might as well be a 20%. I used to like the 5 star system GameSpy used to use as I found it didn't do that quite as blatantly.

[crunchyfrog]

Publicado originalmente por shiel:

Publicado originalmente por crunchyfrog:

The key thing being it boils down to one common denominator.

NOt scores, the written review.

Nothing tops it.

Definitely. Unfortunately too many people see a high or low score and don't look any further. And don't even get me started on how poorly weighted review scores are... a 65% might as well be a 20%. I used to like the 5 star system GameSpy used to use as I found it didn't do that quite as blatantly.

True, although it's not just that.

Let's assume there was a miraculous site packed with excellent well-balanced reviewers that could offer PERFECTLY ACCURATE scores all the time.

Even then, scores on their own offer absolutely NOTHING.

I've made this argument several times that dwelling on just the score is fallacious with this simple example.

A game that scores 7/10 but is a bit of a poorly funded game, a bit clunky but generally punching above it's weight is quite possible,

A game that scores 7/10 but is a well polished game with a bundle of cash behind it, let down with empty and boring filler and so on. That's also possible,

Using scores alone, you CANNOT tell the difference between them.


Now you COULD use scores to go with the review, but then, the point is that the review is doing all the work anyway, so the scores are alo redundant there too.

[adz]

Publicado originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Publicado originalmente por adz:

would have been a good addition to the new library ui to feature the meta score next to the name of the title on the splash screen. i always thought why it wasn't implemented in the new ui. even the user scores on the steam store like "very positive" could have been implemented to.

I would imagine many publishers wouldn't like that. I can't say for sure, as I'm guessing here.

But many publishers REALLY don't like seeing scores placed too heavily front and centre with the main advertising of a game.

That's typically why you only see scores splashed on game boxes when they're good, and quote mined too. Usually also lower down the page in a smaller font.

yeh fair enuff. i do wish it was on the splash screen i like the meta scores.

[crunchyfrog]

Publicado originalmente por adz:

Publicado originalmente por crunchyfrog:

I would imagine many publishers wouldn't like that. I can't say for sure, as I'm guessing here.

But many publishers REALLY don't like seeing scores placed too heavily front and centre with the main advertising of a game.

That's typically why you only see scores splashed on game boxes when they're good, and quote mined too. Usually also lower down the page in a smaller font.

yeh fair enuff. i do wish it was on the splash screen i like the meta scores.

Defo agree.

[shiel]

Publicado originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Publicado originalmente por shiel:

Definitely. Unfortunately too many people see a high or low score and don't look any further. And don't even get me started on how poorly weighted review scores are... a 65% might as well be a 20%. I used to like the 5 star system GameSpy used to use as I found it didn't do that quite as blatantly.

True, although it's not just that.

Let's assume there was a miraculous site packed with excellent well-balanced reviewers that could offer PERFECTLY ACCURATE scores all the time.

Even then, scores on their own offer absolutely NOTHING.

I've made this argument several times that dwelling on just the score is fallacious with this simple example.

A game that scores 7/10 but is a bit of a poorly funded game, a bit clunky but generally punching above it's weight is quite possible,

A game that scores 7/10 but is a well polished game with a bundle of cash behind it, let down with empty and boring filler and so on. That's also possible,

Using scores alone, you CANNOT tell the difference between them.


Now you COULD use scores to go with the review, but then, the point is that the review is doing all the work anyway, so the scores are alo redundant there too.

100%. I remember Metro 2033 scoring relatively low on release, but reading reviews it was obvious to me that it was exactly the kind of game I would love...and I was right. If I had stopped at the middling reviews I might have missed out on something that to me is a classic. There's lots of examples out there of games that are far greater than the sum of their parts. If you only look at scores, you will never find them.

[crunchyfrog]

Publicado originalmente por shiel:

Publicado originalmente por crunchyfrog:

True, although it's not just that.

Let's assume there was a miraculous site packed with excellent well-balanced reviewers that could offer PERFECTLY ACCURATE scores all the time.

Even then, scores on their own offer absolutely NOTHING.

I've made this argument several times that dwelling on just the score is fallacious with this simple example.

A game that scores 7/10 but is a bit of a poorly funded game, a bit clunky but generally punching above it's weight is quite possible,

A game that scores 7/10 but is a well polished game with a bundle of cash behind it, let down with empty and boring filler and so on. That's also possible,

Using scores alone, you CANNOT tell the difference between them.


Now you COULD use scores to go with the review, but then, the point is that the review is doing all the work anyway, so the scores are alo redundant there too.

100%. I remember Metro 2033 scoring relatively low on release, but reading reviews it was obvious to me that it was exactly the kind of game I would love...and I was right. If I had stopped at the middling reviews I might have missed out on something that to me is a classic. There's lots of examples out there of games that are far greater than the sum of their parts. If you only look at scores, you will never find them.

Great example!

I read Edge Magazine. I recall the review for that being quite low, where they liked somewhat the tone but said it was a clunky mess. I thought "hang on, it sounds bloody awesome". Did some furhter reviews and thought yup.

And because of that, Xbox 360 copies were going dirt cheap in a few weeks and I picked it up, just like I do so many games like this that get unfairly reviewed.

Obne of my favourites was when I used to be signed up to Sony's messaging services (and worked for the PS magazine) - I would get sent all sort of promotional stuff, and I saw this video for a Squaresoft RPG using Disney characters! I'm in.

And then when Kingdom Hearts came out, people here in UK avoided it in droves equating "disnety characters must mean it's for kids". So again, I bought it up dirt cheap a few weeks after release.

I LOVE using this as a purchasing tool/