Metacritic is evil.

[BanicRhys]

I think you owe each one of us 10 bucks.

I would pay up but seeing as half the people in this thread (I'm not quoting official statistics here guise, no need to jump on this too) decided to argue semantics instead of guess what I meant (if it was THAT hard to comprehend) and answer the question.

So frankly, y'all don't deserve the money. Sorry to those of you who contributed to the thread that some people had to ruin it for you.

 

[Zhukov]

I think you owe each one of us 10 bucks.

I would pay up but seeing as half the people in this thread (I'm not quoting official statistics here guise, no need to jump on this too) decided to argue semantics instead of guess what I meant (if it was THAT hard to comprehend) and answer the question.

So frankly, y'all don't deserve the money. Sorry to those of you who contributed to the thread that some people had to ruin it for you.

So... we were supposed to be reading words that you didn't write?

Huh.

Well, aren't we silly.

 

[Baneat]

I think you owe each one of us 10 bucks.

I would pay up but seeing as half the people in this thread (I'm not quoting official statistics here guise, no need to jump on this too) decided to argue semantics instead of guess what I meant (if it was THAT hard to comprehend) and answer the question.

So frankly, y'all don't deserve the money. Sorry to those of you who contributed to the thread that some people had to ruin it for you.

So... we were supposed to be reading words that you didn't write?

Huh.

Well, aren't we silly.

Well now he's changed it. Everywhere but Gamespot, IGN and gaming magazines.

The Escapist doesn't have meddling, neither does Destructoid.

 

[Da Orky Man]

First, $10 please.
Second, isn't Metacritic, by it's very nature, unbiased? I tend to use IGN because I always have, but I'll look at as many reviews as I can.
Yahtzee tends to be unbiased simply because we can see his biases so easily. His tendancies are fairly close to mine. I don't generaqlly like JRPGs, I LOVE space sims, and I'm one of the few that doesn't actually buy CoD. I bought WaW and that's it. Played the others at friends houses, and didn't like. Though I do like my strategy games. So, use Yahtzee in the safe knowledge that he will hate it no matter what.

 

[Prince Regent]

I mostly use the reception part on wikipedia to see if a game (or a film) is any good. And I use the IGN video revieuw to see if I should buy it.

 

[RagnarokHybrid]

Question, isn't the whole point of a review to get a biased opinion? I mean, in a world of advertisements--which hype things up the ass--we need something to chop down some of that hype.

The fact is: no experience will ever be purely objective. I mean, some people don't like water. Water--the most basic form of sustenance. How would one go about critiquing water? Using words like "refreshing" or "bland" are inherently subjective. To tie this in to the topic: to ask a critic to put objective words on paper describing an experience is asking a lot of him or her. As someone once said at some point in time: "You only know what you know". Objectivity is speaking for everyone and, since we're not everyone, we can't be objective without being noncommittal or just plain useless.

I actually believe there was a "Describe Water" thread somewhere on this forum. I don't think I ever looked at it.

 

[Vibhor]

Metacritic? Really?
Didn't jimquisition do a very good video on why not to blame metacritic?

 

[shadowyoasis]

1up reviews.

They don't use numbers or any real sort of rating system. Just a review and thats it. No score.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Yahtzee. There you go.

I agree. He's a bitunfair to most of the games he reviews but I'm fairly sure he does that on purpose. I usually watch under the assumption that everything he doesn't mention is fine, unless of course he completely and openly hates a game in which case everything is probably shit.

 

[weker]

I dislike Meta critic for the reason people do scores for different reasons.
For some like Destructoid (Fight the power Jim screw with meta critic XD)the score is based around

10 -- Flawless Victory (10s are as close to perfect as you will get in a genre or on a platform. Pure, untarnished videogame ecstasy.)

9 -- Superb (9s are a hallmark of excellence. There may be flaws, but they are negligible and won't cause massive damage to what is a supreme title.)

8 -- Great (8s are impressive efforts with a few noticeable problems holding them back. Won't astound everyone, but is worth your time and cash.)

7 -- Good (7s are solid games that definitely have an audience. Might lack replay value, could be too short or there are some hard-to-ignore faults, but the experience is fun.)

6 -- Alright (6s may be slightly above average or simply inoffensive. Fans of the genre should enjoy them a bit, but a fair few will be left unfulfilled.)

5 -- Mediocre (5s are an exercise in apathy, neither Solid nor Liquid. Not exactly bad, but not very good either. Just a bit "meh," really.)

4 -- Below Average (4s have some high points, but they soon give way to glaring faults. Not the worst games, but are difficult to recommend.)

3 -- Poor (3s went wrong somewhere along the line. The original idea might have promise, but in practice the game has failed. Threatens to be interesting sometimes, but rarely.)

2 -- Bad (2s are a disaster. Any good they might have had are quickly swallowed up by glitches, poor design choices or a plethora of other issues. The desperate or the gullible may find a glimmer of fun hidden somewhere in the pit.)

1 -- Epic Fail (1s are the lowest of the low. There is no potential, no skill, no depth and no talent. These games have nothing to offer the world, and will die lonely and forgotten.)

However but personally the game needs to insanely unique or revolutionary in all areas to warrant triple 10s for an overall score

 

[Bobbity]

Metacritic isn't evil; it's the users. They're pricks.

Anyway, as for the system of numbers, I feel that in essence, it's a good idea, but that it's been totally fucked up over time. For instance, the IGN approach: Everything is worth eight unless proven otherwise, a terrible triple A game will always score a six, we never even use five and under, A nine is not a representation of near perfection, but a number given out like candy to triple A games, and all of those rules are negotiable for enough money.

I'm not saying that the reviews aren't useful; knowing the ups and downs of a game is good, and I love the reviews that at the end summarise the particular strengths are flaws, but I don't feel that a numerical score fully encapsulates that, and, more to the point, that a system that's limited, for the most part, between seven and nine is utterly useless.

 

[Zaik]

Go somewhere like gamefaqs and pick one user review from each rating # between 4 and 9, read over multiple opinions, and then form your own.

That's what i do, anyway.

 

[LorienvArden]

The system metacritic uses makes it, by nature, as unbiased as you can be from a realistic point.

So a system that aggregates data from several sources, weights those sources based on their own system and converts different rating systems based on their own oppinion is unbiased ?

Now thats a novel interpretation of unbiased...

And btw, why do you think that publishers restrict the publication of reviews based on the score of the review ? E.g. "You can only publish this review at release if you give it a 10/10."
Right - it's to manipulate the metacritic scores.

No, you can't expect major sites to give objective or even accurate reviews anymore. Inmo, it's easier to find some casters or "indi" reviewers that closly match your own taste.

Totalbiscuit (although he's NOT reviewing games and just provides impressions on them) and Angry Joe are held in high regards in my evaluation of new games. If they dislike a game, I have a high chance of finding fault with it as well - thats just because their tastes are similar to mine.

 

[TheGuyWithThatHair]

Angry Joe is probably the best larger reviewer on the internet, as he has nothing to lose by giving a game a bad score. He also does long detailed video, as well text, reviews, unlike IGN who try to cover it all in 3 minutes.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

its evil I tell ya, EVVVVIIIILLLLLL

Come on OP, so a website which collects the reviews of everyone on the internet is evil? Did it kill a puppy or anything. You really need to start learning what evil actually is man.

 

[Baneat]

Well now he's changed it. Everywhere but Gamespot, IGN and gaming magazines.

The Escapist doesn't have meddling, neither does Destructoid.

They made not have meddling but half their reviews are still no better then IGNs. One is biased because they are getting paid to be and the other because they dont give a fuck about being professional.

Huh? Who is what? Provide examples?

 

[Stall]

Why does it matter that a reviewer is bias? As others have pointed out, a purely objective review accomplishes nothing. Certain biases and subjectivity are inherently required to score and analysis the problems of games. Subjectivity isn't a bad thing, you know. Now, are there certain websites and critics who are better than IGN? Sure, of course, but that doesn't mean all reviewers are "corrupt" or something. Tell me: why should I care that a reviewer has a bias? I have two eyes and a functioning brain: I can read the review and figure out if I place credence in the opinion of that particular critic.

Even further, how is Metacritic evil? All it does is aggregate scores: that's about as objective as you can possibly get. How does aggregating make it evil?

 

[Hisshiss]

The system metacritic uses makes it, by nature, as unbiased as you can be from a realistic point.

So a system that aggregates data from several sources, weights those sources based on their own system and converts different rating systems based on their own oppinion is unbiased ?

Now thats a novel interpretation of unbiased...

And btw, why do you think that publishers restrict the publication of reviews based on the score of the review ? E.g. "You can only publish this review at release if you give it a 10/10."
Right - it's to manipulate the metacritic scores.

No, you can't expect major sites to give objective or even accurate reviews anymore. Inmo, it's easier to find some casters or "indi" reviewers that closly match your own taste.

Totalbiscuit (although he's NOT reviewing games and just provides impressions on them) and Angry Joe are held in high regards in my evaluation of new games. If they dislike a game, I have a high chance of finding fault with it as well - thats just because their tastes are similar to mine.

You can argue corporate corruption all you like, if you take 20 instances of a 1 to 10 score, add them all up, and then divide by 20, the number you get is for all intent and purpose, the average of the variables in question. Now if those numbers were rigged beforehand or weighted incorrectly, well that's a whole new issue entirely, but at the very least, the system metacritic uses is atleast supposed to be unbiased.

That being said, I don't know anything about the political side of this stuff, I was just expressing the math behind their system, your suggestion of just finding someone with similiar tastes and letting them tell you what to buy probly works better anyways.