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.
Get rid of it and we start getting more incomplete releases outside of gaas.
We already get incomplete releases now.
That's why he wrote "more"
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.
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
Or you could just actually read the reviews and make an informed decision as to which ones raise valid points...
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.
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.
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”
@Epicor 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.
Epicor 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
I think it lost a lot of credibility with the review bombing of TLOU2.
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.
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?
@P_Bomb 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.
“ 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.
@P_Bomb 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.
“ 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).
I don’t trust main stream gaming media, I listen to N4G podcast each week and some of my favorite YouTube influencers.
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
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.
Euro gamer has been terrible for a long time. I’ll take an aggregate score over one person’s opinion.
I'm not apposed to a different system but I certainly wouldn't support one that had anything to do with Eurogamer.
They all stopped tying bonuses to metascores after what happened with Fallout: New Vegas.
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
"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.
"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. https://www.metacritic.com/...
The world without metacritic is worse off. At least devs have a score to shoot for. Sucks for devs but helps gamers.
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.
There’s still opencritic. Apparently they include more reviews and don’t weigh them subjectively.
Yup. It’s useless really. Find a reviewer with similar tastes and priorities. A collection of game journalists that nobody likes does nobody good. Especially somebody that bases their purchases on it. And there are enough of those to scare game devs apparently.
It’s not useless. It shows all the scores aggregated allowing individuals to find a review that connects with their personal needs.
Connecting with reviewers based on scores is the least personal way to go about it imo. I don’t use metacritic, I don’t even have a personal favorite reviewer. I think they are all garbage personally. A collection of garbage influencing the industry isn’t useless, you’re right. I think it’s highly damaging. We don’t have any good journalists anymore, half of them seem irritated that they have to play games at all.
Metacritic isn't the problem here at all. It's the developer's reliance on the scores and how they feel that impacts sales. That's on them, not the many review sites that feature there. Bit of a silly article tbh. For a massive game like CP 2077, I doubt the average review score is going to have much of an impact if it rests between 8 and 10. However, if it was far less than that due to horrendous bugs etc. then CDPR would have a problem because some people might hold off day one purchases until it's fixed. That's not going to look good from the corporate angle.
We give 0-10/100 ratings too much power. Most people just look at the score and move on. I feel journalists should just have pros/cons and if they recommend it or not.
I never look at it. I rather watch a live stream of a game to get a feel for it and make up my own mind if I would like it.
media sites have way too much power. Gaming sites have a lot of influence over how successful a game could be. Metacritic in the end is only a site that takes all these reviews and rounds out an overall percentage. If anything needs changing it's how gaming sites review games, which is inconsistent and often used to sabotage games
I don't even use metacritic its useless. The critics are usually paid or have horrible taste in games. The users tend to either go overly positive or overly negative. At best i would just use it to see if anyone mentions anything specific and then i look at gameplay. But i don't think that is the reason Cyberpunk was delayed, they said the PC and next gen versions work well but they designed it more for those systems so the current gen versions need more work cause they are buggy. Cross-gen is the issue but a game with a budget that big would definitely need to launch on current gen for the investors.
Humans seem to need to quantify artistic greatness. For CDPR, CP2077 is potentially their 'Rockstar Games' moment. This game could be a cultural zeitgeist if it really does live up to the hype; the Metacritic score will be pivotal in cementing this. This game took the better part of a decade to make, by some of the most talented games designers in the world. Gamers are loath to admit it's but we LOVE seeing our anticipated games get lavished with praise from the big name outlets once embargos are lifted. Another thing that makes Cyberpunk 2077 a bit different to most games is that CDPR has actually gone ahead and waved the red flag to the bull that is gaming journalists by saying 'we delayed this because we want you to score us high'. Somehow I think journos are going to see this as some kind of challenge, and so may score it lower than they would have. We shall see, but we all know the small gaggle of shit-stirring outlets that give ridiculously below-average review scores for hyped AAA games.
I agree. Would prefer to review without scores, but it's a necessity. Worst of all some companies like Nintendo even use metacritic scores to determine if you can do huge discounts on your game or not. And that's the kind of thing that can make or break your financial year.
I don’t use it at all so it doesn’t effect me either way but it is clearly flawed like all rating systems
Meta critic is only good for publisher marketing and fanboy arguments nothing else. The only way to have it fair is every game has exactly the same amount of reviews eg 100 review outlets etc currently a game can have 30 reviews and score 70's and another game which is superior has 95 reviews and so on
The problem is with the advent of the internet and social media you have people doing reviews that are those fanboys you mentioned so the chance for games to get true unbiased and fair reviews are few and far between these days
We don’t give it any power. It’s just an aggregate. It’s the publishers giving it power. Not us. If metacritic is your issue, then it’s the review publications you should take issue with. There isn’t a meta critic score without them after all.
imo, you should only be able to review or leave a score on games you can confirm you own or at least have a sub too on meta, that would change for the better instantly.
Critics are necessary. Demo's would help people develop their own opinions before a purchase. Unfortunately, companies know that demo's can sway people in the opposite direction. We now only have critics to help us make an educated choice. Find a critics you trust and you're all set. Many critics out there are politically charged or plain bad or don't like certain genres. That wouldn't fly in the food industry but gaming is extremely diverse. Metacritic is not to be trusted mainly because they get to choose which critics are to be used and which to ignore. They're also starting to censor more and give more sway to certain sites over others. This eliminates the individuality of the critic. It shouldn't. All critics are equal and don't deserve special treatment simply because of the name of their site. At least not in a site that is meant to average all scores together.
However absurd it may be it's out last line of defense from every game being an EA special.
I’ve never given a F about a metacritic score
Honestly OP is correct. Playing Ghost of Tsushima and beating it felt like this game was better than a lot of games with over 90+ for this game to only get an 83? I dont think so. You want a legitimate reviewer without money is his pockets look at the AngryJoe
So many of the review sites they include are absolute garbage the metascore is meaningless.
"Metacritic shouldn't have the power to delay the release of a AAA video game." This is a pretty far reach, Metacritic has no power to delay anything the decision was ultimately made by CDPR becasue they want their game to be as high a quality as possible and like it or not that is reflected in an overall meta score. How much weight that score is given in the end is left up to everyone individually.
Ain't no we, speak for yourself
Some people just can't form their own opinions of games or try them out themselves, they take the reviewers opinion as nothing but facts. I was told Knack was gonna be real bad and I believed it til I actually tried it and ended up enjoying it. Same with days gone..
I don’t care for Metacritic scores tbh, I just watch a few reviews on youtube from people I trust. If they all point out the same positives and negatives in a certain game, I’m pretty sure they are valid. It remains up to me however to decide if a game is worthy a purchase considering the pro’s and con’s.
Digital Foundry too.
Metacritic is overrated.
We give reviews, in general, too much power.
To be fair, people gave reviewers too much power from almost day one. I can't tell you how many times I've had people I personally know say to me "I'm interested in X game, let me see what the reviews say". I always hated that because it's like saying you don't/ can't form any opinion of your own. I know some people are going to say that "reviews are needed to tell good from bad games". But I call farce on that. Not to mention the fact that reviewers are easily bribed with free goodies for favorable coverage and/or reviews. Just look at gameplay on youtube. If you can't tell if you like it or not from seeing it in action for yourself, then there is no helping you. They only have power because so many people are sheep.
It's just metadata. Instead of using contradicting anecdotal opinions to judge a game, communities use a weighted aggregate. This is just a combination and averaging of scores with certain prestigious outlets holding more weight based on their own metadata, such as traffic, longevity, ect. No opinion can be correct, but metadata in general has its uses. Particularly in filtering, or just creating a list of potential interesting content to research. Most sites also provides direct links in many cases, to the raw data(the reviews) which allows further research of the content. Most aggregates also provides a user review section in good faith, and can be used instead. This imperfectly attempts to provide a community outlook. Launch review metadata isn't ideal for gauging games that change post launch. It truly lends credence to the quote, "A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad," It isn't perfect, but it is all we have to gauge content quality on launch, objectively.
I think Metacritic is a flawed system mainly because of the impact tiny websites with a handful of amateur 'journalists' can make. I am not sure how you determine which sites are 'legitimate' however, the fact that so many 'one man band' type websites with no journalistic oversight are able to contribute makes the whole system pointless in my view.
Actually, reading the comments here, it appears as though most of us don't give it too much power. Seems we are smart enough to make our own decisions based on what we read, and are not overly influenced by their scores.
I think the problem is a lot of people give way too much importance to metascores, and review scores in general. Reviews are a tool to help inform people about the pros and cons of a game. How many people actually spend time reading them rather than just looking at the assigned score and calling it a day? I don’t often look at reviews anymore as I’ve gotten to the point where I can usually ascertain whether a game is for me or not. But there was a time when I read reviews all the time, and that’s likely how I got to be informed in the first place. The problem IMHO isn’t so much reviews but the tendency to zero in on a number that means little without the context behind it.
I don't give it any merit. I only hear about it on this site.
Absolutely, it's extremely volatile and should given little more than a passing glance. I agree with Dunkey that for the individual, it's best to find specific reviewers, learn how their tastes compare to your own to determine your investments in which games to play. For me I follow Dunkey, Tim Rogers, and Greg Miller to list a few. I have differing tastes from them but I know their tastes and enjoy their perspectives.
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.