HylianSwordsman said:
Zekkyou said:
Everyone has different expectations, preferences and standard. If out of a sample size of less than 100 there's one or two reviewers that believes the lack of a story mode is a worthwhile criticism, then you can be sure it will be a criticism that many others will share. Metacritic is not a direct quality metric. It's the averaged view of a generalized blob person. It has to take into account all extremes, biases and points of praise/criticism, or it's a pointless circle jerk.
If you don't trust reviewers, then don't use metacritic. It's pointless for people to spend all day cherry picking which reviews they do and don't agree with. It's curious we never see anything disagree with a 10/10 review for games they're looking forward too, but they're quick to jump on anything below their personal expectations.
|
Well I sure as hell don't trust the Toronto Sun, whether they give it a 100 or a 0. Not that it matters much with upper outliers, since they impact the score of decently scoring games less than low outliers for mathematical reasons. You can only score 10 above a 90, but you can score 90 below a 90. So overly critical 60s are a bigger problem to metascores than under critical 100s. And I don't trust metacritic scores. I use metacritic as a hub to find the reviewers I do trust, those that like the games I do but aren't afraid to give just amounts of criticism. The only reason the overall score matters to me at all is because it matters to the gaming community as a whole, and thus has a significant impact on the future of games. So for example if a new IP from a relatively unknown developer gets unjustly shit upon by reviewers because it doesn't have the pedigree of a known IP or a known developer, it can be shot down before it has a chance. When popular IPs from popular developers get shit on by reviewers because even the reviewers buy into the console war rather than giving unbiased reviews, it perpetuates that kind of bullshit and good games get less recognition than they deserve. Of course in the end, that mostly averages out into metascores being significantly lower over time as the industry grows, the reviewing industry grows with it, and more reviewers means more outliers and negative outliers have a bigger impact mathematically. Cherry picking certainly isn't the answer, but having some accountability for reviewers would be nice.
|
Unfortunately it's not something we can change. I'm just pointing out that a review that comes across as 'bullshit' to one person, may be one that someone else believes brings up valid points of praise and criticism.
At the end of the day, all games have to go through the same process and put up with the same potentially 'bullshit' reviews. Metacritic may not be 100% 'fair', but it's fair in its unfairness (within a reasonable scope at least).
