Halo: Anniversary head questions Metacritic reliability

The CEO of Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary's campaign developer, Saber Interactive, has questioned the reliability of review aggregation site Metacritic.

Speaking to CVG, CEO Matthew Karch joined the growing debate surrounding the industry score hub, which in the last few months has admitted it's been targeted by crooked publications and negative review 'bombers'.

"I can't stand the Metacritic thing because there's nothing which regulates how people feel about games," Karch told us in a Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary interview.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
P_Bomb2330d ago (Edited 2330d ago )

He's not wrong.

[QUOTE]"With Timeshift we had people saying 'I haven't played the multiplayer, but it looks ok' and they give us the score. And I'm thinking 'what you're saying is I spent two or three years of my team's time working on this feature and you're mentioning it as a 'I haven't played it, but...' really?"[/QUOTE]

Seems to happen more now, or at least it makes the headlines more. Really sucks for MP intensive games, but I distinctly remember KZ3 getting reviews that harped on things like story yet they admitted they spent no time with the multiplayer and it goes up on metacritic with a permanent 'final' score . Sorry Gamepro, but Gametrailers and Destructoid managed to spend a healthy time with MP, and there are even MP videos on GT where you can clearly see Jim Sterling's name over an avatar. No need to rush to be first.

Take an MMO like DC Universe too. How do you review an MMO with separate good & evil campaigns as fast as they did on meta? Several content and bug patches, UI tweaks and a soon to be free-to-play format negates most of the complaints filed at the game, so the metacritic is now obsolete, almost warranting a do-over for posterity.

Other funny stories. I read a metacritic GOW Origins Collection review where the guy said you can no longer slide down walls. I bought the game and not only *can* you slide down walls in both games, but there are even tutorial prompts, lol.

I have a guy on my friends lists who has had reviews go to metacritic and I can see via his cheevos/trophies when he doesn't even finish said game. Meanwhile other games he doesn't review he *does* finish. Seems backwards, as he clearly has time to be selective in what he plays.

I've also seen sites that do letter grades give their own meta' conversion for them in the liner notes, only to have metacritic ignore them and do their own in-house conversion to a number that wasn't what the reviewer intended. From what I've heard, part of the reason G4 doesn't wanna be on there despite meta's desire to have them back. Re-interpretations of scores (G4 scores on a 1-5 scale, meta' does 1-100).