Forums - Gaming Discussion - Enough with Metacritic!

It's not uncommon on here for people to compare games in terms of quality. Which I think is great, I think such comparisons can make for highly interesting and sometimes even enlightning debates. What don't think is great, is how a good portion of those debates are ruined by someone using Metacritic as a reason to call one game better than another. I say that because Metacritic is not a valid argument when talking about quality. I shall explain below.

Before that though, let me get one thing straight. There is NO way to objectivley call one game better than another. Someone might like CODBlOPS: Declasified more than Uncharted 2, or Halo 4 and that's 100% valid. It's still ok to debate quality because well...it's fun and there are no real consiquences for debating game quality. 

Anyways! Lets say you and someone else are debating about which game is better, Halo 2 or Killzone 2. Regardless of which game you like more you have about a gajillion reasons you could bring up as to why you think your choice is better. You may like Halo 2 because you think it has a better story, isn't as dark or gloomy as Killzone, has better multiplayer, and so on. You may prefere Killzone 2 because it's gritty and intense, or you think Halo 2 is too easy, or whatever. The point is that all of those are valid arguments that allow for the discussion to continue and in my opinion make the debate more interesting.

But! The moment that the Halo guy says "Well, Halo 2 has a higher Metacritic rating." That's it, debate ruined. I say that for a couple of reasons,

First and foremost,  a Metacritic score is not a trait of the games being discussed. It had nothing to do with the actual game it self, just with what someone else thought of it. It is simply a collection of other peoples opinions.

When someone brings Metacritic into it the debate turns from what game is better to whether or not Metacritic is a valid way of messuring quality, Thus killing the debate at hand.

The Halo guy is also making the assumption that Metacritic = quality. Which seemingly gives an objective, quantifiable number to something that I think is obviously (as I stated earlier) subjective.

Now, don't get me wrong. It's perfectly ok to agree with a games possitive reviews and with the verdict a Metacritic score comes to. But a better score on it's own isn't a reason to argue that a game is better because it doesn't actually give you advantages of one game over another. No one likes a game more BECAUSE of a higher metacritic score.

So that's my take on it. What's yours? Feel free to post below with questions, comments, sugestions, complaints, counter-arguments, or pretty much whatever else you'd like. I just ask that we keep it civil and on topic. This isn't a Killzone vs. Halo thread, a PS3 vs. 360 thread, or a Sony vs. Microsoft thread.



Around the Network
I think the biggest problem with metacritic is when people base their purchase decision on the actual score rather than read the reviews and see what the person complained about.

For all we know he could have written I am sick of the same formula in the nth sequel. If you enjoy the game formula chances are you are missing out.

A good case in point is zombie u and the 4.5 The guy jsut did't like the feel of the survival horror elements of the game, hence the extremely low score. The 7-8 scores identified the things they thought the game lacked.

Does it mean that either review is wrong? no, it is jsut their opinion. People need to start READING and lining up thei reviewers opinion with their taste.

I have said this many times before, I far more enjoyed some games on metacritic that are 6-7 than 8-9 games.

 

 

Metacritic's problem is reviewers like something new. Take the littlebigplanet series for example. Each sequel, yes LBPV I'm considering a sequel, is undoubtedly better than the last yet each one scores lower and lower. LBP2 is 100% no questions asked better than the first since it even includes the first game yet it has a lower metacritic score. That right there is all the proof you need that Metacritic is far from perfect.

links

 

JoeTheBro said:
Metacritic's problem is reviewers like something new. Take the littlebigplanet series for example. Each sequel, yes LBPV I'm considering a sequel, is undoubtedly better than the last yet each one scores lower and lower. LBP2 is 100% no questions asked better than the first since it even includes the first game yet it has a lower metacritic score. That right there is all the proof you need that Metacritic is far from perfect.


This is a well said point.  Things that just improve on the formula a little bit are often scored down for not being fresh enough.




Add me on Steam right now! Shakarak Or on Wii U  as shakarak!  I also  need more 3DS friends! I am currently playing Fire Emblem(3DS), Pokemon X(3DS), Assassins Creed IV, Counter Strike GO (PC), Europa Universalis IV, Super Mario 3d World (WiiU).

Eh, but then why trust reviews at all? You might argue "The text/content of the review should be focused on more", but then you can still hand wave everything as "subjective".

The best thing to do is to find people with similar tastes in video games with you and to... you know... talk with people who played the game.

Also, you need to acknowledge that less tangible things like services or entertainment will always be a gamble. So don't be out in a rush to spend a full $60 on everything.

Around the Network
I personally can't like any game score lower then 95%.

Akvod said:
The best thing to do is to find people with similar tastes in video games with you and to... you know... talk with people who played the game.

Exactly, game discovery / recommendation is really the core concept behind http://gamewise.co ...



ioi said:
Akvod said:
The best thing to do is to find people with similar tastes in video games with you and to... you know... talk with people who played the game.

Exactly, game discovery / recommendation is really the core concept behind http://gamewise.co ...


Haha, wow, pretty blatant plug, eh? ;P



http://kotaku.com/5960657/metacritic-refuses-to-pull-negative-review-that-gamespot-admits-was-factually-inaccurate

Around the Network

JoeTheBro said:
Metacritic's problem is reviewers like something new. Take the littlebigplanet series for example. Each sequel, yes LBPV I'm considering a sequel, is undoubtedly better than the last yet each one scores lower and lower. LBP2 is 100% no questions asked better than the first since it even includes the first game yet it has a lower metacritic score. That right there is all the proof you need that Metacritic is far from perfect.



This is not correct. This opinion assumes that expectations remain stagnant. Final Fantasy 7 is a fantastic JRPG for its time but nowhere great by todays standards( love it still) and would not fare the same way if it was made today like the way that it is. I used Final Fantasy 7 to help paint my point though its more dramatic than LBP to LBP2. LB2 Is definitely better than 1 but how much better than1or other platformers as whole?. Not just about comparison to its predecessor.