110°

Why You Should Avoid Metacritic

TechRaptor - At one time or another I’m (Andrew Otton) sure we have all found ourselves looking at Metacritic. Sometimes we are only looking for some of the most critically acclaimed games for a particular year, another time we may just be looking at past popular games to get an idea of something we may be interested in, and yet another time we may, hopefully not too often, go to Metacritic so that we can use it as a tool for judging the worthiness of a game.

Read Full Story >>
techraptor.net
mikeslemonade3649d ago (Edited 3649d ago )

Yes, use Gamerankings instead for more accuracy since it accounts for the two extra decimal places in the store.

admiralvic3649d ago

"since it accounts for the two extra decimal places in the store."

Two decimal places really means nothing in the grand scheme of things. I mean, if you're going to avoid a game because it scored a 69.00, but buy another game because it scored a 69.99, then you're taking scores WAY too seriously.

Magicite3649d ago

I am also using http://www.howlongtobeat.co... , its a site where players give ranking to games and quite accurate ones, also theres plenty of interesting info.

linkenski3649d ago

No because it accounts for less review sites.

admiralvic3649d ago

While I think the stuff about the averages is interesting, I really doubt as much effort really goes into the average process as the author is suggesting. In a lot of ways I think it's all a lot of PR speak for "we have an advance algorithm that makes our averages a lot more meaningful than they actually are". For sake of argument, I took a look at Flower (PS4) on MC, which has a score of 91 and if you add up the scores and then divide by the number of reviews it comes out to 91.18 or the score that MC displays. Now, I don't have the time to look over every score to make sure they all match, though I doubt they would put a different score on their site if the site had a score in the first place.

In either case, neither of these things are what I consider "wrong" with Metacritic. For me, the biggest problem is that Metacritic is basically a fruit bowl and while the bowl has apples, oranges, bananas, maybe a mango and other things, they're all treated as a pear.By this I mean there is a different stats and figures, which are all changed to conform to new data and can result in skewed figures. To give you an idea, MC has a lot of sites that review games on different ratios. 1 out of 100 / 10 / 5, A - E / F, good or bad and in some cases nothing. Now, there are some people that claim that an 80, 8 and 4 mean different things, even though they're divisibly the same (4/5 or 8/10 or 80/100 is still 80%) and this maybe true. A lot of sites also toy with what exactly is considered "average", which varies from some saying it's 5 out of 10 (median), PSLS considers it a 6, several gamers and outlets consider it a 7 and Metacritic requires a 75/100 average to be "green" (this is like 61+ in every other medium). So, even if all the sites are giving the game "average" scores across the board, it still might be tanked by sites scoring things differently. Another problem I've heard of is letter graders are typically assigned a 1 / 5 score, so a C is 50, A is 100 and E is 0, which can VASTLY change the average, even though I've heard sites that consider an E as a 5/10 by default. Then there is Quarter to Three, which is based off how much the guy likes the game and crap like that shouldn't be on MC in the first place, as I consider it less helpful and relevant than even some troll reviews on Amazon or Best Buy...

Arguably another big issue with MC is that everything is viewed as something of a "snapshot". As the article mentions, they constantly talk about quality, but sites are typically only evaluated once and put on the site from then until the end of time. The problem with that is the site can change a lot in a couple of months and some writers might not meet Metacritic "standards", though they're listed simply because they work for a prestigious site. This is somewhat problematic, since it largely defeats the point of having an approval process in the first place.

I can keep getting into problems with Metacritic, but in the end it's hard to make a system that works without a lot of time and effort, which typically isn't feasible for any site. In the end, "smart" readers should find people that match their beliefs and trust their reviews or simply avoid reviews in the first place. After doing the critic thing for a number of years, there is a lot of backdoor / politics / biases / side factors that come into play and make many reviews questionable at best.

Aotton3649d ago

I completely agree. I wrote the article and after rereading it a few times I felt like there was another point I was missing, but I couldn't remember it or find it in any of my notes I keep around. I also think that one of Metacritic's biggest issues is the way that it "modifies" other sites scores to conform with theirs to then give a average. Like you said, that manipulates results to a huge degree.

UltraNova3649d ago (Edited 3649d ago )

I agree on both accounts. Another thing to consider which incidentally falls into the conspiracy theory spectrum is the fact surrounding the secrecy of how they weigh each site. Its obvious they need to protect proprietary code or whatever it is but one could question the fact that it’s a way for them to get ‘motivated’ by directly interested parties into favoring one site over the other, E.g. a site giving a game a 7 over the other who give's it a 9.

Maybe that was the point missing and I can see why you could 'forget' it.

Then again I might be exaggerating...

When all is said and done I think we should take MC with a grain of salt. Same goes for VGchartz.

choujij3649d ago (Edited 3649d ago )

The metacritic score will only be as good as the review publications it's taken from (Ex. IGN, EGM, etc.).

I much prefer the site's user scores. It's usually a lot more in line with how much I would rate the game. While it can sometimes be a little one sided (if there's only a few user reviews,) when it's in the thousands, often times it really exposes a lot of "over-rated" critic review scores.

ginsunuva3649d ago

The only people who post user scores these days are fanboys who give only 10s and 0s

cfc783649d ago

I always like to judge a game myself peoples tastes differ i only use scores of any type as a guideline.

Incipio3649d ago

And the world keeps on spinning.

HugoDrax3649d ago (Edited 3649d ago )

I like to judge a game for myself, 'm currently going through my backlog. Just finished playing Brutal Legends, and now I'm currently playing Kane & Lynch....Literally playing a game released in 2007. Approximately 25 more games to go after I complete this one.

mochachino3649d ago

Woah. You either buy too many games or have too little time to play them.

HugoDrax3649d ago

Both hahaha...too little time because I'm an architect. I have all 3 next gen consoles ( Wii U, XB1, PS4 ) and recently ordered my VITA just too game on the go.

I literally just popped in Watchmen: The End is Nigh...Had it since release and this is the first time I'm getting to try it out hahaha. I don't think I'll get to complete every game, but I do want to test each one out this year.

Show all comments (24)
90°

Comedy Central New Animated Series Based on Golden Axe

Get the scoop on Comedy Central's exciting new cartoon show inspired by the iconic Golden Axe video game

Read Full Story >>
retronews.com
Knightofelemia11h ago(Edited 11h ago)

Golden Axe is a great game I enjoyed it on the SMS, Genesis and in the arcade. Great game but it truly was a quarter eater back in the day. I wish Sega could get the rights to the arcade port of Moonwalker another great arcade game I enjoyed. Collect so many monkeys and become Robo Michael lol.

70°

The Best PS2 Games of All Time [2024 Edition]

GB: "With this feature, we will be taking a look at 15 of the best games from the PlayStation 2's vast library."

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
130°

70 percent of devs unsure of live-service games sustainability

With so many games fighting for players' attention and interest losing out over time, time sink games are at risk of eventually losing steam.

Read Full Story >>
gamedeveloper.com
thorstein1d 12h ago

It was worrisome to begin with.

It's a niche genre with only a handful of hits that can stand the test of time.

Cacabunga15h ago

I like the sound of that!! I will for sure never support these gaas games.
Sony must be shocked at gamer's reaction, making them cancel a few of these and hopefully go back to the good heavy hitters they had us used to..
now bring on that PSPro reveal and show us some SP 1st party awesomeness.

CrimsonWing691d 11h ago

What’s to be unsure of!? Look at the ratio of success to failure!

DarXyde18h ago

It's pretty ridiculous.

Imagine having a breadth of data at your disposal to see the statistically low success rate of these games, only to be laser focused on the exceptional case studies.

shinoff21831d 10h ago

Yes. Stop all the live service bs.

jznrpg1d 10h ago

Only a few will catch on. You need a perfect storm to be successful in GaaS and a bit of luck on top of that. But a potential cash cow will keep them trying and some will go out of business because of it.

MIDGETonSTILTS171d 9h ago

Helldivers 2 manages just fine…

Keep production costs low… don’t just make custscenes until the mechanics and enemies are perfected first.

Make so much content that you can drip extra content for years, and the game already feels complete without them.

Most importantly: make weapons, enemies, levels, and mechanics that will stand the test of 1000 hours. This might require more devs embracing procedurally generated leveled, which I think separates Helldivers 2 from Destiny’s repetitiveness.

Show all comments (15)