安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
No, we still see how you're are misunderstanding and not getting the point.
That shows me it's pretty good. You're getting hung up on one or two numbers being a bit out.
That's not how reality works at all.
The fact remains again that NUMBERS MEAN NOTHING ANYWAY, so why you're being OCD about this is your problem.
As I said before numbers cannot tell you anything without review so using them as you're doing is WRONG.
And as for your saying that "bad" reviews are tilting things, then you're also wrong on that. Metacritic - if you cared to read how they calculate things on their site - use a WEIGHTING system. Better journals get a higher WEIGHT metric to adjust the score versus smaller and lesser publications.
So you're wrong in every way here, I'm afraid.
You are afraid or not I don't want to talk to you, can you just stop spamming here?
It's not spamming when it's a clear and concise demonstration of why you are reading it wrong.
This is how these discussions pages work too - YOU are not the arbiter of who can post here. Nor do you post to soothe your feelings. You asked a question and it was pointed out you are doing things WRONG.
If your true concern is for others getting mislead, then you can rest assured that the only one doing this is YOU.
The fact remains that numbers, as YOU are using them CANNOT divulge any useful information. The details you provided show no evidence of problems. They're starkly WITHIN the margin of accuracy.
Furthermore, you didn't understand that the scores are WEIGHTED.
Again, I strongly recommend you go back to Metacritic and click on the part that explains how they arrive at their weighted scores. Because you don't understand it.
I'm not having a go, and things you don't like hearing are NEVER spam.
See? so you are just stupid or as i said spammer and there is a reason you are here.
Because i asked: "can you stop spamming here?"
You said: "YOU are not the arbiter of who can post here"
Like the rest of your spams, there is no sense in it. but it make my point more clear:)
I would give that game a 90.
Did not felt mislead by the 81 nor the 20.
I read them.
But additionally you see the average number of over 50 magazine reviews, which is 96.
You will have to read what made them come to that conclusion. To see
if
these
numbers
have any relevance for you
Again, you are not understanding or are being deliberately obtuse.
I CANNOT report anything other than demonstrable fact to you. That's how reality works.
So to summarize, you made a claim that Metacritic was misleading. You gave two examples of this, and they showed nothing of the sort.
All it demonstrated was that you don't understand either how to read this data or how Metacritic works, which is why I took the trouble to explain it.
If you've come to these forums just to get an echo chamber of people agreeing with you, that's not going to happen. Again, reality does not care about your feelings.
It still remains that Metacritic is a WEIGHTED aggregator. I recommended you read how Metacritic assesses and aggregates the score.
And lastly, I opinted out that using pure scores as you are laser focused upon them is an exercise in uselessness, because as I said already, absent of context a score is UTTERLY MEANINGLESS. You CANNOT tell a ppor game punhcing above it's weight versus a good game it annoying bugs if they both score about 70%, say.
Now, you are perfectly welcome to rebut my points with evidence, but making up lies like "you're spamming" isn't going to go well for you. I'm sorry you don't grasp these things, but that changes nothing about the fact that Metacritic is not misleading.
But that is not the guilt of metacritic.
Its one thing to always keep in mind, look at critcs not as something absolute.
Like a meal. A raw something is not that good. But can be an ingredient.
Too true.
Plus there's context in there that simply CANNOT be known either. You chose a great example there. I can hazard a good guess why they went for 100. I mean to start with it IS a high scoring game, no doubt.
But it's the nature of the series. You're a professional reviewer. Do YOU want to be the one that says "yeah well I didn't like this aspect so I've scored it down a bit"?
There's been many cases (Breath of the Wild being a classic one) where the fans got butthurt and sent loads of disgusting hatred the way of the poor reviewer. So as I said before with the Star Wars example, those people really can't be blamed for playing it safe.
Which agian demonstrates how useless scores are absent of everything else.
Thankfully, this is something I first came across in my time at the PS mag back in the day. I was a freelance tips writer/walkthrough writer, so I didn't review anything. I was privy to other staff discussing these (and other) worries. ♥♥♥♥♥♥ if I'd want to suffer that in my work.
Reason why you would also see other rating services on the game store pages are just extra sources so people can go to what they preferred for checking the rating on the games, if they want to read only critics reviews, or just want more user reviews to check out on.
The only reason I don't like free review services is how they can be abuse easily, as well no way to verify if that person ever had reviewed the product in question to begin with, another reason I'm standing by this is because of reviews I seen for washing machines, I know this is a bit off topic, but I seen people that gave bad reviews on washing machines, which I thought were legit at first until I saw the exact same repeating review word for word on multiple sites for the same product, or brand in general, and when I got one of the product they bash on which is a samsung washer, I'm not having problems as them, either I assume they abuse their products like slamming, or etc then yea I see the problem why they made those reviews, but not repeating it across 10+ sites like good god, anyways I can't always trust open public reviews as you never know if they're lying, or they were doing something to cause the problem.
Like I see that GOG only allows their reviews, they don't provide outside free sources along with their reviews, while Epic is agasint having reviews on their own site, and rather provide outside free sources.
And I agree some kids are going to be mislead by reviews because they don't understand the basic concept when it comes to reviews, they just go by either the overall score, or just because they saw one bad review or only listening to critics that may mislead them.
Indeed,
But metacritic can update it, like getting the scores from expensive magazines (for example in the music world we have a Rolling Stones with a high reputation on reviewing in the Britain)
Or they can use the most popular gaming magazine from each countries,
Or let the people vote each year or two to choose the magazines.
You know, all systems gets corrupted in the time as the companies learn to abuse them, that is why the apps like the Facebook and etc had a lot of updates in the last 4 years wen they see these abuses (from the elections and celebs to the marketing and against the children abuses)
Indeed again,
We shouldn't look at anything as absolute, Companies have a lot of Youtube critics channels, magazines and etc.
But only a few mature persons like your self know how to not get in to the trap,
like by checking the reviews from different countries than only the one with the developers, check the best positives and negatives and the reviews from the people, even check some muted videos,
***Summery***
Most people get effected by the "marketing tricks"
solutions: repair or update the metacritics system
Or The Steam it self make one to use for scoring
The point about abuse is a salient one, especially in today's climes. Many sites or sources can pop up where we don't know anything about their back story or motivations. That wasn't so much the case back when I worked for certain magazines. I'm not saying corruption and dodgy reviews didn't exist - they most certainly did.
But here's the problem - you CAN NEVER KNOW, unless the evidence presents itself.
So in your saying of Metacritic "cleaning itself up" (which I've already stated you are misunderstanding because that's what the WEIGHTING SYSTEM DOES), the fact is how do YOU know that what they're now putting more store behind is a more reliable source>
It's an unfalsifiable position, unfortunately.
Which echoes again what I said from the beginning - you should ONLY EVER use such sites as the loosest guides to start out with which then point you to review further.
Put it this way, I can demonstrate how well this works. I've been around in games since the very beginning, first building my initial computer back in the late 1970s (with help of course). Aside from one smal time in the early 1980s, when I needed a motornike and cash was tight, I haven't sold ANYTHING. I have many thousands of games and loads of systems.
And here's the best bit - for decades I haven't bought a single thing where I didn't know EXACTLY what I was letting myself in for. So how is this possible?
Simples - I use metacritic as a start point.
Take NO NOTICE of the scores as they are meaningless (for the reasons I've already demonstrated - you cannot tell one game from another on score alone). Take notice though of roughly where they land on people's opinions.
So, instead of your quibbling about the "fault" of a score being a few percentage points different, which is actually how reality works, I take only the roughest note by looking if a game generally scores positively. If it doesn't, I look at why.
And by "why", I mean, I look at what the major issues are. If it's something like a game being heavy on grind, I like that, so it's actually a PLUS for me. Again, scores here would be completely useless defining this.
So I then go elsewhere, by simply googling the game for reviews. I'll likely end up looking at a few youtube videos to see how the mechanics operate, and read some reviews that tackle the bits I'm interested in to see how much I'm going to like it.
And it NEVER leads me wrong as I said.
So, sorry, but it's easy to do, and I see no evidence that your proposal is anythingn that can be done, simply because you can never know if you've achieved that task unless you IMPLICITLY know everything about every reviewr. It's unfalsifiable.
So please, take this as constructive conversation, and don't do the silliness of accusing me of trolling again. If you disagree with any of my points, have at it, and I 'll try to explain better, and if I'm wrong, you can prove me wrong.
If you dont like the sum of angles, and their wroding,
you must choose the magazine of your choice to depend on what they say.
Metacritic saves you searching and includes angles.
Metacritic says 98
IGN says 10/10
Steam says... Not Recommended from 82,000 reviews in the last 30 days.