When it comes to video game reviews, critics might need to be better critics, but gamers absolutely need to be much, much better consumers.
Obs. Gamers are the people who give Metacritic power.
Gamers give it power. Lamers give it a bad name.
Actually he's referring to the GS review and its true what the fanboys say: Nobody could have given the game that score unless 1. He was paid by some competitor 2. He was unhappy Nintendo didn't send him a cheque with the review copy 3. Looking for hits to increase site traffic and replicate the success of 8.8 score of Twilight Princess All in all GS has lost all credibility. Tom McShea is a noob that can't even hold a game controller properly... what an editor my god! The so called gamers running that crappy website want all games to be like elder scrolls and fallout. NO! THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE YOU SEE! Skyward Sword is FACTUALLY better than 7.5 and strict action must be taken against this blasphemy! For example 1. They should be removed from Metacritic 2. Tom McShea's should be set on fire for his noobism 3. LulzSec should completely remove the website from the net 4. The score 7.5 should be banned from all websites by the United Nations and so on....
I think we should put blaaah in charge of the Internet. He knows what's up.
I blame the reviewers who are fanboyish too. And metacritics by themselves are irregular too. Sometimes they pull in low scored points from any random site depending upon which game they like/hate. Having said that user review is a joke there.
Ah, so Blaaah's played Skyward Sword even though is doesn't come out for a few more days.
@SybaRat exactly lol. They expect it to get 10s just for being Zelda, it's ridiculous. I read the GS review and it was well-written and had valid points. It's his opinion and it holds far more weight than a fanboy.
A game cannot...let me reiterate, CAN'T EVER, be objectively proven to be better than another. At most, you can objectively compare quantifiable variables (like the number of polygons, sound quality, etc.), but even then you are not in any way, shape, or form proving what constitutes a "good" game. Enjoyment is a completely subjective concept.
@Bimkoblerutso Thank you...that's why review scores as of right now are meaningless. Depending on the state of mind of the reviewer the score can swing wildly...so yeah the written part can be an opinion but the score needs to be a fact driven quantifiable number that does not tell you if the game is fun since fun is in the eye of the beholder. The score should simply communicate specifics that pretty much translate to if the game is broken and that's all and the catagories needed to ascertain that need to be very deep and done more like a survey so we can all do the math ourselves.
Nintendo fanboys are nothing more than hipsters who think playing on old consoles is like an art
The article is wrong. Metacritic is a flawed system. The reviews posted and "weighted" by Metacritic are not there for fanboy fodder. The scores have meaning to producers, developers, and retailers. Metacritic, regardless of intent, is the same as a serious ratings company, but without the serious. Metacritic is harming more than just fanboy pride by allowing inconsistent and unreliable scores into their overall numbers. If games were sold at movie ticket prices it wouldn't matter as much. Games happen to be fairly expensive for most people and ratings are a large influence on purchases.
@SybaRat @heroicjanitor Did you know that the game came out today in Europe? Maybe he has pleyed it? At least I know I have and I am 6 hours into it and I can say that I fully support his statement. Skyward Sword is truly a masterpiece. I recently thought Skyrim was going to be the best game this year but now I am convinced Zelda is. That being said I don't think the reviewer had much knowledge on how to use the controller.. He even said that the ir sensor sucked, but the thing is Skyward Sword does not use a Ir sensor but motion plus. That results in him playing the game wrong. At least to me the controls works perfect! I now know what Nintendo meant with revolution because this kind of motion gaming is Awesome! Nearly all enemies in the game has some kind of strategy u most find out in order to defeat it. This is something that never would work as good without motion control. Now I wish Skyrim had motion controls! (I know this sounds crazy but try Skyward Sword and you'll know what I mean!)
I think it is funny how everybody is talking fun of Zelda and the Wii, while in truth they pass out on one of the best games ever made. Ignorant fanboys..
There are gamers who are not bloggers. but one can't be a games blogger without being a gamer. So us gamers are at risk now! This video game mass media is so screwed up we don't know who to trust anymore?! Chaotic!? Even the likes of big publishers like Activision are powerless against these bloggers, trolls, and vigilante gamers alike? I hope this Console Word War comes to an end. it has done more harm in the history of gaming. Stop this.
I blame publishers just as much if not more. Pressure from EA, Eidos, Cliffy B's, etc for 9+ scores is ridiculous. And reviewers have taken it and give 95% of their reviews of games from big publishers a 9+ score. Publishers getting competitive about scores set the norm, not gamers. Their insistence for 9s and 10s and reviewers actions have lead the fans to believe that this is exactly how it should be.
True, I think this lame console war has a lot to do with metacritic being so popular nowadays ("My game is better than yours because it has a higher metacritic score.") and the video game journalists aren't helping much either when they makes tons of articles saying certain games are kings of their genre because of it (F4 vs GT5, UC vs GeOW). Gamers need to see pass that type of bs and make their own opinions about games than let someone else dictate for them. Nowadays if a game doesn't get a 9 or up, it's a no buy for some gamers.
@Logicwins... I agree gamers do give Metacritic some of the power, but you can't overlook the publishers who create incentive bonuses to developers if their games hit a certain mark on Metacritic. Publishers are just as much if not more to blame for Metacritic feeling like its some powerful site. Reality is Metacritic is nothing more than a score keeping site... they provide little else. We as gamers need to re-adjust our value on review scores and re-learn that 7 out of 10 isn't a bad thing. Publishers need to stop tying incentives to metacritic and get back to rewarding devs for sales, finishing on time, under budget, etc ...
Fucking bullshit; lol worst article i've ever read. Does the OP of the article work for activision?
yeah, people go by metacritic way too much, newsflash terdbrains if metacritic decides what games you buy your really fed in the head.
And I do actually pay close attention to the scores. Why? Because 1. I'm on a tight budget, and each game I buy has to count. 2. I have yet to be let down by a 90's rated game (assuming I like the genre). I basically look it like this. 90 - 100 = GREATNESS 80 - 89 = Good 70 - 79 = Average'ish Most of the 30 games in my collection happen to be in the 90's......some are in the 80's, and about 3 or 4 are in the 70's It totally works for me
couldnt agree more... if you buy a game that is brilliant, chances are it's in the 90s.
You've probably missed out on some decent games listening to other peoples opinions, how about make your own opinion? watch youtube for gameplay, don't just take someone elses word
Such as JRPG's....most/many American critics don't seem to judge those correctly. Also, downloadable titles seem to often get misjudged, as if they were full Retail games. However, I'm only referring to retail games here. Also, when looking at Metacritic, the total number of reviewers is also key. "The more: The better" So, if you don't mind me asking, are there any 60'ish and below games that you'd recommend? What 60'ish game do you feel that I'm missing out on, phinch?
Never looked at the MEGAOPINION so i could not tell you whats below 60, i will go check
I never visit Metacritic. I'm more of a GameRankings.com kind of guy.
The sad thing is Gamerankings and Metacritic are both owned by the same company, CBS Interactive. But so is Gamespot so those whom think that it will be taken off Gamerankings or Metacritic are just fooling themselves.
I only go Metacritic for movie reviews. Thats about it :)
Are there Zelda fans out there that are seriously expecting the Gamespot review to be taken down because it's 1.5 below the norm?! You've got to be kidding me.
Good POINT but Eurogamer, Edge and Ign Reviews are well respected IMO
SO TRUE. its all the fnboys who do this. personally, i do love zelda games but if there are problems with them or any other game, then i'm not going to write a biased review. thats the thing, all these people make it so that a game id reviewd too good or too bad, you never know if it truly is good or bad and worth buying
He gave the game a 7.5. Big deal. Not everybody is wowed by the childish artistic style and gameplay. And even with that score, according to GS standards, it's still a "good" game. Nintendo fangirls are the worst!
Childish? And I suppose playing games in which you shoot everything in sight pretending to be some slick army man is mature? Give me a break.
its more real/mature then a fairy boy who kills Dragons and monsters with a sword.
@bublo You mean skyrim, right?
skyrim is a 15, skyward sword is a 3+.. MW3 is an 18... it is more mature you silly fools. Zelda is for kids and those who like nintendo to touch their childhood, a bit like nostalgia. It's still a good game though, just not to everyone's taste but to a say a shooter is less mature than zelda is just wrong.
@stu888 You're basing the maturity of a game on it's age rating? The age rating is there to show the game contains mature content, as in violence/sex/drugs etc. Just because a game has a higher rating doesn't mean it's more mature. Saints Row 3 has a 18 rating, you mean to tell me that's mature as well? Saying Zelda is for kids and shooters are more mature just makes you look like some stupid teenager who loves blood and gore because it's "cool". I've seen much more infantile nonsense in shooters than I've seen in games you'd probably refer to as "kids games" like Zelda. But you carry on thinking playing pretend soldier and shooting things is more mature than games that don't require such content to stay relevant. It's like saying a Michael Bay film is mature.
@imgoatman yeh u know the type they think beating up hookers and stealing cars are "mature" games. Kinda ironic "Childish? And I suppose playing games in which you shoot everything in sight pretending to be some slick army man is mature? Give me a break. " No they prefer dressing up dolls in LBP lol I know because my wife loves LBP lol
Insluting a game and saying it's childish before you even played it kinda makes me think the opposite. That army games with blood and goore is for childish people while creative and smart games are for mature people. At least children wouldn't be able to complete Zelda because of the puzzles at least not in a very long while, but children could easlily beat army games. In truth most kids play army games and not Zelda. I won't draw everyone under the same knife here, but I think this is more true than Zelda being childish.
This all just makes me want to impose a literacy test for the Internet. No pass, no commenting.
I made quite a few errors in my comments below. However, I believe the majority are due to the touch pad keyboard on the tablet I am using to type this, so I'm still good, right? ^_^;
I really wanted to adress this issue in the comment section, so I'm commenting before reading the article, which I am going to read. Meta critic is absolutely part of the problem. By aggregating review scores from different people, they give the numbers to much weight in and of themselves. Numbers which do not correlate to each other, and I am not even talking about how a 4 means an 8. Lets take 2 different people, who are rating the same game. Reviewer A gives the game a 98, and reviewer B gives it a 78. You would think that reviewer B hates the game, right? Ah, but you see, reviewer B actually liked the game quite a bit. To him/heroes, a 78 is an above average game worthy of praise, while 90~100 are reserved for groundbreaking experiences. Reviewr A, however, believes any great, well made game needs a 90 or up, or else it simply dosen't make sense. The point I'm trying to make is, different reviewers have different beliefs of what the numbers they use represent. One persons 90 is another persons 80, and that's before readers get involved. So how is an aggregation of unequal values logically representing the games in question?
Ok, read it.got some more thoughts... First, your criticism of gamers is alot like their criticism of the reviewer in question, Rus. Wether or not your wrong in this stance isn't what I'm trying to point out, but that's how it comes out. Also, your personal view of Jim's review helps prove my above point nicely. Regardless, though, people shouldn't put so much weight in reviewers, specifically the number portions. But I also think metacritic is partially responsible for this mentality.
There cannot be a nummerical value to a review. Because like what you said, it's different for all people. I believe a 9 and upwards should be reserved to the Best of the best. And i'm talking about a game that is close to perfection. Look at test results, if you get a 10/10 on your test, it means you barely fucked up, and everything is just simply amazing what you wrote. That's why reviews should be focused on the actual written work, rather than gamers just skipping to the score.
"IF" a numerical system were to ever work and truly be useful it has to be universal... EVERYONE who is a journalist / publication would have to use it. It would need to be simple...not a 10 pt scale...not 100 pts ... merely a 4pt scale: Bad, OK, Good & Great. Simplicity leaves less room for craziness or even interpretation on a metacritic level. Will we ever see that... probably not.
Calling them consumers implies they bought the game in the first place, which they didn't. Metacritics User Reviews has become a gathering place for trolls. At least with popular games.
too bad "game critics" are fanboys too. i wouldnt put it past people to lower a score just so their savior game like skyrim could beat it on metacritic. which if you look at skyrim on all 3 platforms and average it out, it doesn't. whats funny is that skyrim for 360 is averaged a 96, while the PC version is a 95. that alone tells you how screwed up the system is when the pc version is superior to the console version in so many ways
metecritic only became big because microsoft used it as a way of saying their system was better for games than ps3.used to shout from the mountain tops. but when sony caught up with them and produced better quality games and received more industry awards from critics,gamers,and the industry as a whole,then metecritic became worthless.but thats how it has gone this gen.with microsoft opening their mouth and sony closing it.it's just the truth. but zelda receiving a low score is just it being a casuality of the american media that microsoft controls.and has followers from different websites that continue that control.
here we go with the conspiracy theories isn't that the point of marketing to win over the people
when was the last time you heard microsoft use metacritic? how much money does microsoft use on marketing(not games) to win over the english and american media. time to wake up.
Man, if that's the case, it's the worst conspiracy EVER, considering how many other sites are praising Skyward Sword. Still, it's more refreshing than the good ol' "he was/wasn't paid" trope. Is it not simply possible Tom McShea just wasn't as blown away as the other reviewers were? Or is that just too easy?
Zelda is finally being rated correctly. Under 80 is how it should have been since the N64 era was finished. There is only 1 game nintendo has made after the N64 era that deserves a score over 80. That game is Super Mario Galaxy. In the 70's is not bad. Bad is under a score of 50.
Your comment does not make me lol. It only depresses me. I think I told you this before, but I'll say it again: If you don't personally like Nintendo, don't play their games. But that dosen't make them bad, as they are some of the best games in the industry. Also, in reference to my skyrim comment, I think we can all agree that someone will play as an elf and use pixie magic to kill a dragon. And it is also quite likely someone will play as an elf, wear green garments, and kill dragons and chikens with a shiny magic sword. It's inevitable, really. Edit *looks at disagree* Oh, lolking, you make me lol... This time... And no, in the 70s isn't bad. But to many reviewers, it is. And even so, there are very few games I would give below 85 that come from Nintendo. And I'm not the only one who thinks this.
Super Smash Brothers Melee would like a word with you. So would Wind Waker and Metroid Prime.
lol what kind of sheep buys a game cuz of its metacritic score hahahaha. I your doing that then your simple not a gamer.
Reviewers should not review a game like they are fanboys.A fair review is usually reserved for the absolute worst games or the ones with little hype.Now I personally felt Todd McShea's review was more fair than a lot of the other reviews.You see the aim of pleasing fanboys in websites like Gametrailers,who criticized Zelda:SS to no end,only for it to land an extraordinary score of 9.1 !
Until the gamers stop the "my game is better than your game crap" it's always going to be like this. seriously Ive never understood the need to put another game down just because you like to play something different. I also never understod why so many "gamers" are so closed minded, why can't people just admit that Zelda is an awesome game and that Skyrim is also an awesome game. why must gamers take shots at other games just because it's not what they're playing. Sony makes good games and so does Nintendo, why take sides and talk shit about one or the other you're not getting paid by the company so hop off their nuts. Reviews have just become another way for fanboys to "1up eachother" and nothing more. Real gamers will go out and see for themselves and play what they enjoy. They don't need someone to tell them a game is good for them to like it and they don't need their thoughts on a game justified by a number.
I agree with this. Back in the 90's, I didn't have to rely on some silly score to tell me which games were great or not, and I still don't, I just played what I did and enjoyed them. Its the experience that should dictate the personal enjoyment of gameplay, and its the only thing that truly is gonna sway your opinion for the better. A number that is assigned, or a summery/average of numbers can't tell me how much I will enjoy a cutscene, or how much fun it is to blast through a level, or the impact from exploring a new town. That's something you get from playing. That's what games are for. I know we don't have all the time in the world like we used to as kids, and our minds are more discerning then ever, but sometimes giving a game a chance, whether is through rental or otherwise, is the best way to expand your reach. I've played many great game through this way, and it really helps you embrace the nature of being a gamer. Step out of your comfort zone, reach out. You may be surprised what great gaming experiences lie ahead when doing so.
I always knew I was the problem, I just didn't want to believe it...
Skyrim proves the way we review games clearly must change. Averaging 96 on metacritic yet it is incredibly ugly, and riddled with bugs. Is it worth a purchase? Absolutely, the bugs make the game all that more hilarious, but it's inexcusable from an objective standpoint in which the numerical system is based upon for its score to be so damn high. I believe the numerical system should be scrapped for a non numerical Day One Buy, Bargain Bin, Rent, Fans Only, and Ignore review system.
I agree with the 1st paragraph but not the 2nd and I can't give a half agree point here.
uUC3 WONT WIN GOTY CAUSE THE FUCKING METACRITIC IS 92 , LOWER THAN THE OTHER CONTENDERS
It is really quite simple. You do not empower those whom did not purchase the game with the ability to score/rate the game. The online open user scorring system is too open. It's like letting everyone into E3, too many people who have no business being there. If you want solid reviews/scores from dependable souces that actaully experience the titles they play and know what they are looking for, a screening application proccess is in order. Otherwise Timmy who usually plays UFC and FPS games will score games like Shadows of Collosus, Katamari and Beyond Good and Evil as substandarnd, uninspiring boring and dull games. Oh, and a good portion of the media critics ARE a problem.
This is a great editorial, and something everyone should seriously sit down and read. Rus, you nailed it and speak to everyone, journalists and consumers alike. Wanting a game to be good, and blatantly jumping on board with average reviewers doesnt speak to the very nature of an individual critique of a title.
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.