TheSixthAxis talks to Metacritic's Marc Doyle, and discusses scores, fanboys and the extra scrutiny placed on the metascores of titles like Killzone 2 and Halo Wars.
i hate when people bring sales into a conversation. this wasn't really focused around killzone 2, more about metacritic in general and how they rate their games and their own predictions.
Why in the crap would you interview this guy? I got down 10 questions and this guy doesn't do squat. I would have just thrown this interview out, because it isn't even worth reading in any sense. The guy has like no valid information or even a solid opinion on anything to the recent Metacritic phenomenom in games.
WTF is this link? EDIT : Ok now its working
TSA: Which of your personal favourite games has ended up with a disastrous Metacritic score? MD: I don’t own any current or last gen consoles. I was a pretty avid gamer during the Genesis [Megadrive] days, especially when I had a year off between college and grad school, but since then, I haven’t had the time to devote a huge slice of time to gaming. Too busy generating Metascores! So he isnt even a gamer.
I don't see how that makes any difference, the site is purely there to total up reviews and provide an average/mean. Gamer or not, doesnt effect how the site operates. I guess as far as a game site interviwing him goes that's pretty much a waste of time though.
He has no opinion on anything because he isnt a gamer. This guy is all about hits, not games.
Did anyone say hiphopgamer?
If he was a gamer he'd know some websites or mags are worthless and shouldn't count towards the metascores. Edge, Variety and Eurogamer are a few examples.
i thought that was def one of the strangest things ever. runs a site that brings ratings together of games, but doesn't even play games. wtf lol
Glass is half full guys. It's a good thing he doesn't play games. Cause it at least shows he won't have any bias towards any particular console, Wii, 360, or PS3.
I KNOW ! Thats what freaked me out. I stopped reading there, and checked if there were any questions that actually asked something relevant or provocative. He was more interested in good he was at guessing scores. And hes not even a gamer. Never trust a bald barber. He has no respect for your hair.
SOOO TRUE. Seriously thats so true.
Marc doyle is alright, he has to let the bigger magazines and websites count for the sake of fairness.
The problem isn't what magazines or websites he uses to count towards the overall score, but that the 10 point scale (or 100 if you will) is treated differently between reviewers. The "accepted" scale is about 6-10. 8 is an average game and anything 6 or lower is generally pretty bad. Alot of reviewers follow this type of scale so in a sense Metacritic works (through no fault of Metacritic). There are some that don't. At the risk of dredging up bad feelings, Edge (I won't even mention KZ2) is a review site that stretches out the scale. Their scale slides down a bit so that a 6 would be about an 8 for others. The problem is Metacritic doesn't factor this in. It assumes all numeric scores mean the same to all review sites and just combines them all into a number. A weighting factor is added for those review sites/mags that have more weight in the industry which affects the overall score to a higher degree, but does nothing to move around their numeric result. A good analogy might be getting grades in college from different courses. Some courses use the typical 80-90, 90-100 etc scale, while other courses *cough* thermodynamics *cough* curve the heck out of the grades. However, this particular college just lumps all these numerical grades together from all your courses and gives you one final grade.
Honestly who gives a flying [email protected]#k about score's.
Let's use 2 games for instance. Each reviewed 10 times. One game gets scores of: 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 90, 90, 90, 90, and 60. For an average of 92. Without that anomalous 60 in there, the score would have been 95.5. Another game gets scores of: 70, 70, 70, 70, 70, 65, 65, 60, 60, and 100. For an average of 70. Without that anomalous 100 in there, the score would have been 66.7. As you can see, no-one would complain if the 2nd game averaged a 70 or 66.7 on metacritic since it's pretty indicative of what the game scored. However, for each anomalous review in the negative direction, the aggregate score drops significantly, which is where most of the "reader's" problems come in. Especially those readers who are so concerned with that 89/90 magical cut-off line. That first game just needs one more lower score and it's magically not any good to some gamers. ;) -CadDad
CD, Yup,you got it right. Those "black sheep" scores whether good or bad can reflect on the overall aggregate and the assumption is all the reviewers interpret the range of scores the same. Which is not true. It is an unwritten guideline that 90-100 is excellent 80-90 is good 70-80 is avg. 60-70 is below avg. 0-60 is a poor game. But the problem is not all reviewers abide by that. In Metacritics defense, big name titles usually have 40-50 or so scores, so the deviated scores don't have a major impact.
yes he is not a gamer, a real gamer will only allow magazines and sites who only give perfect scores to PS3 titles? Edge, Variety and Eurogamer you said that those this are worthless because they gave low scores to PS3 titles? LMAO
Edge gave a 7/10 to Halo Wars, which -- based on the demo -- deserved a much higher score than that, IMO. Trolling Central is that way ----->
yeah I mean we shouldn't allow most of the halo3 reviews on meta either since MS sent a thousand dollar halo swagbag to many reviewers. Clearly biased right?
MS didn't pay anybody for reviews. Those sites and magazines reviewed Halo 3 based on how much hype they had for the game. Overall...it wasn't really that good. That doesn't matter though. They had those 100's lined up for it.
And more like thesixthaxis caught this guy on the crapper at the local movie theatre and he was just answering to get them to leave him alone.
MD: "...Then I read a bunch of their reviews, focusing on the quality of their analysis, their scoring integrity, and whether they’re able to support their scores with reasoned and well-considered arguments." Then why is Edge's review on there?
They seemed to make him a bit angry during this interview. They also tried to hint at the recent Killzone 2 fiasco...which makes sense. However, he can't say anything that would risk an altered public opinion of his site. This isn't the guy they should be interviewing. They should be talking to the guy from EDGE that reviewed Killzone 2.
That guy gave a lot of political BS answers. That interview tells you nothing.
I get the feeling he does play games, and he has a console of choice, but he knows his sites credibility would be put under great scrutiny if he admitted it.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.