VG247: Diablo III sold millions of copies with no pre-release reviews, and still has a low MC score. Does this prove Metacritic’s irrelevance? It does for some games, says Patrick Garratt, and the time has come to break the mould.
Everyone should give Metacritic the middle finger ... just like blockbuster movies perform regardless of what metacritic and other site thinks
as always a review is a personal opinion so i don't look too much into them. one man's junk is another man's treasure IMO
You and I think alike. However, there are a lot of dumb people who believe this kind of crap. Sad, but true.
I like to check reviews on many games I'm looking to get but I usually try to read at least three. One that says how great the game is, one that says how terrible it is, and then I try to find some that are kind of middle of the road. Though a large part of using reviews for purchasing advice is just getting to know the tastes of the reviewer. I like to watch zero punctuation and have purchased games he thought were awful because the things he didn't like were things I did. Reviews aren't bad, it's just score aggregates like megacritic that kinda suck because they work just off statistics. To have a site like that, that would actually work as desired i think the best way would be; Have the site calculate up a price to enjoyment factor. Say take the professional review score, which usually run fairly high, the user review score which usually tank for reasons other than game play. DRM, bad endings and such. The price, and if the information is available the average amount of time a user spends with the game. Then make a score based off that. The abysmal user scores many people give on metacritic aren't themselves poorly motivated their just entirely in the wrong spot. There should be some kind of gamer backlash/consumer protection place where they can go to complain about things.
For the millionth time, a review is a PROFESSIONAL opinion, or at least it should be, not a personal opinion. It infuriates me how you and apparently 18 others can't grasp this very simple concept.
jessupj well I still hear a lot of personal opinions in all reviews! From my point of view good scores or bad scores never really was the case why I liked some games or movies etc. Sometimes I find them very unprofessional! Edit: Especially when they talk about stuff they just "dont get it", or "not into it" in any way..
Reviews are written by bitter internet fanboys who write for websites - they're about as professional as prostitutes - being paid to do something doesn't mean you know what you're talking about, or understand what makes a good game, it just means you have internet traffic and ad revenue, nothing more. The author of the article also seems to think that you need a metacritic review above 90 or you're dead meat - can you say Call of Duty? They haven't had above 90 metacritic scores and sell more than anything - clearly stupid and void of facts. Likewise, how many critically acclaimed games can you name that didn't sell? Ico? Okami? Beyond Good and Evil? Do I even need to go on?
Exactly... but don't just stop at the middle finger Go the Adam Sessler route http://www.youtube.com/watc... F*** METACRITIC
Yeah but.... He still caved and ended up leaving G4 over it. And now G4 is back on Metacritic...
Whoever wrote this article must have been on ice when it comes to console games. There are plenty of console games that sell well on there name alone without instant review scores. COD, Halo, MGS,GTA etc just to name a few. People already know they want the game and don't need review scores to affect their purchase. This guy acts like Diablo 3 is the first game this has happened to.
The great start Resident Evil Operation Raccoon City is proof of this.
personally I think that critics have better tastes than the ignorant masses, especially in cinema so maybe not a good analogy. the most popular games/films are often complete poop *cough wow/diablo/cod/twilight cough*
How do you fit Diablo in there? It wasn't marketed to death, I have seen a grand total of ZERO TV advertisements.
I've been playing games for 10 years, I'll take my own opinion over a reviewer anyday. 'Taste' is purely subjective and in terms of entertainment one opinion isn't necessarily worth more than antother.
I absolutely love the title of this article haha
The average person doesn't even know what Metacritic is.
Exactly. Once again, subjectivity wins.
The article writer also doesn't know the difference between metacrics Metascore and USER score. The USER score is low. Who cares.
I'd argue to sat that since Metacritic not just a gaming aggregate, the average people (at least the ones who consume content) do know what it is, just like imdb and rottentomatoes. What it seems to me is that it's more like subpar writers don't know what a good score is - claiming that a game is not supposed to sell well with a metacritic of 88!? Are they out of their mind!? Check this out: "Sub-90% is normally the kiss of death for any triple-A title – as far as the money people are concerned, anyway – so how did Diablo III manage to sell multiple millions of copies and defy one of the most awkward rules in games?" Just for the heck of it, lets check some of the biggest franchises this gen: Battlefield 3: 89 (lower for console versions. Projected sales of 20 million units) FIFA 11: 89 (best selling sports franchise) Fable 2: 89 (Best selling exclusive RPG game this gen) Modern Warfare 3: 88 (game with the biggest sales opening in history) Uncharted: 88 (first game, before becoming what is arguably the best exclusive franchise on the PS3) Diablo 2: 88 (just to see how the previous multi-million selling game in the franchise did in retrospect. Gran Turismo 5: 84 (best selling exclusive racing game this gen) Halo ODST: 83 (lowest selling Halo game and only one below 90MC, but still sold better than most FPS games in history) Assassins Creed: 81 (best selling new franchise introduced this gen) Minecraft Xbox 360 edition: 82 (fastest XBLA game to reach million units sold) Wii Fit: 80 (lets not even get started about sales, alright?) "Kiss of death", huh? "A giant middle finger" then, yes? I guess VG247 should pull that finger out of thei..,.
The biggest problem with this guys piece of journalism is that he assumes because reviews are arriving post launch they are somehow more credible. Please tell me how the reviewers that got a score up on the net within 12 hours of launch can be considerided credible? I'd argue a review embargo probably creates even more unbalanced reviews whilst sites rush to get their scores up first to get their advertisers hits and in the process are unable to even play the game long enough to offer a decent appraisal... Just my two cents worth!
Depends on a number of factors, though a LOT of games follow a set path. Most games play exactly the same from start to finish, so 1 hour, 5 hours, 10 hours, platinum / 1,000 GS, makes little difference. Most awful stories don't get good at the end, etc. There are always exceptions, like some games add new characters that vastly change the game or elements, but most games find a groove at some point and stick with it. For a simple example of this, look at NeverDead. The main problem was getting hit broke you up and this CONSTANTLY happened regardless of difficulty. (Even skill made little difference)There were skills, though none of them made a huge impact on the overall game. The only exception was the one that prevents you from breaking up, though that required 10+ hours of grinding cash to buy. The story started awful, remained predictable and ended awfully. The online was interesting, though nothing to brag about. Due to this, your experience in your first hour will most likely mirror your experience in the last one. This is how most games are, so it doesn't make a HUGE difference in the end.
The only people Metacritic matters to, is those developers who have bonus payments linked to metacritic score.
Or gamers who want a convenient place where they can see a large numbers of reviews for each game to help them decide on a purchase. Each score is accompanied by a quote from the review and a link if you want to read the full review and not just look at the score. What is so wrong with Metacritic?
Because fanboys leave bad reviews for games they never played...like the whole cod vs battlefield fiasco. Both sides left bad reviews fir the game they were hating on. Most never even played it. Then, joe schmoe reads reviews n thinks whoa! Both these games suck!
The problems is people abuse it as with anything. I have never used meta criric and I have never been disapointed in a game I've bought except for one game...Modern warfair 3. Some games are better then others,and some times late at night I dream of grabing my dark souls steel case and using it to smash MW3 until it has broken into pieces.
"What is so wrong with Metacritic?" - The idea that everyone's scale is the same when it's obvious it's not . - What kind of wimp and undecisive person is that user , if he needs the opinion of guys he most likely dont care about/can't stand , if he's not following them to begin with ? I dont like Edge , CVG or IGN , why should i factor in their scores and put them right on par with those i might trust better to have an opinion ? - Every sh*tty sites and outlets out there being included ALONGSIDE the more popular and/or better ones , just because some lazy blogger decided to be like that guy that post "first" in comment , and rush its reviews . - Even if we were to stand by the ludicrous logic behind the concept , what's the point when a game can have 63 reviews after 6 months , when another might have only 12 ... the one with the highest amount of review being even dragged down by it's numbers while the other game get huge global score from a mere dozen ? - If the logic and intend behind it was so honest and beneficial , they would simply choose a pool of elite sites . Each of these site being eligible for a spot , the rest being thrown aside like user reviews .
@ Baka While that might sound better, the real problem isn't the sites persay, but who reviews certain games. This might not happen for bigger games, but happens CONSTANTLY on games with little press behind them. No matter what route you go there is some key problem.
All it proves is that not everyone is stupid enough to base their purchases on someone elses opinion.
Metacritic is worthless. I don't know why internet trolls think reviews mean anything at all. Worse off, publishers actually pay attention to it lol.
because the data of a 9+ reviewed game vs a 7+ reviewed game sales is evident (in most cases). just go to any review sites and check comments pre-launch and post- launch (respectively). what once was excitement for a ip before the 7 or under review, now is dissapointment and a lack of support. comments go from day 1 buy to i'll wait until it drops to $20. i give all reviews the middle finger because, ppl give to much power to someones opinion, but it's a power that can be abused through bias and un-professionalism. in a age where skyrim can get a 93metacritic on ps3 and neir gets a 60 (lol at neir getting a low meta).reviews are bias piece of bio ment to sway buying power.
Too much power? People don't go to just one site for game reviews. They base their decisions on multiple reviews or metacritic scores which are based on reviews of over 50 gaming sites. So I don't see the big impact of bias in a few reviews. And talking about bias and un-professionalism, I bet that an opinion from a normal gamer like you usually has more bias and is more unprofessional than a review from IGN. So in comparison, I will rather rely on reviews from a gaming site than the opinions from a random gamer.
The problem is the system's 0-100 scale don't function in such a small poll. Even if every game had 50 reviews as you claim, imagine 40 100% scores and 10 scores of 0%. That's a total of 4000 points out of 5000, i.e. Metacritic 80. Now 80% score isn't bad and it does represent how many people liked it, but does it represent THE GAME? After all this game received so many perfect grades... Of course we can argue it's a crap exagerated example, but is it really when anyone in this F*ed up internets can write a review and most games that don't have that much of a spotlight hardly receive more than 20~30 reviews? Now if they just went with something like Rotten Tomatoes do and said that such a game had 40 favourable reviews and 10 unfavorable reviews they not only respect both the positive and negative reviewers proportion, but they also don't risk creating this kind of distortion to the reader/potential costumer that think this is the game's score (which it isn't). EDIT: The said Rotten Tomatoes-ish system had other advantage, it shows how many outlets cared to make a review, which helps determining the general popularity of a tittle (which can be viewed as a guide to guess if the online multiplayer will be well populated for example). Of course it still won't be perfect, the reviews itself aren't (and can't be)... The media itself is plagued by too many advertising oriented douchbags running the show. But at least the review aggregator itself wouldn't be out right broken.
"I bet that an opinion from a normal gamer like you usually has more bias and is more unprofessional than a review from IGN." It's hardly that different in some cases . Especially when say ign get caught lying about games they actually sponsorise ( as a matter of fact , and among others , PES 08 being given a 9.2 on ps3 , same as the 360 version , despite huge issues with framerates , worse slowdown depending on the TV set , freeze in-game , during autosave , blurriness etc..) No difference when they are corrupt or incompetent