Support NeoGAF

[Lingitiz]

Metacritic (or Rottentomatoes for example) is a fine tool,
that I don't wanna miss.
It helps me to look for reviews of a game.
And it helps me to look for games in general.

There's nothing wrong with Metacritic as an aggregate. It's a useful place to find reviewers bunched together. The problem lies with the importance the industry has placed on it.

Publishers write contracts with Metacritic clauses that can potentially fuck developers over (not to say that devs are innocent either), marketing makes choices designed to boost metacritic scores, journalists are even more questionable (fear of blacklisting) than ever now that their arbitrary rating scales have more weight than they have ever had. It's all so intertwined in various parts of the industry that it just seems so fucked from the outside.

It goes both ways. Its really weird to think that there are devs or big business dudes out there thinking "This game is awesome because we scored over a 90 on MC," and then the game receives huge backlash weeks later (Infinite, GTA 4) and vice versa.

Scores are important and I don't think they should go away. The emphasis on high Metacritic scores as the ultimate "goal" for some in the industry is fucking toxic though.

 

[anexanhume]

I'm sorry but i don't view it as a knock out. He can feel free to dig into my post history if he likes. I didn't buy the game because i don't buy online only games. I don't really care what console it is on. He should go look for an instance in which i have bought an online only game. Then i would be contradicting myself.

.

 

[giapel]

It leads to inconsistencies in scoring, claims of bias and fraudulent reviews

I disagree. If anything, when the actual text of a review contains inaccuracies, blatant omissions and even straight up lies, I find this more fraudulent than a inflated score. Taking away the number at the end won't improve the quality of the reviews, although it might improve the reading skills of some gamers.

 

[JCX]

As much as people seem to hate kotaku around here, I much prefer their system, since that's essentially what an arbitrary number was trying to get at anyway.

 

[SephCast]

Except reviewers get their games for free so they have nothing to base the value off of.

They don't get every single game for free...they still have to buy the ones that they're not assigned.

 

[BRocknRolla]

Edit: NM. Shouldn't jump into this specific conversation without more info, and I already said my piece.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

Please explain the part that is funny? Is it because i made that comment on titanfall? An online only game which is a policy i refuse to support? Or perhaps, its because the game is also available on PC and xbox 360?

You're a console warrior. Just come to terms with it.

 

[mrg6290]

That is the conclusion i came to after reading all the reviews. I valued the game at a 7-8 because thats how i weigh its value to myself. I would never post a score because i want the readers to come up with that on their own. Read my review, read others review and weigh its value by yourself. By posting numbers, you are not allowing the readers to come up with their own value of the game.

Except you posted it deserves a 7-8...

I get that you're not a professional reviewer posting in a public forum, but still. If you want numbered scores to end, you can't represent a games value with a numbered score. After all, all that reviewers are doing is presenting what they have individually weighed a game to be worth. It is one person or one publications opinion. You shouldn't put much weight in their score, but instead hear their words and make up your own mind up about a game. Scores should not disappear because some people are unable to do this.

My $0.02 at least.

 

[besada]

The question is, how can you quantify something that is subjective? It makes no sense.

I valued the game at a 7-8 because thats how i weigh its value to myself.

You posted an OP that suggests it's impossible to quantify the quality of a game with numbers, literally just a little bit after doing exactly that.

By the way, I totally agree that numerical scores in reviews are worthless (especially if you haven't played the game). It's just rare we see someone hoist themselves so neatly on their own petard.

 

[Kssio_Aug]

I aggree, lately im reading lots of nonsenses (Luke; the gameplay is the same as before) and a unproportional drop at the score because of this; also, it happens usually with exclusives. So, the only conclusion I can take is, paid marketing or fanboysism taking more and more space at game "ptofessional" scene.
Come on... This guys make money of that. Burn exclusive games or overscore others for money is what I would call corruption in their cases.

If have no scores thar would me much more rare, I believe. However, scores are polemics,and because of that, they sell magazines and generate clicks.

 

[TheCloser]

.

You should have saved this gif for the future in case i ever commented on an exclusive game. Titan fall is not an exclusive game. I think its just because of my shadow fall avatar even though i no longer own the game. Try harder next time.

 

[ElTorro]

Strongly disagree. There are way too many games for any one person to play; review scores allow games to separate the wheat from the chaff.

This is a very valid argument, and I agree. However, a simple 5-step scale (or colors, etc.) would be sufficient for that, as long as it's understood as a genre-specific assessment.

 

[LQX]

No problem with numbers. I have no time to read 20 fucking reviews where as I can use the accumulative score to gauge if its worth my time and money then read a review or two. It is really not that hard and I'm at loss as to why consensus on weather something is good or not is not a good indicator of a solid purchase.

 

[Timeaisis]

Ah, the inevitable controversial review thread after an 80 average metacritic game.

I'm for the GamePro scale. Always has been the best.

 

[vooglie]

I like number scores and I like Metacritic. Sometimes I don't want to have to do heavy research just to have a general idea of whether a game is quality.

I think the point many are trying to convey is that it does not provide an accurate general idea of the quality of the game.

 

[styl3s]

Buy / Not Buy
Read the review at least a bit if you want to see how person who reviewed it liked it.
Kotaku has it right. I feel like numbered reviews are fetishising the whole process almost.

I would totally dig a buy/rent/pass system.

 

[patapuf]

Yeah, it's a higher number, but what ends up determining something being .1 higher than something else? If it can't be justified, it's not really all that great a scale is it?

you can't really justify a 1.0 or even higher difference either. Despite some objective quantifiers reviews are ultimately subjective.

Wanting to improve scoring so it's "accurate" will never ever work, if one wants details he'll have to read or *gasp* play the game himself.

 

[zulfate]

Part of the problem is the "I need to know now" mindset that is now a plague on our society and will only get worse as the new generation has everything they need to know in front of them.


We have wikipediad our life's, hahahaha

 

[Marcel]

After all, all that reviewers are doing is presenting what they have individually weighed a game to be worth. It is one person or one publications opinion. You shouldn't put much weight in their score, but instead hear their words and make up your own mind up about a game. Scores should not disappear because some people are unable to do this.

Personal responsibility in how someone reacts to reviews? Personal responsibility in how someone consumes media? Surely you jest.

 

[vxXJordanXxv]

An exclusive on some people's favorite console didn't score as high as an exclusive on a different console.

There was much weeping.

I don't get why that is a big deal. I really honestly don't I've read through Gaf and I'm pretty sure if you went into a thread and said something along the lines of "well Titanfall got 87 and Infamous got 81 so you are just salty about it cause you lost" you would see a banned within a few moments for thread shitting or something. Unless somebody wanted to save it for their Non-Neogaf alter ego and go into the Youtube comments or reddit to fight the console warez. I fail to see the point of the comparison.

 

[Skilletor]

Strongly disagree. There are way too many games for any one person to play; review scores allow games to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The vast majority of gamers don't care about minor variations and inconsistencies in scoring. The only ones complaining about such are internet addicts who'd rather whine online than play games.

Why have reviews at all, then? Why not just a number since that is apparently all that's important.

 

[Uno Venova]

Op, in your opinion, What is it about gamers that makes them unable to handle review scores? Movies seem to handle being scored just fine.

People seem to handle multiplatform reviews relatively fine....

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Metacritic only works if you're doing large-scale statistics like that. Can you say Battlefield 4 is an objectively better game than Assassin's Creed 4 because it has 3 points higher on metacritic? No. It only helps get rid of absolute garbage.



But they are arbitrary. Reviewers add or subtract points for the same elements in different games. There is a system to the general idea, but that doesn't mean that even within a single reviewer's reviews you will get any semblance of consistency. At the end of the day they're arbitrary AND imprecise.

You're right that some of the considerations that go into an overall evaluation seem to arbitrarily differ from game to game and reviewer to reviewer. That manifests as noise in the data, which contributes to the lack of precision I asserted previously.

I still maintain that the overall score is not itself arbitrary. You will not read a glowing review from someone who really enjoyed a game and then see that they gave it a 3/10 at the end. The number reflects, imprecisely, a gross evaluation of the reviewer's experience. The fact that they found one game repetitive and another game less so (even though from another person's perspective they may seem equally repetitive) doesn't completely undermine the process.

As one last point, reviewers may add or subtract points for the same elements in different games because those elements may work better or worse within their respective games. Isolating a single element and then quantifying it is a fool's errand for a reviewer, hence the reliance on holistic evaluations and the scores that roughly match them.

 

[emag]

Metacritic only works if you're doing large-scale statistics like that. Can you say Battlefield 4 is an objectively better game than Assassin's Creed 4 because it has 3 points higher on metacritic? No. It only helps get rid of absolute garbage.

That's a great feature, isn't it? Imagine we lived in a [shitty] world with no review scores. You had to play (or watch, or long-form read) every one of the thousands of video games that came out every year to find the ones you wanted. You'd put in hundreds of hours of research for every hour of quality gaming.

Then I came up to you with a little innovation that would get rid you of the need to consider 95% of those crappy games while still keeping 95% of quality games. And you could even adjust the levers to tailor those ratios to your own tastes. How much would that be worth to you? That's what Metacritic and review scores provide right now, for free.

Only fanboys and internet warriors care about Battlefield 4 being rated slightly higher than Assassin's Creed 4 or vice versa. On the other hand, gamers benefit tremendously when they're able to eliminate Double Dragon II: Wander of Dragons from their prospective buy-list without putting any time or thought into the decision.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

An exclusive on some people's favorite console didn't score as high as an exclusive on a different console.

There was much weeping.

TITANFALL ISN'T AN EXCLUSIVE!!!

*runs away sobbing*

 

[Nibiru]

How about everyone just stop giving a fuck about Metacritic. That's a start.

It puts all the reviews in one place for easy access. Maybe the overall average they give should be nixed but for people like myself who don't go solely by the overall score, the site is very good.

 

[see5harp]

You should have saved this gif for the future in case i ever commented on an exclusive game. Titan fall is not an exclusive game. I think its just because of my shadow fall avatar even though i no longer own the game. Try harder next time.

On a scale from 1 to 10 would you say you are an 8 on the "o he mad" scale? Should we deduct 1 point since Titanfall isn't an exclusive?

 

[TheCloser]

You posted an OP that suggests it's impossible to quantify the quality of a game with numbers, literally just a little bit after doing exactly that.

I said it was impossible to quantify a game in numbers. It should occur to you that i'm not attempting to quantify the game. I am placing them on a scale from least important to most important as it relates to me based on my likes and dislikes. My desire is that if reviews stop providing numbers, users will come up with it themselves. It will vary from person to person based on their interpretation of the review. How many times have people said "It reads like an 8 so why is it a 7"?

 

[Fletcher]

What a goofy thread. Just don't pay attention to the reviews then?

 

[BPoole]

Decimals will infest that range and you'll be back at a ten-point scale.

Only if we are compiling them into an aggregate site like Metacritic or Gamerankings, which we shouldn't.

A game that gets a 3/5 sounds much better than a game that's a 6/10, even though they are technically the same percentage.

1= Bad
2= Below Average
3= Average
4= Good
5= Great/Superb

There are clear discrepancies between each of those scores, whereas the difference between a 7 and an 8 on a 10 point scale is harder to articulate. When you get down to the lower end of the 10 point scale, it get even blurrier on the difference between a 3 and a 4.

 

[Rickenslacker]

you can't really justify a 1.0 or even higher difference either. Despite some objective quantifiers reviews are ultimately subjective.

Wanting to improve scoring so it's "accurate" will never ever work, if one wants details he'll have to read or *gasp* play the game himself.

Sure they're subjective, but there can be enough to give proper reasoning as to why someone would rate something a 7 over a 6 and how that reflects towards the overall perceived quality of the game. What can be said over a .1? What is the qualitative difference between games separated by that much? "Oh, I'd give this the extra .1 but the crosshair colour is just not doing it for me."

 

[Marcel]

I think the Rock, Paper, Shotgun method is fine. No score. A candid reflection on the game's strengths, weaknesses, successes and failures. And you have to actually read the entire thing because there's no little doodad at the end that tells you YES/5/BUY/10/GOTY/NODONT. Crazy, I know.

 

[Uno Venova]

What a goofy thread. Just don't pay attention to the reviews then?

I..no WE need to beat Titanfall though.

 

[REV 09]

I like numbers, but maybe have 5, 10, or 20 point scales. 1-100 is silly.

 

[Richardbro]

Nah. There are many people who don't have time to read full reviews; review scores give them a quick indication on how well received the game is in a practical and quick manner.

 

[Oersted]

Op, in your opinion, What is it about gamers that makes them unable to handle review scores? Movies seem to handle being scored just fine.

Have you seen the " The Raid- Roger Ebert" or "Armond White -District 9" controversies? If the audience of a different medium overlaps with the gamer core-demographic, the discussion becomes instantly childish.

I..no WE need to beat Titanfall though.

Do it #4thePlayers

 

[Marcel]

Nah. There are many people who don't have time to read full reviews; review scores give them a quick indication on how well received the game is in a practical and quick manner.

You're a member on GAF but you don't have ten minutes to read a game review written at around the Grade 10 level or so? Where did you find the time to make this post?

 

[emag]

Why have reviews at all, then? Why not just a number since that is apparently all that's important.

The score is a first-pass filter. It eliminates the thousands of crappy games that are released annually you'd otherwise have to research in-depth.

If you see a game with a high review score (via Metacritic, a friend, a trusted podcast, etc.), the text of a review is an important additional filter. No one can afford to read the full review (from multiple reviewers, no less) of every game that comes to market, let alone demo it for themselves.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

But then, how would future historians know who won the system wars??

 

[sol_bad]

I think the problem with reviews is the widespread distrust of game journalists now, so I'm not sure if changing the numbers would end that. It would be an interesting start though, although those scores probably get a big number of hits or sell a few extra magazines, so it's unlikely ever to happen.

I think one of the problems is also the stupid over reaction of gamers on the internet. People completely start freaking out when a game is awarded with an 8 or an 8.5 or even an 8.7. It is completely and utterly ridiculous.

What's worse is that these people freaking out look only at the number and don't read the content.

 

[Fattony12000]

 

[crops55]

No numbers means people will have to invest time in forming their opinions. How many people do you know that go out of their way to read on a daily basis?

 

[ElTorro]

I said it was impossible to quantify a game in numbers. It should occur to you that i'm not attempting to quantify the game. I am placing them on a scale from least important to most important as it relates to me based on my likes and dislikes. My desire is that if reviews stop providing numbers, users will come up with it themselves. It will vary from person to person based on their interpretation of the review.

You are confusing the problem of quantification with the problem of subjectivity. The latter problem would exist even without scores, while the former can be employed on objective and subjective assessments alike.

 

[Marcel]

But then, how would future historians know who won the system wars??

All the bodies of those who dared to give someone's favorite game an 8.

 

[TheCloser]

Okay, since people don't want to discuss the topic and resort to personal attacks then i'm out. See you all in another thread.

 

[mrg6290]

I said it was impossible to quantify a game in numbers. It should occur to you that i'm not attempting to quantify the game. I am placing them on a scale from least important to most important as it relates to me based on my likes and dislikes. My desire is that if reviews stop providing numbers, users will come up with it themselves. It will vary from person to person based on their interpretation of the review.

"It is impossible to quantify a game in numbers. Here, watch as I put this game on a numbered scale to help me quantifiably identify how important it is to me based on my likes and dislikes. You could say this number represents how I would review this game were it possible to quantify games with numbers."

??

But I agree with you last point. People need to come up with their own "scores". But people should be able to do this with or without a posted score.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

I said it was impossible to quantify a game in numbers. It should occur to you that i'm not attempting to quantify the game. I am placing them on a scale from least important to most important as it relates to me based on my likes and dislikes. My desire is that if reviews stop providing numbers, users will come up with it themselves. It will vary from person to person based on their interpretation of the review. How many times have people said "It reads like an 8 so why is it a 7"?

That...


That is quantifying a game. You are scoring the game and giving it a quantity. That is what reviewers do when they attach scores to games. Just like expecting reviewer scores to match reality when it comes to other games.


I actually agree with the idea that numberless scores would be far better in the long run, mind you.

 

[nynt9]

You're right that some of the considerations that go into an overall evaluation seem to arbitrarily differ from game to game and reviewer to reviewer. That manifests as noise in the data, which contributes to the lack of precision I asserted previously.

I still maintain that the overall score is not itself arbitrary. You will not read a glowing review from someone who really enjoyed the game and then gives it a 3/10. The number reflects, imprecisely, a gross evaluation of the reviewer's experience. The fact that they found one game repetitive and another game less so doesn't completely undermine the process.

But the problem here is, what I consider to be a 9/10 might as well be a 7/10 for another person, even based on the exact same merits. Unless you boil scores down to "yes/meh/no" you can't chalk that up to noise in the measurement. If you do so, you defeat the purpose of the review. Even then, how you translate one person's 8/10 to "yes" or "meh" is completely arbitrary. When you translate a 4/5 into a 80/100 in metacritic, you lose a lot of the nuance that a 4 holds in a 5 point scale versus how 80 holds in a 100 point scale.

That's a great feature, isn't it? Imagine we lived in a [shitty] world with no review scores. You had to play (or watch, or long-form read) every one of the thousands of video games that came out every year to find the ones you wanted. You'd put in hundreds of hours of research for every hour of quality gaming.

Then I came up to you with a little innovation that would get rid you of the need to consider 95% of those crappy games while still keeping 95% of quality games. And you could even adjust the levers to tailor those ratios to your own tastes. How much would that be worth to you? That's what Metacritic and review scores provide right now, for free.

Only fanboys and internet warriors care about Battlefield 4 being rated slightly higher than Assassin's Creed 4 or vice versa. On the other hand, gamers benefit tremendously when they're able to eliminate Double Dragon II: Wander of Dragons from their prospective buy-list without putting any time or thought into the decision.

You make it sounds like impressions online and youtubers and stuff like that don't exist, and you also make it sound like scoreless reviews don't exist. Stop creating a strawman.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

I don't think the problem is numbered reviews but the weird expectations of gamers. Sometimes, we just need to be better people. The system is built around our behavior and how we react. If we react differently, it changes.

 

[Synth]

I said it was impossible to quantify a game in numbers. It should occur to you that i'm not attempting to quantify the game. I am placing them on a scale from least important to most important as it relates to me based on my likes and dislikes. My desire is that if reviews stop providing numbers, users will come up with it themselves. It will vary from person to person based on their interpretation of the review. How many times have people said "It reads like an 8 so why is it a 7"?

So, what you're saying here is that a game that you would never purchase, due it representing a policy you'd never support rates somewhere around a 7-8 in terms of importance for you, when compared to other games?