We Give Metacritic Way Too Much Power

COGconnected Writes: Today on COG Considers, we realize that maybe Metacritic shouldn't have the power to delay the release of a AAA video game.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
LordoftheCritics267d ago (Edited 267d ago )

Get rid of it and we start getting more incomplete releases outside of gaas.

mrsolidsteel20267d ago

We already get incomplete releases now.

RpgSama267d ago (Edited 267d ago )

The issue I have with metacritics are those random 4/10 scores on games that are trending 85+, what I always do is take out the top 3 scores and the bottom 3 scores and make an mental average of what's left, usually at the bottom you find the people trying to get clicks and at the top the fanboy sites.

In my mind if you take out that, you get a "more real" average.

Profchaos266d ago

What if the average person thinks different to reviewers e.g watchdogs legion has achieved 77 on ps4 on metacritic but user average is 4.3 I'd give it a 6 after playing for about 8 hours myself I was bored and my experience differs from the critics.

But I think these opinions are all valid

Zhipp266d ago

Or you could just actually read the reviews and make an informed decision as to which ones raise valid points...

Epicor266d ago

You don't need to do that. Metacritic already uses weighted average in their metascore (well-known and recognized reviewers have more weight). Sure you could try to filter the extremes out but in that case wouldn't you also need to take the 10s out of the equation as well? Imo metascore is the best indication out there as it is. Of course all of us sometimes disagree with metascore as we have our own individual preferences.

Popsicle266d ago

Perhaps the median would be a better measure of the data because the average can be skewed so heavily by outliers. Would be great if both the median and average were provided by Metacritic.

fewDankMemes266d ago

What annoys me the most is the entitled people who give a high rated game a zero and then say “I’m only giving this a zero because it doesn’t deserve a 9” which is basically them saying “my opinion is the only one that is right and I will do everything to try and further that agenda”

nommers266d ago


The weighted scoring of metacritic is BS and the more popular review sites don't deserve more prestige than any other site. Opencritic doesn't do that and it has more review sites per game.

The Wood266d ago (Edited 266d ago )


My problem is the lack of transparency in regards to the weighing. Its not a fair system in my opinion. Also there are dedicated gaming sites that aren't included yet movie sites are. Its bs with hardly any non English speaking sites

East76lands266d ago

I think it lost a lot of credibility with the review bombing of TLOU2.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 266d ago
NeoGamer232267d ago

I agree. And I really haven't found Metacritic wildly wrong anyhow. Someone name me a big game that the scores are just plain stupid? I would say Metacritic is typically about 5% points within what I would typically rate games.

P_Bomb266d ago (Edited 266d ago )

GTAIV. GTAV is so much better than IV on every objective level, but the meta score doesn’t reflect the difference.

“...typically about 5% points within what I would typically rate games.”

Problem is that can make the difference between getting their “must play” stamp or not. Take Dreams for example. It was sitting at 90%. Had the stamp. Sony ran a full page ad on the PS Store that included it. Then the next review came out and lowered the avg to 89%. Now it’s no longer “must play”?! What’s this world of difference between 89 and 90?

NeoGamer232266d ago

Comparing two games that were made 5 years apart on their metacritic scores is pretty ridiculous. Game capabilities and engines constantly change. What was considered amazing 5 years ago is not necessarily amazing today.

As for the must play stamp, they have a cut off number. Since Dreams was at the low end of that number it fell off. Doesn't matter what number you choose that cut off would affect a game on the cusp. Personally, I don't care about their must play tag. I play most games 80 and up. But, also play lower games if I think I might be interested. Metacritic isn't my only source to see if I wanna play a game. But it is a source of information. Anyone that relies on only one piece of info to decide on whether to play a game or not will often get disappointed. I have played games that aare deserving of 90's but I am really not interested in... I have also played games that deserve their 60's scores, but they were really fun for me.

P_Bomb266d ago (Edited 266d ago )

“ Comparing two games that were made 5 years apart on their metacritic scores is pretty ridiculous. ”

GTAIV was overrated even for its time. I only included GTAV for context. Point remains the same. You asked a question, I answered it.

“ As for the must play stamp, they have a cut off number. Since Dreams was at the low end of that number it fell off. Doesn't matter what number you choose that cut off would affect a game on the cusp”

Point is just that; it’s another arbitrary line in the sand. Meta already has color coded cutoffs. Wherever you draw the line for that extra pat on the bum icon, it’s a bit pretentious. Now you see CDPR having anxiety about an 89 that’s higher than they even got for Witcher 2. It’s ultimately out of their hands.

“Personally, I don't care about their must play tag”

Me neither, but my example was that publishers do.

NeoGamer232266d ago

I would rather have a developer delay a game trying to make sure it scores above 90, then ship a game that will score 89. I think it is pretty universal that people think the best games score 90 or above in reviews. Not necessarily Metacritic, but for reviews in general.

P_Bomb266d ago (Edited 266d ago )

“ I would rather have a developer delay a game trying to make sure it scores above 90, then ship a game that will score 89”

We’re talking about 1% though. Look at this year’s Ori and the Will of the Wisps. 90% on XB1, 88% on PC. Would you have delayed the PC version?

Some games have the good fortune of having fewer reviews to average out. You can be 90% as early as 4 reviews. Another game might settle at 89% but under the weight of 115 (HZD).

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 266d ago
CyberSentinel266d ago

I don’t trust main stream gaming media, I listen to N4G podcast each week and some of my favorite YouTube influencers.

neutralgamer1992266d ago

These things make too big of a difference remember when bethesda didn't give bonuses based on fallout new vegas review scores

Obsidian missed Fallout: New Vegas bonus by one Metacritic point. Chris Avellone, lead creative designer at Fallout: New Vegas developer Obsidian Entertainment, has claimed that the company did not receive a bonus payment for its work on New Vegas because it did not garner a high enough Metacritic score

Did we not just see CDPR say they are targeting 90+ on meta the reason is games that get 90+ have much higher chance of selling. We the core gamers know the ins and outs of games so it's not for us but for casuals it makes a impact

The site should do a better job of making sure if someone keeps making negative reviews for no reason but to bring in clicks remove them and add new people who's opinions matter

User review scores should only be a thing if that user can enter the serial number than write the review. What ends up happening is fanboys troll reviews to bring the average down

RDR2 sitting at 9.7 but user is 8.5(in my opinion 8.5 is more valid since game deserves that more than 9.7 once again personal opinion)

God of war is at 9.4 with user at 9.2 this is where that 5% give or take comes in

MGS5 a incomplete game is at 9.3 while user score is 11 points lower at 8.2

My issue is these people reviewing the game also buy into the hype and they review with already a positive mindset towards that game

Here is how to tell the difference:

Early reviews are usually high numbers 9's and 10's and have nothing but praise but after 3-4 days when more reviews come out we start hearing of actually pros and cons regarding that game than late reviews come in and they are sometimes so late that they need to be clickbait material just to we'll get clicks

266d ago
+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 266d ago
ArchangelMike267d ago

Definitely. The moment that dev bonuses became tied to metacritic scores, was the moment the industry should have taken a stand.

We should get rid of scores and simply have a recommendation scale like the one Eurogamer uses.

267d ago Replies(1)
Hungryalpaca267d ago (Edited 267d ago )

Euro gamer has been terrible for a long time. I’ll take an aggregate score over one person’s opinion.

SmokinAces266d ago

I'm not apposed to a different system but I certainly wouldn't support one that had anything to do with Eurogamer.

Rachel_Alucard266d ago

They all stopped tying bonuses to metascores after what happened with Fallout: New Vegas.

mark_parch266d ago

There doesn't need to be any scores at all just talk about the game, graphics, sound, characters, gameplay, story etc then people can decide. There're games like Ryse which I didn't play at launch because of critic scores but when I played it in game pass I really enjoyed it, one of the games I've had the most fun with this year is minecraft dungeons and look at the metacritic on that

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 266d ago
-Foxtrot267d ago

"Here’s a great example: I love the Pokemon franchise a lot. Like, a lot. I buy every single one when they’re released, often the same day they come out. But they almost never score that well, and they probably never will. I couldn’t give any one entry more than a 75 and feel good about it."

BUT...they keeping making average Pokemon games because people like you, who damn well know what you are going to get, buy them anyway, Day One.

You're just fuelling the endless cycle.

267d ago Replies(3)
RazzerRedux267d ago

"CDPR delaying Cyberpunk 2077 just so their precious Metacritic score doesn’t take a hit shows a startling misunderstanding of what drives sales. Yes, people look at scores. But that happens after the buzz about a given game hits their radar. Right now, most of the press surrounding Cyberpunk 2077 is negative. While this isn’t the deciding factor in sales either, it’s at least on par with the Metacritic average. Just, chill out about your prospective score, okay?"

Simple truth: if Cyberpunk 2077 gets a 90+ metacritic score then demand is going to explode and the negative press will just evaporate. A buggy game isn't going to get an adjusted review score on metacritic once the bugs are fixed. CPDR knows this. Metacritic can be a massive marketing tool so please, stop the naïve downplay on its effect on sales. CPDR doesn't release that many AAA games each generation so they need to knock it out of the park when they do. So whatever is driving CPDR to make the game as perfect as possible, be it sales, ratings, OCD....whatever, I'm glad.

Another simple truth: review sites depend on metacritic. cogconnected has 3,122 reviews on metacritic. Why contribute to metacritic's power? Answer: cogconnected needs the clicks. Clicks lead to more advertising which means more money. So it is good that the article says "we" but it is a bit like attending an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting with a beer in your hand.

phoenixwing267d ago (Edited 267d ago )

The world without metacritic is worse off. At least devs have a score to shoot for. Sucks for devs but helps gamers.

Furesis266d ago

I think devs like it too. At least when they are making a good game. Just like when you read for a test you wanna know your score. I mean we have videos of devs waiting for review scores lol.
It's a good thing overall just take some of the user reviews with a grain of salt.

P_Bomb266d ago (Edited 266d ago )

There’s still opencritic. Apparently they include more reviews and don’t weigh them subjectively.

Show all comments (78)
The story is too old to be commented.