What do you think of Metacritic?

HydroJames

HydroJames

Shining Sea Dragon
I've watched this video and I was given the idea to make this thread...


Personally, I think Metacritic is a reliable review averaging site that could (or rather should) not be ruined by petty user reviews.
 
I've watched the video just to see what it was about.

Here is something I now understand, and this term can be used not only in gaming, but in every day life under any circumstances... "Nobody knows what they're talking about." That's right. You, me, everybody.

When someone makes a statement, the cold, cruel and brutal truth is, they are making an educated guess at best or a shot in the dark at worst. This is why a number of people are interested in science. A scientific fact is something that can be repeated a million times. "1+1 will always equal 2" and why Frame Data is so useful.

Let me give you some examples.

When it comes to gaming, I've come to find that everybody has different views on games. One of my favorite games ever made was Tenchu Z for the Xox 360. Tenchu Z didn't score very well at all because of the obvious bugs and glitches it had. Online play was barely existent, but I played this game faithfully for years almost every day. Would I recommend it to anybody? No. Because the quality of the game was awful, but I still loved it.

Skyrim, a great RPG that has amazing reviews, I can only play for a few hours at a time. Others are probably still playing their first character since it has launched on 11/11/11. Would I recommend it? Yes, because a majority of players like it, regardless of how I feel about it. I got 3,000+ hours on its prequel; Oblivion, which is far more than I ever got with Skyrim.

So with this term, "Nobody knows what they're talking about," I don't look at what score the games get any more. They're just numbers to me now. I look at reviews, mainly IGN and Gamespot to watch videos and learn what features the game has. I ignore the numbers. Before I buy a game, I look at the gameplay and the details/features of the game before I buy it.

When I look for a game, I look for something I can play for an almost unlimited amount of time. Fighting games, Minecraft, Elder Scrolls, Fallout are the ones that *I* can do this with, but others may not agree, nor do I believe the should, because after all, I don't know what I'm talking about.

Keep this in mind when selecting a game. My advice to you is, choose a game based on whether YOU will enjoy it or not, rather than what others are thinking, because they don't know what they're talking about either.
 
Last edited:
JTK said:
I've watched the video just to see what it was about.

Here is something I now understand, and this term can be used not only in gaming, but in every day life under any circumstances... "Nobody knows what they're talking about." That's right. You, me, everybody.

When someone makes a statement, the cold, cruel and brutal truth is, they are making an educated guess at best or a shot in the dark at worst. This is why a number of people are interested in science. A scientific fact is something that can be repeated a million times. "1+1 will always equal 2" and why Frame Data is so useful.

Let me give you some examples.

When it comes to gaming, I've come to find that everybody has different views on games. One of my favorite games ever made was Tenchu Z for the Xox 360. Tenchu Z didn't score very well at all because of the obvious bugs and glitches it had. Online play was barely existent, but I played this game faithfully for years almost every day. Would I recommend it to anybody? No. Because the quality of the game was awful, but I still loved it.

Skyrim, a great RPG that has amazing reviews, I can only play for a few hours at a time. Others are probably still playing their first character since it has launched on 11/11/11. Would I recommend it? Yes, because a majority of players like it, regardless of how I feel about it. I got 3,000+ hours on its prequel; Oblivion, which is far more than I ever got with Skyrim.

So with this term, "Nobody knows what they're talking about," I don't look at what score the games get any more. They're just numbers to me now. I look at reviews, mainly IGN and Gamespot to watch videos and learn what features the game has. I ignore the numbers. Before I buy a game, I look at the gameplay and the details/features of the game before I buy it.

When I look for a game, I look for something I can play for an almost unlimited amount of time. Fighting games, Minecraft, Elder Scrolls, Fallout are the ones that *I* can do this with, but others may not agree, nor do I believe the should, because after all, I don't know what I'm talking about.

Keep this in mind when selecting a game. My advice to you is, choose a game based on whether YOU will enjoy it or not, rather than what others are thinking, because they don't know what they're talking about either.
Click to expand...

What you say, definitely holds true. But the whole point of reviews imo are to convince people on the fence whether or not they should buy something. If someone knows they will enjoy a game, they will buy it regardless. Same with disliking a game. I think this video tries to illustrate the point that these poorly written reviews will give people the wrong idea. Some people didn't even play the game and gave it a 0. Others gave it two different ratings on each console. Which makes absolutely no sense unless there was an obvious flaw with one of the consoles. A website where reviews are easy to write and everyone's opinions are there. It's useful sometimes but also can be dangerous. When a large number of gamers are 12 year old boys, I actually don't want their opinion haha.

My biggest gripe about this video is he complains about people reviewing the game without playing it. But then he's telling people they are wrong about their reviews without him playing the game either. So in that sense, he's a gigantic hypocrite. Even though I think he brings up some valid points throughout the video. Which if you look closely, aren't even his. I don't think he wrote the article about this issue. He just made a video to talk about the article about this issue haha.
 
Le_Bello said:
Beg your pardon.

I don't get why Metacritic has this weird buzz around it, it's just another review site, why do people focus on it so much?
Click to expand...

They visit it very often to see what major reviewers think of recent media and the sight of immature user-reviews is a shameful display.
 
Le_Bello said:
Beg your pardon.

I don't get why Metacritic has this weird buzz around it, it's just another review site, why do people focus on it so much?
Click to expand...
It's a review aggregator. So an 8.0 on Metacritic is an average of multiple reviews. (Though they use some kind of wonky curve so some sites count more than others etc.)

The thing is, publishers have in recent years decided to tie bonuses to games getting a high metacritic score. So teh game developer, like Bungie for example, stands to lose a chunk of change (Bungie's contract in fact states they'll lose 2.5 million if the game doesn't hit a 9.0 Metacritic rating) if they don't hit 9.0 review scores.

To that end, that's why stuff like tacked on multiplayer modes, tacked on single player modes in what's primarily a multiplayer game etc exist. They'll even bring in a game reviewer and pay them a few thousand to write a mock review to gauge how the game can potentially score before it's released.

The pressure from metacritic also discourages review sites from not scoring reviews and it leads to publishers doing shady things like blacklisting publications that gave them poor reviews, intimidating publications, and deliberately keeping review copies of games from publications until the last possible second.

It's a strange phenomenon. It's throttling creativity in the gaming industry, and it is also stifling the quality of information consumers have available to them.
 
Honestly, I don't get how the culture evolved to the point where a gamer review have any kind of credibility, most reviewers are just a bunch of people playing games, they are not devs nor programmers, most are just a bunch of man-child that are overly praised for bitching about a game. Most reviews are a sorry excuse for journalism, so what the hell? I mean, of course there is a point for their existence, make people who are on the fence go for either side, but most of them are shady as hell, you could cut the bias with a knife.

But now it is ok to fuck up with games because of reviews? Hell, what is the point? Is well known that unless you are a generic shooter there is no way you going to please a reviewer. So yah, this is stupid.
 
Thanks Marginal, I get the issues at hand now.

I think my main issue with reviews is that you're still reading someone else's bias, no matter how neutral they try to be on the subject (or not at all if they've been given incentives) so if you're not taking them with a pinch of salt, more fool you.

Ramus said:
most reviewers are just a bunch of people playing games, they are not devs nor programmers
Click to expand...

Someone who worked on the game would be the most bias though.
 
Le_Bello said:
Thanks Marginal, I get the issues at hand now.

I think my main issue with reviews is that you're still reading someone else's bias, no matter how neutral they try to be on the subject (or not at all if they've been given incentives) so if you're not taking them with a pinch of salt, more fool you.



Someone who worked on the game would be the most bias though.
Click to expand...

That is life though, any information that isn't factual will then be biased by nature. A lot can be gained through food reviews, movie reviews, hell, even game reviews. Albeit a flawed system, the average gamer would enjoy a 5 star rated game, or a 10/10 for example. Even within these biases, there will be facts to draw. Which could be vital in purchasing. Let's say SC6 doesn't have a multiplayer mode and a review tells me this. No matter how biased the review, that's an important fact about the game that will decide my purchasing decision. Or a restaurant review saying they only take cash or don't have a bathroom. So I wouldn't say there is complete bias in a review.
 
Alex.J said:
So I wouldn't say there is complete bias in a review.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was complete, just that there's a natural element of bias so you should never take something at entirely at face value. For example one reviewer may fail to mention the restaurant only accepting cash (granted, an unlikely scenario in all cases) as it's not important to them.

I think we're basically agreeing though.
 
I don't find review sites reliable or helpful at all, which is why I rent my games *thot laugh*
 
Particularly with movies, I find that sites such as Meta Critic can actually rate some movies pretty low but I give it a watch anyway and quite enjoy them, it might possibly because my standards are low or they're just being harsh ? Idk.
 
Mage said:
Particularly with movies, I find that sites such as Meta Critic can actually rate some movies pretty low but I give it a watch anyway and quite enjoy them, it might possibly because my standards are low or they're just being harsh ? Idk.
Click to expand...

Confirmed low standards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back