Shuhei Yoshida Proves That Metacritic Is Important To The Industry

Metacritic plays an important part in the gaming industry and Shuhei Yoshida and his latest tweet regarding Horizon: Zero Dawn confirms that.

Gaz from Gameondaily discusses.

[chrisx]

Good job to sony for producing quality games all the time, others(ms,etc) need to look at sony and learn how a game gen should be. Can't wait to play Horizon and explore its secrets

[Why o why]

He needs to start reppin open critic. The lack of transparency in meta in regards to who they list and subsequent weighing of each site/publication is questionable

Some dedicated gaming sites aren't listed yet some film and tech sites are. Some get instant inclusion whilst others wait years. Flawed

[UCForce]

I prefer Open critics, but I do understand MetaCritics is still important to industry even I don't like their directions.

[TFJWM]

Went to opencritic for the first time, It has Zero Dawn at 88 same as meta....

[IamTylerDurden1]

Even opencritic is imperfect.

[nix]

There are games when you see the trailer/gameplay and you know you're going to buy it. I use Metacritic if i want to see how good a game is if the game's been under the radar or if i missed it.

Nothing beats your own perception when it comes to games or anything creative. After all it's subjective, you know.

[rainslacker]

Wonder why they don't just give the option to the user to have a regular aggregate with no weighting or display the weighting.

I'd really like them to say how each site rates. I'm sure it's a scaler that would be easy to display simply.

My biggest gripe with meta is that they will assign a score to reviews that never had a score assessed based on their arbitrary measure of what the content of the review is and how that translates to a score. IMO, that is beyond their scope, and not fair overall.

Anyhow, I usually find that after most of the reviews are in, with the rare exception, the final meta score often comes up to about what I'd score a game within about a point or so....except when it comes to some niche Japanese Otaku games which tend to review poorly in the US, but I rate them based on different criteria than most reviewers because I have different expectations from them.

[Captain_Mushroom]

oh, so now it's important, but when metacritic had that 40/100 score on uncharted, you all screamed the opposite. you ponies and a bunch of delicious hypocrites; i love it

[Deep-throat]

Yes all the time.

The Order 1866
Driveclub
Knack
Hardware: Rivals
Bound
Until Dawn: Rush of Blood
Fat Princess Adventures
The Tomorrow Children
Killzone ShadowFall

Quality AAAs.

[UCForce]

Quantum Break, Halo 5, Gear of War 4 , Recore and some other.

[Nyxus]

Most of these games are at least decent, if not good. So if that's the best you can come up with, the point you were trying to make kind of failed.

[Kaneki-Ken]

Well at least PlayStation have more quality AAAs games overall while Xbox only have Halo, Gears, Forza.

[Deep-throat]

@UCForce

Bro why bother mentioning Xbone games here?

If Halo 5 and Gears 4 (84/100 on metacirtic) aren't good games, then these games aren't either:

FFXV
The Last Guardian
Yakuza 0
Gravity Rush 2

[UCForce]

Well, Halo 5 and Gears 4 are great games, but how long they going to keep that momentum after Epic and Bungie left ?

[Overload]

Never heard of The Order 1866.

If you are going to insult something, at least spell it's name properly.

[Aeery]

Such troll.

and btw, Driveclub is a feaking amazing game.

[Deadpooled]

The perfect name for a troll, because that's what trolls take down their gullet when ganged up after a butthurt rant.

[Rangerman1208]

But I liked Killzone Shadowfall, Fat Princess Adventures, Bound and Until Dawn rush of blood.

[FunAndGun]

You know each of those games have plenty of fans, and your list just points out why Playstation dominates. Playstation has something for everyone and they take risks in searching for what players want. I see your list and it encompasses all genres.

[remixx116]

Umm dude cherry pickin at its finest huh
Bloodborn
Uncharted 4
Ratchet and clank
The last guardian
Until dawn
Gravity rush 2
The last of us remaster
Nioh
Horizon zero dawn
Yakuza 0

Try looking up the meta scores for those games and then come back here

Lol I love how you picked the until dawn dlc....

[Skankinruby]

Lol digging that deep into sonys library to fish for mediocre games shows utter desperation. Of course with a username like yours I guess you can't expect much else.

[LP-Eleven]

Lets see (since you don't know the definition of AAA)

- The Order: 1886 (get the name right, at least) - yep AAA
- DRIVECLUB: Also AAA (and loved by its fans)
- Knack (AAA and so bad that it's receiving a sequel. Cool)
- Hardware: Rivals (did not have a AAA budget)
- Bound (no AAA budget)
- Until Dawn: Rush of Blood (also no AAA budget - and funny how you skipped the highly praised full game that IS AAA)
- Fat Princess (not AAA)
- The Tomorrow Children (not AAA)
- Killzone: ShadowFall (you had to go back to launch titles multiple times now to prove nothing, except that, yes, it's AAA)

This is the problem with ignorance - it usually invites you to dance with it on thin ice.

[Big_Game_Hunters]

@UCForce those aren't Sony games bro.

[S2Killinit]

The Order was amazing by the way (: and so is Unti Dawn Rush of Blood.

Also, I think what you fail to see is that Sony ACTUALLY makes games. If a game flops, it's not a sign that things are bad, it's a sign that they tried something new and it didn't pay off, they learned from their mistake and next time they will deliver something epic. MS on the other hand fails to even make a game unless it's one that somebody made it already and it was a hit. That's why you get halo/gears/forza over and over. Why else do you think Sony exclusives are so much better and more abundant than MS's?

[GrontB]

Say what your will, Deep-throat. At least there is a plethora of games. 2017 from January-March? Nioh, gravity Rush 2, horizon, neir automata, kingdom hearts 2.8, kingdom hearts 1.5+2.5, yakuza 0, tales of berseria. All well recieved. I would love to see a more diverse exclusive list for another platform that rivals that, if you can supply one.

[sin7279]

Please gtfo!

[IamTylerDurden1]

The Order 1886's Meta score is a joke. Ppl are foolish to attempt to enclose this game in a box and deduct points for what it's not, but instead they should praise it for what it is. The Order 1886 is a polished, high brow exercise in artful game making and it's outright criminal what was done to the game.

Driveclub - is you think Driveclub's Metacritic score in any way reflects the quality of the game as it plays today you are very misinformed. If any game deserves a re-review it is DC. Driveclub is a polished, content rich gem atm that hardly resembles the weatherless, broken server mess that garnered a 70 something Metacritic score back in October of 2014. The best weather system ever in a racing game, new modes, cars, tracks, gameplay and server improvements, visual/technical improvements, photomode, and more have been added to make DC a vastly superior game that deserves closer to a 90 Metacritic in its current form.

Anyone who thinks Driveclub (currently) is a bad game simply has no idea or is too clouded with bias to see the truth. Driveclub is a visual achievement and one hell of a game atm, i'm proud of what was ultimately accomplished with this gorgeous racer.

Until Dawn Rush of Blood - now i know you have never touched these games and really aren't all that informed about them. Check ppl's reactions to Rush of Blood over the past few months since it launched. Rush of Blood is easily one of the best games on VR and it is an absolute joy to play. Super Massive nailed both Until Dawn AND Rush of Blood, it's funny you think RoB is a "bad game". Arkham VR also has a low 70's Metacritic, but like RoB it is among the best experiences on VR and both are massive hits that've sold huge numbers due to word of mouth. RoB is required gaming if you own PSVR, it's so good. It's the best selling VR game to date at about 500k physical copies on just one platform.

[trooper_]

That's the best you can do? Most of those games are solid.

Try harder.

[Ceaser9857361]

I personally liked The Order 1886.. I hope there is a sequel to it..

[IamTylerDurden1]

Bound - was developed by Plastic, not Sony. However, Bound was a beautiful and artful experience that is dramatically elevated in VR. Bound, on PS4 Pro in PSVR is spectacular and gorgeous. There is much more to Bound than its initial, PS4, 2D release. Bound also got a phenomenal Pro mode for PS4 and VR. Bound is a great game on Pro in VR.

Killzone Shadowfall - i think was a good launch title that did not deserve to be rated worse than CoD Ghosts. It was rushed for launch and the sp wasn't perhaps as riveting as the previous games, but the mp was terrific and it was a visual and technical achievement at the time. It wasn't a bad and it probably deserved higher scores based on the mp, visuals, and the undeniably awesome OWL companion bot and the way it influenced gameplay. Judging SF against KZ2 and 3 makes it seem like a disappointment, but judging it strictly as a gorgeous FPS launch title with solid mp makes it appear more like the solid shooter it is.

Knack - the general consensus is that Knack was more enjoyable than it's ridiculous Metacritic score would indicate. If Knack was as hideously bad as the score leads you to believe i don't think it would've sold 2 million copies and gotten a planned 2017 sequel. It's funny how Knack got docked for the nostalgic that other games get praised for. Knack was by no means perfect, but it was gorgeous and it helped fill a demographic that PS4 was lacking at launch. In many ways it was a success, but i believe Knack 2 will be an unequivocal success not only commercially, but critically as well.

Say what you will, but Uncharted 4, Horizon, Bloodborne, Infamous, Nioh, Ratchet & Clank, Yakuza 0, The Last Guardian, Gravity Rush 2, Alienation, Resogun, Transistor, Helldivers, Salt n Sanctuary, Enter the Gungeon, SFV, Kingdom Hearts 2.8, Tales of Beseria/Zesteria, Dragon Quest Heroes, MLB The Show, World of Final Fantasy, LittleBigPlanet 3, Grim Fandango, Uncharted Collection, TLoU Remastered, Tearaway Unfolded, Gravity Rush R, Everbody's Gone to the Rapture, and Soma make one damn impressive list of exclusives/console exclusives thus far. This is off the top of my head and excluding the games you listed, and including only the exclusives that received good Metacritic scores. Sony is dominating.

[Rachel_Alucard]

You forgot basement crawl and infamous second son.

Also remove the "Quality AAAs" line, only 2 games you listed were touted as and marketed as AAA must buys. Hell hardware rivals was on PS+ when it came out and tomorrow children is a f2p game, and VR can't be AAA until it's widespread and common

[xX-oldboy-Xx]

You're unfit to use that avatar mate. Instead of dumping on Sony for trying new ips - you should applaud them.

Not everything will hit the mark, but thats the nature of the beast.

[lelo2play]

Honestly, I think the average score of most games in metacritic (or opencritic) are exaggerated. Lot of reviewers out there overscore in their games reviews.
Nowadays, any piece of crap game gets perfect scores.

Reviews can be bought... and that's happening more and more, specially reviews of AAA games.

[Bathyj]

Maybe metacritic should discount scores that are too low or to high from the average.

For example, I don't know what number they would assign, let's say 30%. If a game is averaging 60 and someone gives it a 100 perfect score, then that shows it's not really to be trusted and should be removed. If the game was sitting on 95 and got a 60, then it's not reliable either.

Anything too harsh or too overly praising compared to the average is deemed way off the mark and would not influence the score and stop the sensationalist review.

[TheOptimist]

He justifies it and that's the biggest problem. Metacritic is basically averaging out everything and if a game is not liked by a few people it's average goes down. And fanboys, instead of accepting that the certain reviewer might not have liked the game, take to the internet to become keyboard warriors for their favorite game developer/publisher.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

I would be happier with Metacritic if they would throw out the top 5 and bottom 5 scores when they look at their Average score. They can still post and reference the top / bottom 5 but I feel they Metacritic need to address these sites that clearly go super low / super high just to garner views...and yes, it does happen we all know it so why not try to address in some fashion?

[RpgSama]

when you have more than 10 sites with 10/10, you can see a tendency in that direction, the lone 5/10 is the one that sticks out like a sore thumb, specially when it gets the average down one or even two points, 'cause according to Metacritic not all sites have the same weight, and we don't even know how they choose who is more important than the other.

[Deadpooled]

Yep just like in statistics when you get a line of best fit and generate the R squared value, anomalies are generally excluded from the analysis so they don't effect the overall statistical value (although the anomalies need to be explained as to why they appeared)

[gangsta_red]

Why would you throw out low scores? What would be the reason?

I see a lot of people complain about low scores but no one seems to mind perfect scores. As if any game can be truly 100% perfect.

There will always be low scores, not everyone has the same taste. There are reviews that hate classics like The Godfather, Citizen Kane and Starship Troopers. It happens.

I dont think they should be thrown out at all because then we get into a very grey area of tweaking reviews only to our liking. Throwing out the bad reviews and leaving the good ones only to feel better about ourselves.

Everyone deserves a voice even if you dont agree with what theyre saying.

[calactyte]

I agree wholeheartedly. What you are describing is called taking the "trimmed mean" which is exactly what they should do since one or two low or high scores shouldn't have the same effect as an average does. A trimmed mean of say 5%-10% would be a great way to keep everything fair.

[ItMatters]

I can agree with that totally. Games like uncharted should not be getting any 6's, it's a 9-10 game imo. It should be the same for Xbox games also then, there is clickbaiting on both sides.

[ColonelHugh]

"I think there’s certain reviews that are written more to get clicked on than they are to actually accurately reflect the quality of the game, and that kind of bums me out."

"Spencer here was referring to the score of 4 given to Forza Horizon 3 by International Business Times UK. It was the only publication to give the title such a low score on Metacritic, which actually dragged the overall score of the title down but which still currently sits at an impressive score of 91. You can bet your bottom dollar that Spencer wouldn’t give a shit if IBTimes UK were not on metacritic."
------------
I have to agree with Spencer and the author. Except about the part that Spencer wouldn't give a shit if IBTimes UK were not on metacritic. I think at the time, he definitely would have given a shit. It's how I feel every time I see crazy scores popping up. I would shit all day every day if it got the clickbait out of reviews.

Reviews are supposed to be how the general gamer views a game that sounds interesting to them, not how your aunt's feminist friend thinks, not how a fanboy thinks, not how the financially astute think.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

@gangsta_red "Everyone deserves a voice even if you dont agree with what theyre saying" I whole heartedly agree with that statement. That was why I was suggesting that while Metacritic could pull the top 5 and bottom 5 scores when creating the average they should still post those score / reviews in their list so someone can read them. And while I hear your concern about tweaking a review and creating grey areas I would say if a game is generally well received or generally poorly received and even in the middle on the scale, this system would still accurately portray that. What this does eliminate is one or two sites inflating or deflating a games overall score with their outlying divisive review...which lets be honest, often those reviews come out just to be different and get the views.

[Outside_ofthe_Box]

@Dlacy13g

While at first I disagreed with your notion, the more I think about it, the more I can see where you are coming from. Your solution might not be best, but it is at least an attempt to sway people from giving dishonest scores.

We definitely need a system that discourages people from trying to bring the average down or up and instead encourage just plain old honesty.

[Wallstreet37]

Metacritic is very very flawed. First the weighted reviews suck and we don't know what reviews hold more weight.

Secondly you have some of the highest scoring games on top but they only have like 10 to 15 reviews counted? That makes no sense and is not fair to the Uncharted 2s of the world that have over 100 reviews aggregated into its score and still gets a 96 but isn't regarded as the highest rated game. We all know the more reviews factored in the higher the probability that the score will go down. A 96 with 100 reviews factored in is more of an accomplishment and higher rated than a game that gets a 98 but only has 10 reviews factored in.

[HotMoltenLava]

I agree 100%.

[Wallstreet37]

Yeah alot of other aspects of metacritic ppl don't see. It's more to it than just looking at the score. It's like going into the Android play store and seeing a a five star app and saying "oh this must be good" but then trying it, it sucks and your realize it got those five stars only because five ppl reviewed it lol

[Ashlen]

I can't believe you are getting so many agrees.

There is not liking a game which is fine, but there are people who are just doing flat out troll reviews with scores that are less than 50% of the games average score for no other purpose than to get clicks. They do this because they know there review will be on the front page of metacritic if they have the lowest score.

And on top of that a review isn't supposed to be if a person likes the game it's supposed to be an analysis of the quality of the game when compared to other similar games.

I don't care for Call of Duty or sports games but if I was called on by a professional website to do a review I am not going to give it a 1 just because I don't like it. That's unprofessional. I would take it and compare it to other first person shooters I have played and make a review based on those factors.

[gangsta_red]

So who or what determins a troll review? Who decides whether the review is valid or not?

How can we tell if that person reviewing is being honest or just a "hater"?

"...a review isn't supposed to be if a person likes the game it's supposed to be an analysis of the quality of the game when compared to other similar games."

I strongly disagree with this.

You could have a FPS game that has the best graphics, no bugs, no glitches, and the best net code for online play. But if it's still boring or uninspiring then it's not fun and you wouldnt like it, that should be considered above all else with video games.

[Ashlen]

So if the average review for this "FPS game that has the best graphics, no bugs, no glitches, and the best net code for online play" is 80 and the second lowest review is a 65 but there is one review that is 30 you think that's a fair review?

I can't even believe your justifying this.

I can understand a person saying o.k. all these things are great but I didn't find the game to be fun and knocking off a point maybe even two but to give a game a review that is WAY out of the spectrum of the other reviews is not acceptable.

It blows my mind that you can't see that people are abusing the system for clicks.

[gangsta_red]

"I can't even believe your justifying this"

Okay, how about if a game is getting a majority of mediocre or horrible scores and then a review comes along and gives that same game a 10? Will there be outrage, disgust and the need to call that review clickbait and a call to throw out that review so the meta wont get a point higher?

This outrage only seems to be geared at the low scoring reviews. Low scoring reviews only seem to be seen as clickbait. But no one bats an eye at the perfect scores that could be just as much looking for attention.

No one is justifying this but I see a lot of comments trying to persecute reviews because they don't conform to the majority or dont align with another's opinion.

That is where my concern is.

[TheOptimist]

I would give COD 4/10, not because it's a bad game, but because there is no evolution. I am practically paying for the same game year over year with increasing microtransactions and questionable business strategies. That is not unprofessional. Thinking that letting the hook off a mechanically stagnant game is unprofessional. If I give FIFA 15 a 9, I would give FIFA 16 and 17 a 6 and 7.5 respectively, because again, they do not evolve much.

Media is scared of activision so they do not give it that low of a score, and this is where Metacritic gets theadvantage.

[Outside_ofthe_Box]

Hmmm...

Optimist brings up a good point, but I think simply giving COD a 4/10 wouldn't be fair if the only reason why you are doing so is be cause it didn't evolve enough. 4/10 would reflect that the game is bad in your opinion not that it didn't improve upon the last entry. A 7 or a 7.5 would reflect that as that would be saying that the game is Okay or enjoyable it just didn't have you jumping out your seat like the previous game because it's just more of the same.

In my opinion a low score should be reserved for a game that is truly not enjoyable.

[Ashlen]

"Okay, how about if a game is getting a majority of mediocre or horrible scores and then a review comes along and gives that same game a 10? Will there be outrage, disgust and the need to call that review clickbait and a call to throw out that review so the meta wont get a point higher? "

That doesn't really happen. And that brings up a good point, why not? And the answer is because that doesn't generate clicks.

It again is surprising that you find what I say to be so wrong when on this site you see pure click bait articles all the time. Even on the review side alone, time after time the most "heat" reviews on this site aren't the most well written in depth or high scoring review but the review that gives a ridiculously low score.

But if it became the case where people were giving falsely high scores to generate clicks then I would agree that would be a equal problem.

[gangsta_red]

@ashlen

"That doesn't really happen"

It doesn't? How do you know this?

"time after time the most "heat" reviews on this site aren't..."

And who's fault is that? Any and all bad news will get the most heat on this site. Determining what's clickbait and what's not, especially when it comes to reviews, judging just from this site is suspect as it is.

My problem and what I find equelly surprising is that people are quick to label anything they dont agree with as clickbait. Hardly anyone disagrees with 10/10, a perfect score, meaning the game is PERFECT, no flaws, no glitches, no bugs, absolutely perfect. That type of clickbait will get celebrated and posted on a trophy stand with no type of controversy.

But give a game a 6, 5 or below and people will give you all sorts of definitions on what a 5 or below should entail. People will become angry, violent and start throwing out labels like "hater" and "clickbait".

Again, my problem is the way people want to control what reviews are seen, people want to only label the reviews they dont like as clickbait, people want to remove bad scores from meta of their favorite game. Its not right plain and simple.

If you have proof that these low scores are doing it on purpose then I would agree that person has an issue. But right now all I see is a mob flocking to one or two reviews out of many good ones only to scream and vent that they hate that particular score.

[Ashlen]

"It doesn't? How do you know this? "

Well go to metacritic and try to find a couple of games with 2 or 3 average meta that also have a 10 in them.

Listen, click bait isn't an opinion. If anything it's an art form or a science. I could generate click bait titles in a second. Just say something sucks or x is better than y about popular things.

If your going to pretend that people don't do things specifically to generate clicks than I really don't know what to say to you. People can and do manipulate people and systems and rules to generate clicks which in turn generates money.

If your going to deny that happens then I have nothing left to say to you because it's a fact that it does, and I don't actually believe for a second that you don't think this is the case. I would only believe that you will say it doesn't for the sake of your argument in this thread.

[admiralvic]

"He justifies it and that's the biggest problem."

Honestly, the biggest problem is that Metacritic is flawed. Not just because they weighted reviews, but for two other reasons.

The first and honestly biggest issue with Metacritic is that they're comparing the average of scores that define the numbers differently. Stevivor, one of the sites that gave Horizon a lower (7/10) score, has some pretty high expectations for the last couple of numbers.

"8/10 – Even better. See 7/10, but now we’d start throwing in “genre-defining” into the mix."

"9/10 – At this level... It transcends genre, race, sexuality – EVERYTHING. You need games at this level as part of your collection."

I mean, I loved Bayonetta 2 and would give it a 9/10, but by this logic it would only be a 7 or 8/10. I wouldn't say it transcends everything and really only think it could get an 8 because it was genre-defining to me, but still, even that might be pushing it for some.

Even extreme examples like that aside, this is how Metacritic views gaming scores.

"WHY IS THE BREAKDOWN OF GREEN, YELLOW, AND RED SCORES DIFFERENT FOR GAMES?
The reason for this special treatment for games has to do with the games publications themselves. Virtually all of the publications we use as sources for game reviews (a) assign scores on a 0-100 scale (or equivalent) to their reviews, and (b) are very explicit about what those scores mean. And these publications are almost unanimous in indicating that scores below 50 indicate a negative review, while it usually takes a score in the upper 70s or higher to indicate that the game is unequivocally good. This is markedly different from movies, TV or music, where a score of, say, 3 stars out of 5 (which translates to a 60 out of 100 on our site) can still indicate that a movie is worth seeing or an album is worth buying. Thus, we had to adjust our color-coding for games to account for the different meaning of games scores compared to scores for music, movies and TV."

Even though this is what Metacritic considers it, Stevivor considers a 5/10 average. Even the heavily criticized USGamer, who gave it a 2.5, views a 3 as average (translates to a 6/10) because they have a 5 point scale and 3 is equidistant to 1 and 5. So, when you have sites going 5 is average, 6 is average and 7 is average, with the company that combines them going 7 seems to be the average, it can have a SUBSTANTIAL impact on the final score, even if all the places are saying the same thing and that is a problem.

Another is the approval process for two reasons. The first is that, someone from Metacritic reads the sites reviews and decides if they think the site is good enough to be on Metacritic. One of the sites I wrote for was actually rejected because the evaluator didn't think our writing matched the scores. This was a frustrating rejection, especially since some games could have flaws you talk about in length, but still be fun, such as any Dynasty Warrior title, but also silly. Regardless of who they accept or reject, the site itself has permanent green light. So, if I was the main reviewer of the site someone rejected for the score and writing not lining up and I joined USGamer, then I would be automatically approved for Metacritic, even if my opinion/writing/whatever isn't good enough for Metacritic.

Also, while they don't seem to do it anymore, back in the day they use to take scoreless reviews and have someone on the site read the review and score it based off the feel. Though they still convert letter grades.

[TheOptimist]

Well.... Personally my scale is this (And think that this should be the general scale)

1- Broken,unplayable and non enjoyable
2- A bit better than what a game with 1 rating is
3- Either broken or not enjoyable
4- Just an OK game
5- Average- Mechanically the same as many others does not do anything new, but is bugless
6- Decent, mechanically sound, tries something new, but doesn't stray too far from the general trends
7- Good, does something different, succeeds at it, but in trying something new, it leaves space for some flaws
8- Very good- A new concept, or something that is not prevalent, and the game pulls it off pretty well, and leaves less space for flaws
9- Extremely good- Genre defining, a new concept built from scratch, less flaws, and pure enjoyment in terms of gameplay depth
10- Perfect- Says it all I guess.

While I do like scoreless reviews, I do prefer scored reviews with 80% objectivity and 20% subjectivity. I am saying that scored reviews are good if done right, not like most media today giving every alternate game a 10.

[OtakuDJK1NG-Rory]

So less than 100 people reviews and receptions are more important than 1K, 10K, 100K, 500K, 1m or even 5m people receptions.

If that the case then/
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (PS) 2nd best game ever made
Grand Theft Auto IV (X360) 5th and 3rd for PS3.
http://www.metacritic.com/b...

[Deadpooled]

Pro Skater 2 was an incredible game with skating mechanics well before it's time. The benchmark of every other skating game that has released afterwards, no need to belittle it. GTA IV on the other hand, that deserves belittling.

[OtakuDJK1NG-Rory]

yes it was but is the 2nd best game ever made?

[Deadpooled]

In my honest opinion, no it's not the '2nd best game ever made', there are others I would consider to be up for that accolade. But if it was based on how perfect a game plays that it cannot really be improved except by things unrelated to gameplay like updated graphics etc, then yes I would definitely put Pro Skater 2 up there.

[Dragonscale]

Loved pro skater 2.

[UnSelf]

Vieetiful Joe at a 93. Bout time that game gets the recognition it deserves even if it sits higher than the GOAT, San Andreas

[uth11]

The problem with user reviews is they are often manipulated by fanboys and those on a hate crusade against a game.

[rainslacker]

The only review and reception that is important is the one that people personally assign to the game for themselves.

That being said. the Meta is good to get a decent idea of the overall quality once revews come in, but one has to use some judgement on their own to figure out if they're likely to enjoy the game or not.

personally, I don't really even need reviews to know this anymore. Been around long enough to have a pretty good feel for what I'd like, and nowadays it's a lot better than the old days where we'd be lucky to get a trailer. Now, you can see quite a bit of a game before launch. Way back when, you had pics in a magazine, and if you were lucky, some video or demo on a disc you brought with some magazine. Reviews are hardly necessary anymore for anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills to look at marketing and tell if it's something they'd be interested in.

[Fishy Fingers]

When it's favourable.

People didn't seem to like it when I used it to suggest the GT franchise has gone downhill.

[Trez1234]

He just said it's getting awesome reviews And didn't use it to downplay anything.

[Overload]

Compared to? You better bring something to back up that statement.

Gran Turismo is rated very similarly to 95% of racers on the market and sells more than all of them combined. Do you want to see all the metacritic averages and sales numbers?

Don't get it confused the media and forum hate on for GT is based on it's complete dominance of the genre, similar to Call Of Duty.

[Fishy Fingers]

Previous games in the franchise... :/ that's how you tell if a franchise or series has improved or in that case, not.

The meta scores are the 'something'. That's the thread subject is it not.

*ta-da*
GT - 96
GT2 - 93
GT3 - 95
GT4 - 89
GT5 - 84
GT6 - 81

Point I was making is metacritic is great when it backs up your argument but invalid when it doesn't. The usual hypocrisy.

Now feel free to go off on some unrelated tangent about some Xbox/Nintendo/PC game sales figures.

[Overload]

It was completely different back then, games rated higher and there was less competition.

Current racers

Dirt Rally (85)
http://www.metacritic.com/g...

Forza 6 (87)
http://www.metacritic.com/g...

Project Cars (83)
http://www.metacritic.com/g...

Gran Turismo 6 (81) which is a last gen game released during next gen.
http://www.metacritic.com/g...

Asseto Corsa (73)
http://www.metacritic.com/g...

0.6 seperates all the major players and like I said GT sells more than all of them.

[Fishy Fingers]

So you're saying the early titles only reviewed well because they were generous and didn't know any better?

[Overload]

To a degree, yeah. Last gen was more generous with scores than this gen as well.

KZ2 for example (which I love) was rated 91
http://www.metacritic.com/g...

That is higher than ANY FPS this gen, higher than Horizon, higher than pretty much everything aside from a few games. Halo 4 has a higher score than Halo 5.

Mass Effect 3 has a 93
http://www.metacritic.com/g...

Last gen was way more forgiving than this gen.

[Fishy Fingers]

I guess we could discuss it until the cows come home and I concede it was probably easier to please/impress 'back in the day' when we were less spoilt but I also believe based on my own experience that the franchise doesn't have the magic it used to. 3 A spec was the s***.

But we go off point, I was just trying to suggest we're fickle beasts and promote something when it backs us up and choose to ignore it when it doesn't (I included myself in that).

I appreciate a sensible debate though so I respect your opinion/point of view. I think you occasionally let your heart rule you head in these threads (as we can all).

[Overload]

https://www.mediacurrent.co...

[constantine_man]

Dominance of the genre? Are you serious? This isn't the PS2 era anymore. GT does not have the same weight in 2017 as it did in 2003. Stop with this dominating talk. It dominated during the PS1 and PS2 era, it fell right off a cliff after that.

[Overload]

Gran Turismo 5 sold 12M, Gran Turismo 6 sold 6M launching after the PS4 on PS3.

No other racers come close to those numbers.
http://www.gamespot.com/art...

[rainslacker]

Consider that over the years there are more reviewers. Gran Turismo has 13 professional reviews making the aggragate. GT2 has 23. Keep going up the chain, and it keeps getting more reviewers.

The more scores there are in any aggragate, the more likely the score will go down. That's just a fundamental of statistics and averages.

On top of that, I'd say that standards have changed, and GT games have more competition on consoles, and there are reviewers who hold it to standards that didn't exist 20 odd years ago.

The overall quality of GT has improved with each itteration. It has it's faults, and in some areas it hasn't advanced as fast as in others, but the core fundamental part of why GT games are really good has always gotten better.

Just as an example, GT6 IMO, was the 2nd best GT in the franchise, only being beaten out by GT4, although GT6 is better in some areas. how it rated lower than GT5 or 3 is kind of odd if you really look at it analytically, so I'd imagine a lot of the lower scores were more because people were expecting more, not because the quality of the games themselves have gone downhill.

@Constantine

Yeah, I'm afraid it does. It's a game that sells quite well with each release. Maybe look outside the gaming forums, and GT is one of the few games which can actually be said to be a system seller.

[greywolf39]

Well, I dont think so that metacritic or opencritic is that important. For example look at Resident evil 7. It is not selling nearly as good as Re6 and it has better score than 6, so what do you think Capcom is going to do

[IxWoodstockxI]

My buddy says not to buy Mass Effect Andromeda day 1 to wait for reviews. I don't care about reviews I've been a huge fan of Mass Effect since day 1 I played through the trilogy at least 5 times each game. I'm buying Mass Effect Andromeda day 1 I don't care what some reviewer says about the game.
What I'm saying is screw reviews try it out yourself.

[Fishy Fingers]

That's an established franchise you just said you already clearly love so that's not exactly like dropping £50 on a new IP or franchise you've never played. Reviews have there place, not everyone tracks the development of a game like we do. But if it's something you already cherish of course no ones opinion but your own matters.

I hope you enjoy it as much as the others either way. Not long to wait :)

[InKnight7s]

GG proves that high grapbics games with high quilty cinematic scenes can be amazing and fun game and got high reviews.

[feraldrgn]

Doesn't exactly prove Metacritic is important to the industry, he simply linked to an easy to read source.
His only point was that the game was getting great reviews.

Metacritic doesn't include every review & I'd rather read individual reviews & scores instead of looking at Meta's averaged score which doesn't tell the whole picture.

[Legatus]

Guys i have a question regarding metacritic.
How come Uncharted 4 have 113, Bloodborne 100, Ratchet and Clank 101, etc. reviews posted on metacritic while Horizon have 82 ?
Did fewer gaming sites review it or something else ?

[Fishy Fingers]

Some sites haven't issued reviews yet.

Not every site reviews every game. There's usually inconsistencies in the number of actual reviews. But I expect more will come for Horizon.

[Legatus]

Yeah, i thought so too.
Thanks for replying.

[Fishy Fingers]

Welcome. Better than doing my job :D

[Big_Game_Hunters]

Sony issued early copies to its favorite sites.

[Legatus]

So, where are other 20-30 "Sony favourite" sites then ? They are not "favourite" any more or ?

[Wallstreet37]

Those differences in the amount of reviews factored in per game is the same reason you have Ocarina of Time sitting at a 99 with only 22 reviews and ppl should pay attention that a score means nothing if it isn't backed up with reviews. Metacritic and a score isn't a fair picture. I'm not saying Ocarina of Time isn't a good game but a 99 with only 22 reviews factored in imo isn't higher rated than say an uncharted 2 sutting at 96 with over a 100 reviews factored in. The more reviews factored in the higher the probability for a score to go down. People need to look at the bigger picture.

[Legatus]

I agree, i'm pretty sure that the score for Horizon would be higher with more reviews posted on metacritic. But 88 is still awesome score for a new IP, mind you.

[rainslacker]

Some reviews come later. Not every site tries to get their reviews out immediately. Also possible some haven't been uploaded to Meta yet. That's pretty typical.

Horizon is probably one of the most anticipated games this gen...so the chance that it doesn't get more reviews is nil.

[opinionated]

That proves nothing. Industry heads and fanboys might care about it but linking to a game that is getting good reviews doesn't mean metacritic is important to a functioning industry. It would function just as good without it. Fuck metacritic. 95% of the critics are worthless hacks.

[bluefox755]

Like it or not, a critical consensus matters to a lot of people. We don't often get demos anymore, so an average review score is the best thing short of actually playing it yourself.

[Inzo]

Personally I dont think games should be given a score, game journalists should give their opinion on the game and leave it that.

[jaycptza]

like kindafunny games?

[OtakuDJK1NG-Rory]

no

[OB1Biker]

I agree. Scores are meaningless and mainly used as click bait.
The other day I replied to a gamer who was saying x game doesnt deserve 87 and should be scored 84.How more ridiculous can that thing become seriously?
I tend to think reviews have become irrelevant because they are to focused on justifying a score or proving a biased like or dislike they pass as an opinion.
The evolution of VR might well save reviewers job from now since a hands on opinion is the only way to get an idea on a VR game

[kevnb]

its not really that important, its a relatively small part of the audience that gives a crap what a game scores on metacritic. The media will tell you otherwise because they like to feel important. It seems some higher ups like to use it as well because it gives them a concrete rating, but its really pretty worthless when you have a high rated game that loses money while a lower rated game makes a ton.

[Babadook7]

winner: shu

[constantine_man]

Remember when a whole bunch N4G users accused Polygon of taking Microsoft Money for giving TLOU as 7.5/10 which fucked their meta critic score? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[MoveTheGlow]

"...and you can be be assured that from now on, many are going to keep an eye on USgamer’s future review scores as as result of the above."

Oh, freaking come on. USGamer is a site that trusts its own reviewers to do the reviewing, much like Giant Bomb (which gave Horizon a 5/5 because Jeff loved it). I miss Jeremy's voice on their site, but they're not some clickbait rag. Maybe the author is just indicating that Metacritic users are idiots, but well... if that's the case, the author did his job!

[Rude-ro]

It is important. The issue isn't metacritic, it's the abuse from trolling sites with agendas.

[Veneno]

You are totally right there. But don't you think MC HAS known this for a while and should develop something to circumvent the problem? I do.

[Takwin]

Metacritic (and OpenCritic) are both good and useful. Since it is an aggregate, many games have 50 or more professional reviews, and it can filter out the highs and lows and noise.

If you like the GENRE, a game in that genre over 70 is probably worth a look. If you like the genre, a game over 80 is near must-buy territory.

If you like gaming at all, a game over 90 is a game you almost have to buy and play.

Any game with a metacritic under 60 is almost definitely a hard-pass unless you have fanboy-idealism-irrational levels of interest in it.

[Realms]

Metacritic needs to be more transparent, how do they even determine who's opinion is more valuable? Everyone here knows metacritic is broken. Horizon is just the latest game to suffer from this lack of transparency I don't care for metacritic but unfortunately many people do.

[ItMatters]

Why should I let complete strangers tell me what is good and what isn't ? Polygon and kotoku have some of the worst players reviewing games. I've been gaming since 1987 and I'll be dammed if I'm gonna let some dime a dozen blog site tell me that their opinion somehow matters more than anyone else. These reviewers are given all kinds of gifts from developers and paid trips, how does that person have any credibility ?. When people are nice and do stuff for you, you tend to treat them nicer in return in the form of a sweetheart review.

[drunkenspy007]

The problem with Metacritic is it allows troll like reviews that are there for clickbait more than anything else.

[TechnoGoat]

Meta critic is trash, use opencritic instead.

[Cobra951]

"There appear to be two differing schools of thought regarding Metacritic; one argues that its inconsequential and its flawed nature means that it should be disregarded in an objective assessment of any games in question and the other school relies on its results to prop up its arguments, even if it makes an admission to the flawed nature of its findings."

Jeezus. Biased much? NO, one school of thought covers everything you spouted above, and the other is that Metacritic is the best tool available today for gauging quality and range of opinions on certain products, like games. Flawed, sure. Everything man-made has flaws. But there is no need to be apologetic for relying on Metacritic. As with any other tool, it's important to use it correctly. Reading the overall metascore is just Step One. To get properly informed, the individual reviews need to be digested as well, at least those from publications one trusts.

[BlakHavoc]

It's only necessary because they know gamers consider metacritic a measurement for how great a game is. But the process is so flawed, these large sites like IGN, Gamespot, Polygon, Giant Bomb, Kotaku, etc, employ a lot of different ppl. Games are given to a single individual and that persons review score is ultimately counted towards an "average" on meta. My issue with this is that others at the same site might have scored the game higher or lower, therefore potentially giving the game a higher or lower score on meta. I've played games that got a 90+ meta that I personally scored as a 7, so while I agree that meta scores can be used as a prediction for if you might enjoy a game, it shouldn't be considered a definitive measurement of a games quality. Quality of games are too subjective for all of that, just like movies and music.

[RedPill86]

It's only important because you hide their bonuses behind pointless averages. Meta critic is about as useless as it gets when 90% of people using the site (user and reviewer) don't have a clue what they're talking about. Then you pay the devs less and less depending on a score that's out of their control. Game gets 9s and 8s? Well your average is going to tank now because the check at IGN didn't clear. Say goodbye to that bonus you earned.

[senorfartcushion]

Didn't I just read a number of articles accusing Metacritic of witholding sources for their own gain?

This article is ill-timed.

[GoodnessGreatness]

It sucks that you got these xbox, Nintendo, pc fanboys who are probably going to make 0 ratings to games like Horizon zero dawn.

[yomfweeee]

Uh what a dumb article. He was simply trying to show that the game is getting high scores. It doesn't prove that Metacritic is important.

[GamePeace]

Yes, Shuhei Yoshida is right about that. People tend to go with what's popular or well-received. In the end I'll decide if I buy something or not, because at the end of the cordon there's always my own judgement. I don't buy most games that are praised by Metacritic, I have to like the game's design along the good mechanics at least 80 % in order to consider a buy, it should really fit my OWN taste too. That's why I play a game that I personally find interesting first and then make a judgement. After that I decide if Metacritic, the mass and the media was right or if it's just another overrated pile of trash that got hyped and glorified for nothing ...

[zodiac909]

Shuhei "The Shoes" Yoshida. ❤

[GamePeace]

He just talks like that, because Metacritic is in Sony's (HIS) favor currently.

[guyjean]

Only slightly related, but Polygon reviews generally suck.
Polygon and Kotaku are the snobby b*tches among gaming news sites.

[Godmars290]

Not when it can be manipulated.

[Vizigoth04]

For real gamers, the only real score is how you feel inside about a game. But that involves playing it from beginning to end. I think if I had a business to review games I would have to have a standard template:

1) In my own words the summary of the game to include story, side quests, character(s) and gameplay.
2) Present 3 pros
3) Present 3 cons
4) Offer 3 considerations on what to differently next time.
5) No review score number.

[MagicBeanz]

I'm sorry but meta is a seriously flawed system, USgamer's Zero Dawn score proves that, as does the Washington Post's review of Uncharted 4.

[Rachel_Alucard]

I wish publishers wouldn't measure things off Metacritic. Posting scores is fine, but when extra money is on the table based on it then it becomes a problem

https://www.engadget.com/20...

They should either just give out bonuses regardless or not at all instead of basing it off a heavily skewed score card that easily deducts points just as it adds them.

[Seraphim]

No!! Metacritic is rubbish bullshlitz. There's certainly some great, reputable sources on their list but far too much rubbish, biased, hacks, and a million other words. Understandably, unfortunately the industry does refer to and use meta but it's a shame. Such as developers losing a bonus because of the BS meta scores posted by the bad actors.

[Artemidorus]

The best reviewer you will ever meet is yourself.

If you're willing to wait like I do now, find some streams, watch it and judge for yourself.

[madhouse02]

A dreadfully written article with dozens of spelling and grammatical errors. Oh, and it's a complete non-story, too. Utter garbage.

[Mithan]

I Never look at meta critic. It's useless.

[Night99]

Yes sadly it does matter, a lot of people are not able to form an own opinion they constantly need some other fools opinion to make it their own and so they are very easy to manipulate. Metacritic is really the last place on earth were I personaly would look if I want to buy a game or not.