The simple solution to the Metacritic problem

[lord.jeff]

Not a bad idea, at the very least I'd like to see it tried out, but my one question, can your system display an average of all the ranks?

 

[Something Amyss]

heres a thought... you could ignore user reviews. personally i dont see why they are there, they are obviously not accurate.

And this, my friends, is the real simple solution.

 

[tippy2k2]

Your way of doing it:
I find my game of choice
I click 1-10
If I now have a second game, I have to slide that game wherever, repeat until I have ten

No, that's not it. Other people seem to be getting it. I'm sorry, I've tried explaining it to you a few different ways, but I think I'll stop now.

Well evidently I don't get it, although from your response to this guy, what I'm describing is exactly what you are wanting.

Take all the games you want to review.

Put them in order from best to worst.

Profit.

Want to review a new game? Then just slide into the best>worst list where it belongs.

I think that's what the O.P. is suggesting?

Correct.

This is your idea so you don't really need my approval but the majority of this thread agrees that this idea just wouldn't work (unless of course we all do not understand your idea). Only three people said that they didn't think your idea was bad out of everyone who has entered (granted, only a few of them said it was a horrible idea too but you don't seem to be convincing many people that this would work).

 

[drummond13]

Why not eliminate user scores entirely?

They actually used to be a reasonably accurate portrayal of popular opinion. With all the recent flaming and BS they aren't anymore. They're just constant evidence that no matter how well received a game is, there are tons of people with way too much time on their hands who feel the world needs to know that THEY think the game sucks.

There's plenty of other places where people can let their (completely inconsequential) feelings be heard by the faceless masses. It shouldn't be metacritic anymore.

 

[Conza]

Also, in this method of yours, no two games would be exactly equal rank. Also, lets say I only voted for 2 games, and I think both games deserve a 8/10, when I rank one first and the other second, what scores do they get?

I guess the system would reward players who rank lots of games by more accurately representing their opinions? But yes, it's not perfect.

Another problem. Let's say there are, idk, 50 new games a year (vast underscore, but here me out), and the community at large decides that 4 are worth 10/10, 5 9/10, ect - In this system, if I understand the maths correctly, every score between 10 and 0 would be given to each of the 50 games, 5 times. So suddenly there are either 5 10/10 games, promoting one of the 9/10s, or, of the 4 10/10s only 1 recieves a 10/10 score, because its taken, ect.

I think it doesn't really fit together properly, the current system sort of gives the trend of what people are thinking, even if there are people who give 5 0/10s for MW3, and multiple 10/10s for Skyrim, ect, we still don't see those games getting inflated perfect or inflated 'imperfect' (0/10) scores.

 

[Lenin211]

Your proposed system makes the assumption that all games can be directly compared in a line from "best" to "worst". what would the standard be that every single game could be judged on? How does one compare Mortal Kombat with Amnesia the Dark descent? One cannot. If this system would be enacted, then the rankings would have to be by genre. Even then there is so much variation within genres that this system would be useless. It is best to judge games based on what they do well, not on how it compares to other games. If the two games that I have reviewed are desert bus and E.T. the extraterrestrial and I rank desert bus higher, wouldn't that skew the results? A reviews weight in this system would have to be based on how many reviews the reviewer had done. This is a needlessly complicated and inefficient system that does nothing better than the current system.

 

[brunothepig]

This is an awful idea. It's fine if you've had the bad luck to buy a couple of bad games, but I can't think of the last time I played a bad game. However, if I choose to review the last ten games I played, some of them will be scored low, just because I preferred the other ones. That's not to say these few were bad games, just that I didn't enjoy them as much as the others.

For e.g, let's say I'm reviewing Skyrim, Magicka, Mount & Blade Warband, Portal and Bioshock (just five games I've been playing recently). I rate them as Skyrim, Portal, Mount & Blade, Bioshock, Magicka. Right there I've rated Bioshock and Magicka as below average, even though I definitely don't think that. I just don't like them as much as the other three.

In fact, this basically encourages subjectivity in reviews, since the system is all about rating your games, comparing them to others, instead of judging them on their own merits. Yes, all reviews are subjective, but you can look at certain things as objectively as possible. With this system, all it tells people is that someone liked this game over an unknown number of other unknown games. Hardly informative.

Also, as others have said, this isn't really going to stop review bombing. Assuming you're making it compulsory to review a set number of games, all these users have to do is go review some more games. Do you really think they have anything better to do? It might slow down the process, but really it could still be done in about five minutes. All this system does is inconveniences the legitimate reviewers.

 

[thom_cat_]

Spoiler

Your way of doing it:
I find my game of choice
I click 1-10
If I now have a second game, I have to slide that game wherever, repeat until I have ten

No, that's not it. Other people seem to be getting it. I'm sorry, I've tried explaining it to you a few different ways, but I think I'll stop now.

Well evidently I don't get it, although from your response to this guy, what I'm describing is exactly what you are wanting.

Take all the games you want to review.

Put them in order from best to worst.

Profit.

Want to review a new game? Then just slide into the best>worst list where it belongs.

I think that's what the O.P. is suggesting?

Correct.

This is your idea so you don't really need my approval but the majority of this thread agrees that this idea just wouldn't work (unless of course we all do not understand your idea). Only three people said that they didn't think your idea was bad out of everyone who has entered (granted, only a few of them said it was a horrible idea too but you don't seem to be convincing many people that this would work).

tippy2k2, I have underlined the problem.

There is still the issue that this system doesn't work, (read the post of the guy above me); but this is your misinterpretation.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Your way of doing it:
I find my game of choice
I click 1-10
If I now have a second game, I have to slide that game wherever, repeat until I have ten

No, that's not it. Other people seem to be getting it. I'm sorry, I've tried explaining it to you a few different ways, but I think I'll stop now.

Well evidently I don't get it, although from your response to this guy, what I'm describing is exactly what you are wanting.

Take all the games you want to review.

Put them in order from best to worst.

Profit.

Want to review a new game? Then just slide into the best>worst list where it belongs.

I think that's what the O.P. is suggesting?

Correct.

This is your idea so you don't really need my approval but the majority of this thread agrees that this idea just wouldn't work (unless of course we all do not understand your idea).

What he described is quite different to what you described.

Only three people said that they didn't think your idea was bad out of everyone who has entered (granted, only a few of them said it was a horrible idea too but you don't seem to be convincing many people that this would work).

I just said people are "getting" it, not that they're agreeing with it.

 

[Lenin211]

Frankly, it is a terrible idea.

1. How easy is it to compare two seperate games in two totally different genres?
2. And what happens when a reviewer reviews hundreds of games? I can't imagine it being very simple or practical.

1. How is it not easy? Either you like A better than B, or B better than A. It's no more difficult than the current system.
2. You mean because the list would be too long to fit on one screen?

1.

A.Portal or Skyrim. Which game is better? Madden 10 or The sims 3? Mount and Blade or Team fortress 2? with your system you run into the problem of having to compare games that are completely different on one scale.

B.In the current system we rate a game off of its merits, of what makes that game uniquely good. We could say, for example, that Mass effect was good because it was a good RPG. We could also say that Modern Warfare three is a good game because it has fun action. With your system we have to weigh RPG elements directly against First person shooter gameplay. We have to decide which one is "Better" story or gameplay. Music or art direction. We have to judge games based not based on their individual merits, but in comparison to games that they do not relate to at all.

2.

A. Imagine that you are a game reviewer. You do game reviews every week as your job. Over a few years of doing this job, you have hundreds of reviews for hundreds of different games in different genres. Imagine that you played a game that was moderately fun, the game had stylized characters which was a refreshing break from the gritty realism that was mainstream. But the game occasionally fell short in the gameplay department. In the current system one could say just that. In your system you would have to pick through the hundreds of games that you had reviewed and place this game in a particular place that was reflective of your experience with the game. This is impossible. You end up having to place this game as your 157th best game. People dismiss it as mediocre and don't buy it, despite its uniqueness. A reviewer needs to be able to rank a game based on its own merits, not in comparison to other games.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Also, in this method of yours, no two games would be exactly equal rank. Also, lets say I only voted for 2 games, and I think both games deserve a 8/10, when I rank one first and the other second, what scores do they get?

I guess the system would reward players who rank lots of games by more accurately representing their opinions? But yes, it's not perfect.

Another problem. Let's say there are, idk, 50 new games a year (vast underscore, but here me out), and the community at large decides that 4 are worth 10/10, 5 9/10, ect - In this system, if I understand the maths correctly, every score between 10 and 0 would be given to each of the 50 games, 5 times. So suddenly there are either 5 10/10 games, promoting one of the 9/10s, or, of the 4 10/10s only 1 recieves a 10/10 score, because its taken, ect.

It's true, people have a notion of what "9" and "8" means, and this system would produce scores which (while correct relative to other games) don't fit those preconceptions.

I think it doesn't really fit together properly, the current system sort of gives the trend of what people are thinking, even if there are people who give 5 0/10s for MW3, and multiple 10/10s for Skyrim, ect, we still don't see those games getting inflated perfect or inflated 'imperfect' (0/10) scores.

No, MW3 doesn't have a zero average, but it does have an average so low that its user score is rendered meaningless.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

A.Portal or Skyrim. Which game is better? Madden 10 or The sims 3?

Skyrim and Sims 3. That took me less than half a second, by the way. I've never played the other two games you mentioned.

with your system you run into the problem of having to compare games that are completely different on one scale.

1. The only thing you have to compare is how much you liked them.
2. The current system also has just one scale.

B.In the current system we rate a game off of its merits, of what makes that game uniquely good. We could say, for example, that Mass effect was good because it was a good RPG. We could also say that Modern Warfare three is a good game because it has fun action. With your system we have to weigh RPG elements directly against First person shooter gameplay. We have to decide which one is "Better" story or gameplay. Music or art direction. We have to judge games based not based on their individual merits, but in comparison to games that they do not relate to at all.

No, we don't. We just have to say which one we liked better.

2.

A. Imagine that you are a game reviewer.

This suggestion is just for user reviews, not critics.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Your proposed system makes the assumption that all games can be directly compared in a line from "best" to "worst". what would the standard be that every single game could be judged on? How does one compare Mortal Kombat with Amnesia the Dark descent? One cannot. If this system would be enacted, then the rankings would have to be by genre. Even then there is so much variation within genres that this system would be useless. It is best to judge games based on what they do well, not on how it compares to other games. If the two games that I have reviewed are desert bus and E.T. the extraterrestrial and I rank desert bus higher, wouldn't that skew the results? A reviews weight in this system would have to be based on how many reviews the reviewer had done. This is a needlessly complicated and inefficient system that does nothing better than the current system.

As said above:
1. The current system also has just one scale, 0-10, using which all games must be scored. This alone pretty much invalidates everything you just wrote, but for good measure...
2. "How much I liked it" is one scale. That's all that needs ranking. If you like RPGs better than sports games then all your RPGs are going to end up further up the list. I don't see how that's a problem, seeing as it's your list.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

This is possibly the stupidest idea I've heard since "Battleship movie". You can't compare games that are completely different and make one definitively better than the other, and things get more confusing when you've reviewed hundreds of games. What order would you put, say, Gears of War 2, Oblivion, Rock Band 2, Civilization 4, and Forza Motorsport 3. Not by your favorite, but by best, so your favorite genres and biases can't be a factor. Now imagine doing that with hundreds of games, all lined up in some definitive order of "best" to "worst".

Plus, this doesn't "solve" anything in the first place. The "problem with metacritic" is that people treat metacritic like it's fact so if one game gets a higher score than another, that makes it automatically better. Forcing reviewers to actually have to say which is "better" would make things worse.

The point is it's apples and oranges; different games are good in different ways, so you can't compare them in one long order. Also, it just wouldn't make any sense to say "This game gets a grade of 57/256 games." Can I stop ranting now? Do we understand why this idea is bad and you should feel bad?

EDIT: Whoops, I thought OP was talking about professional review scores, not user scores. Disregard all of that...

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Not by your favorite, but by best, so your favorite genres and biases can't be a factor.

Thanks for the facepalm.
1. This is my subjective opinion on a game, so what is the difference between favourite and best?
2. My biases can, should and will be a factor, even if for some inexplicable reason I didn't want them to be.

Do we understand why this idea is bad and you should feel bad?

I should feel bad for making a suggestion on a forum?

 

[Lenin211]

No, we don't. We just have to say which one we liked better.

What exactly is the net benefit to enacting this new review system? There is nothing that this plan would do better than the status quo. If we just say which game we liked better then it becomes impossible to evaluate games based on their individual merits. In the status quo I could give Saints row 2 a four star review because of its sandbox and its character customization. I could also then give a four star review to Grand theft auto 4 for its story and its heavy themes. In your system we have to rank one game over the other for no good reason. In the current system we can rank games based on their merits, not in comparison to other games.

 

[beniki]

In the second part of my post, I stated that even if you forced me to choose ten games (which your original post STILL says you don't have to do that, though you are saying here that you do have to do that)

No, you don't HAVE to rate 10 games, but if you do then your highest score will be higher and the lowest will be lower (the bold part being of interest to bombers).

I hit TAB on the top ten items and rate them whatever. I suppose if you really need me to test this I can but I'm thinking a minute at most.

So let's say we've added a minute and thirty seconds (plus the time it takes to make a new email account) to the time it takes to review-bomb a game with a single "zero" score. I'd say that'll reduce the number of bombs. Sure, some will still do it, but less.

And yes, learning a new system is a hassle. You ever watch the hissy fits people throw when Facebook adjusts anything? This is adding another step in the process that does not hurt bombers, so yes, adding another step is a hassle to your legit users.

What extra step? For the legit users, I mean? I don't see an extra step.

Your entire new process is one big extra step.

Current way of doing it:
I find my game of choice
I click 1-10

Your way of doing it:
I find my game of choice
I click 1-10
If I now have a second game, I have to slide that game wherever, repeat until I have ten

Notice that it is one extra step compared to what I have to do now.

According to your system, if I legitimately think that MW3 is the worst game ever and deserves a 0, I have to choose ten more games to put on my list in order to reflect this. If I'm a bomber, I don't care and will just fuck up ten random scores to smack MW3 down. If I'm a legit user, I now have nine more games that I'm going to have to review in order for my true opinion to be heard. Now a legit user has nine extra steps to take.

The mistake you're making here is assuming that adding two minutes of a troll's review is going to stop them from bombing. It won't. All you are doing is smacking legit users.

... What?

1) Open Account
2) Write a review for a game.
3) Write a review for another game.
4) Say which one is better.

I'm really not sure what your problem is... the idea is to simply remove the idea of a score and just put the games in order from bad to good. No extra steps, and only gets complicated if you have maybe 50+ games, and you can't decide where the new one should go.

If you are a bomber, you'd have to input a lot of games to make a difference. Make a new account with just one game, and that game will be considered to be the best by the system.

You have Metacritics biggest problem; too focused on scores.

I think it's a good idea. Sure it may be dificult to make comparisons between RTSs and FPSs, but surely that would just show what the user likes. That's good data to have... you could finally show which game genre is considered the best, without the use of market data.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

This thread has been informative for me in an unexpected way. I had no idea that so many people had such... wait, let me word this right.

I had no idea that people here took their metacritic reviews so seriously, and try give the same sort of review as a critic might, rather than their own subjective opinion. This strikes me as strange. The critic scores are where I look for a critical "objective" appraisal (if there is any such thing). I always thought the user score was supposed to represent the subjective opinions of users. Apparently, several people here feel quite differently.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

Not by your favorite, but by best, so your favorite genres and biases can't be a factor.

Thanks for the facepalm.
1. This is my subjective opinion on a game, so what is the difference between favourite and best?
2. My biases can, should and will be a factor, even if for some inexplicable reason I didn't want them to be.

You're welcome. ^_^

What I'm saying is that the current grade system isn't perfect, but what it does do is review games on their own merit and in the context of their own genre. If I gave a racing game four stars, that means it's a good racing game. If I give an RPG four stars, that means it's a good RPG. Now, if you asked me to "officially" say which one is better, I couldn't do it because it depends on whether you're looking for an RPG or a racing game.

Now, if I was a critic using this asinine ranked system and disliked racing games, that means I would put RPGs in front of racing games when in doubt, and I'd basically be telling readers that RPGs are inherently better than racers when the truth is both are good in different ways.

Basically, by forcing reviewers to compare each game to an increasingly large list of games, all from completely different genres and good in different ways, you're forcing them to be biased when a critics job is be as objective as they can.

And even if you disagree with all of that, again you're idea wouldn't solve anything. What "problem" with Metacritic do you see being fixed by this?

I should feel bad for making a suggestion on a forum?

It's a meme, nevermind... -______-