The biggest issue with Metacritic, and those paid to review what doesn’t appeal to them

Monotone Critic writes:

In anticipation for the upcoming PlayStation 4 exclusive; Bloodborne, I thought I would write a little piece about what I think is one of the biggest issues with Metacritic, and how Bloodborne’s score may be affected. Remember that Bloodborne releases on the 24th, but its review embargo will be up at 7:00AM tomorrow, the 23rd.

[SpiralTear]

I really don't like it when the people who review certain games for sites are people completely uninitiated in the game's respective genre. If you've never played a character action game, you shouldn't be reviewing Bayonetta 2. You shouldn't be saying the game is too difficult or that the combat is complicated. It's that simple.

When people's jobs and income are on the line, reviewers should do their best to assign initiated people to review games in the genre. And I know, not everyone wants to review some super-hard vertical shooter or complex strategy RPG. But as reviewers, you have a duty to give consumers the best possible analysis on a game, an analysis from someone who knows what they're talking about.

If you have zero knowledge about strategy RPG's, what kind of service are you providing the public when reviewing a game with a completely blank experience in the genre, all while potentially jeopardizing a developer's job by lowering that Metascore with that lack of expertise?

[nicksetzer1]

@spiral See, I agree, reviewers should
A. Posess the correct skill level to play the game they are reviewing.
B. Have an understanding of the genre.

That said, I think this article is exactly ... wrong. This article points out that reviewers as a singularity can sometimes be unreliable. In contrast metacritic is compiling all of those reviews and averaging them. In essence, if those reviewers did happen to just hate a certain genre (which frankly is almost never the case) it would be counterbalanced by the other review scores. The authors arguments are actually directly conflicting with what he wants people to believe. He claims that reviewers can be unreliable, which in contrast would mean that gathering reviews across many sites and averaging them is what SHOULD be done. Otherwise, you may have one overly zealous or one overly critical review and base your whole outlook on ONE person. Metacritic by this authors description is more the solution, than enemy.

To me it seems this article is just a lame attempt to relight the fire about a certain recent game's review scores, and reclaim how it was actually a 10/10. Even worse, this article is prematurely creating an excuse for another game before it has even released. Noone requires that you solely base your purchase on reviews, but to say that peoples opinions, (especially when in a conglomeration like Metacritic does) are incorrect is just stupid. Also, why is this author only concerned about bloodbourne? Does his so called theory not extend to all games and their review processes? What made the issue so specifically relevant with bloodbourne?

Reviews for games aren't new, and in fact they are much more diverse than they used to be, so scores are actually more reflective due to this. To claim a game that is reviewed by hundreds of people (most with the same feelings) is irrevocably unusable and unreliable, is moronic. There are plenty of games that I like that didn't review well, I don't think the review process was incorrect, I just think that I happened to like a game that others did not feel so strongly on. simple really.

[OB1Biker]

Yea reviews aren't new but they used to more scarce and trying to be open minded and helping readers to find out if a game suit their particular taste. Nowadays anyone can post reviews and their main functions seem to be 'I have an opinion about how this game should be like'
IMO the main interest nowadays is to find out if a game is broken or not other than that reviews have become useless

[oof46]

I agree, except that you forgot to account for the fact that, while metacritic does average out the scores, some sites/magazines are given more weight than others.

[bouzebbal]

the only time a review can make sense is when you have the right person to do the review.
I can for sure not review a cricket game because i have no idea how that's played.
An experienced reviewer in the genre he's reviewing is the best way to be objective. He can speak for both veteran players as well as beginners.

[UltraNova]

@nick

"That said, I think this article is exactly ... wrong. This article points out that reviewers as a singularity can sometimes be unreliable. In contrast metacritic is compiling all of those reviews and averaging them. In essence, if those reviewers did happen to just hate a certain genre (which frankly is almost never the case) it would be counterbalanced by the other review scores. The authors arguments are actually directly conflicting with what he wants people to believe. He claims that reviewers can be unreliable, which in contrast would mean that gathering reviews across many sites and averaging them is what SHOULD be done."

Nick, you're wrong there. Meta does not average scores in the traditional sense but introduces a weighting system which coincidentally, no one knows how and where said weight is allocated.

METACRITIC: "Metascore is a weighted average in that we assign more importance, or weight, to some critics and publications than others, based on their quality and overall stature. In addition, for music and movies, we also normalize the resulting scores (akin to "grading on a curve" in college), which prevents scores from clumping together."

http://www.metacritic.com/a...

Since its polygon the article focuses on- lets say the 3rd or 4th 'heaviest' game reviewing site. If what the author said was true (in this case he was wrong Arthur wasn't talking about Bloodborne nor did he review it) then the obvious lack of involvement on the reviewer's side would potentially reflect on his review.

Factor in this with Polygons weight on Metacritic and you have a- for the lack of a better word-misaligned and unfair final Meta score.

IMO Meta should not be trusted.

[Mr Pumblechook]

That response by Polygon's Arthur Gies where he says "check your ******* facts." He works for a professional games website that has some serious investment in it. You would never have a prominent voice from a sports or entertainment website or utilities company speak like that. Yet because their website deals with games some people think professionalism is not necessary. I hate the people who always attack gamers, it's these so-called journalistic voices that damage the perception of the industry.

[3-4-5]

* It's a good point though.

I'm a guy.....I've never owned a purse......I shouldn't be reviewing purses. If I was assigned to, I probably wouldn't " get it", like some women would who are actually into them and have experience with them.

Same concept applied to metacritic though....

If you hate FPS games, or don't ever play them, you shouldn't be reviewing them as there is a good chance your review won't be accurate or as accurate as it could be.......which would be doing a disservice to the reader and potential customer.

[Metallox]

"I really don't like it when the people who review certain games for sites are people completely uninitiated in the game's respective genre. If you've never played a character action game, you shouldn't be reviewing Bayonetta 2. You shouldn't be saying the game is too difficult or that the combat is complicated. It's that simple."

I agree. But what you're claiming is that reviewers should review Bayonetta 2 with an "action video game perspective", whereas many sites review their games with a "video game" or simply "product", view of point. And, unfortunately, both things are correct.

[Volkama]

But that person's review of Bayonetta 2 would be valid for a tonne of other people that have never played an action game. I imagine there are quite a few Wii U owners that aren't that familiar with the genre or the first Bayonetta game so the review could certainly be worthwhile.

Any review will be slanted by the reviewer's own preferences, that's one of the many reasons that blindly taking the score at the bottom won't tell you that much about the game. Getting a wide range of opinions from people with different backgrounds and interests is a good thing. More useful than trying to restrict feedback to fans and self-proclaimed experts only.

[LOGICWINS]

"If you've never played a character action game, you shouldn't be reviewing Bayonetta 2. You shouldn't be saying the game is too difficult or that the combat is complicated. It's that simple."

Couldn't the opposite extreme be just as bad too? What if character action games are your favorite video game genre and you love it so much to the point that you are unfairly critical of them? An example would be giving a God of War game a 6/10 solely because its TOO simple/easy compared to Ninja Gaiden 2.

Reviewers will always be biased given that they are human, but at the very least they should prevent themselves from reviewing games within genres that they have strong feelings towards(overly negative or overly positive).

Its like Daigo Umehara giving a review of SFV. That review is pretty worthless to 99.7% of gamers who don't take fighting games that seriously.

[SpiralTear]

While I see your point, I also believe that a medium can be reached. I personally find more value in an overqualified reviewer than an underqualified one, because at least an overqualified reviewer knows what parts of the game matter the most. Frame rate would matter a lot for a fighting game. Story would matter a lot for an RPG. Someone who knows what matters most is the best person for the job, in my opinion.

But ideally, someone with knowledge of the genre should also be able to use that knowledge to evaluate it from the perspective of the consumer. They need knowledge AND restraint.

But the situation of having a completely uneducated newbie reviewing a game in a genre they've never tried before is ludicrous. Justifying that like Gies did is ignorant.

Overall, though, you're right. The opposite extreme is there. I just find that extreme to be easier to remedy and manage than the other extreme.

[LOGICWINS]

Agreed. The person that knows whats important to look for in different genres but can also review the game with the target consumer in mind is ideal.

[Metallox]

"Couldn't the opposite extreme be just as bad too? What if character action games are your favorite video game genre and you love it so much to the point that you are unfairly critical of them? An example would be giving a God of War game a 6/10 solely because its TOO simple/easy compared to Ninja Gaiden 2."

Then the problem is in another place, and it would simply mean that the guy lacks any impartiality. Critics have to be objective (aka, "open") to whatever they try, while knowing exactly what they are doing. Of course, the result still would be an opinion, but a well founded one with arguments. This is what some reviewers need, not all though.

[WizzroSupreme]

The big issue with Metacritic is simply what makes us human. Personal biases are impossible to get rid of as much as discerning values from fact.

[oof46]

Thank you. I totally agree. A review is subjective no matter how much a reviewer tries to be objective.

[Avernus]

All comes down to reviews being opinion pieces. What the reviewer might not like, I will. I can already see reviewers not familiar with the Souls games going to criticize the slow and hard combat.

Reviewers sharing their opinion on a genre they don't like can only end up in a negative review, which is why I don't take reviews serious, nobody should, but that's the point right? To create flame wars and clickbait, so why not give a reviewer a genre he doesn't like.

Do your own research, look at gameplay, get a rough idea of the plot, dev support, DLC support, content lacking etc... because "reviewers" don't always tell you the things you need to know, and make up your own mind about the game. Don't be sheeple and follow a crowd blindly.

[DragoonPoon]

I think this article brings up an interesting point. For example, I personally don't like the Monster Hunter games. It's not because I think they're bad on any objective level. I see the kind of gameplay they're going for and the mechanics and world around it do a brilliant job of achieving that end. It's just not the kind of gameplay that keeps me engaged. It would be unfair to ask a guy like me to write a review directed towards those who are interested specifically in that type of game.

[Number-Nine]

That guy is a total tool bag cussing like that

[DarkOcelet]

He should have replied in a better way. No need to use the F word.

[Rachel_Alucard]

We need people that are fans of all types of games and not just a specific type of game. It's impossible to avoid favoritism in any media, but at least we wouldn't have people who've only played 1 type of game and they have more experiences so they can't say this is the X game I've ever played as much.

[dafegamer]

he is not reviewing it though

[BudokaiGamer]

My problem with Metacritic is that games that are actually really good or really not that bad at all can get hammered so fast that it puts the blue blur to shame!

Wonderful 101 comes to mind with it being a pretty good game, but brutally lost to Metacritic.

Not only do bias just have to cause problems there but the game industry actually takes Metacritic to heart now too. Developers have been laid off and sequels have been cancelled because of Metacritic.

It's a website that shouldn't exist and has done nothing but cause problems. Even IGN's terrible reviews are better.

[JasonKCK]

Metacritic is just a collection of review scores, they don't actually review games. Funny how only time people have a problem with Metacriric is when their game gets a low score, but when a score is high those same people suddenly love Metacritic. I have seen people on this site complain about Metacritic, then a month later use Metacritic to try and win an argument.

If a reviewer plays and completes a game than that's good enough for a review. Why is it that reviewers need to meet a certain qualification or be a master of a genre in order to review a game? What next only males can review games with male characters?

[Emme]

You guys are missing the point from a business/development perspective.
While certain games are created with a target audience in mind, the business goal of any publisher is growth, not break even. That means publishers want to broaden their target audience, and therefore it is obviously required to get people outside the narrow target audience to like the game. Example WOW, its an RPG but is much more popular than Your average, focus group centered RPG, because Blizzard made people like it who never played an RPG before and normally dont play them. If You can get someone who doesnt care about RPGs to buy your RPG, its called conquer new target groups. Another example is the Wii, which conquered the non gaming demographic groups. Thats why I typically like testing games with people who are nongamers or not my typicall target group.

[lemoncake]

I don't know how this is a negative issue against metacritic in fact this is a reason to use metacritic, metacritic takes the average of lots of reviews so any unjustified overly critical reviews and over positive reviews get leveled out. If a game gets loads of negative reviews and a low score it's because there's something fundamentally wrong with it, alot of the time the metacritic critic review score is quite accurate.

[isa_scout]

Did you see how he responded to the guy asking him why he would be the one reviewing Bloodbourne?
"And THIRD of all, I've never reviewed a Souls game. Check your fucking facts."
Gies is a grade A douchebag. Talk about professionalism. It's sad that someone with such low class is being paid to do what many would love to do. Some of these people take for granted the position they are in. The guy asking him the question even apologized.Why? Gies has consistently shown that he is out of touch with gamers views. I have no problem with his reviews as long as he is willing to be critiqued. How the hell can you be a critic unless your willing to be critiqued? If Polygon had any class themselves(they don't) they'd make Gies issue an apology to the guy. They've needed to part way with Gies for a long time, but who knows maybe they can't afford a proffesional writer.