http://blogs.theage.com.au/screenplay/archives//010196.html

Metagaming - The best of the average

I am fascinated by Metacritic. There is something about that massive bank of data that makes me love to play with it.

Those who have read my previous contributions to this blog may have noticed my frequent references to scores and rankings on Metacritic. I even play a few metagames (pun very much intended) using that wonderful library of all the world's critiques combined, to see what wisdom can be derived and what conclusions can be reached...

A long time ago I discovered Metacritic's wonderful ability to rank all of its games on a particular platform in score order. I frequently refer to these rankings when deciding which overpriced next-gen game should swallow my cash next. It occurred to me that these rankings could arguably be used to work out which platform has the best games overall.

My theory runs like this: every platform has its star performers and its dogs, so these tell us very little. However, the average game on a system, at the median point between best and worst, should tell us much more. After all, if an average game on system A is significantly better than an average games on system B, then theoretically that may indicate that system A's game library is, on average, of a higher quality than system B's.

Think about it. Don't we always say on Screen Play that "it's all about the games"? Therefore, if we can objectively "prove" which platform has the best games, then, in theory, we can prove which platform is best overall.

I decided I needed to set some rules. If a platform has an odd number of games listed, then the median score is taken to be middle game in the list - (n + 1) / 2. If a platform has an even number of games, then the median score is taken to be the average of the two middle games in the list - n / 2 and ( n / 2 ) + 1. I decided to leave out the N-Gage, as 42 games seems like too small a sample to derive anything statistically significant, and it's not like anyone actually owns one.

For reference, I have also included the maximum and minimum scores for each platform. The results are below, and they may surprise you (or, if you're like me, they'll be pretty much what you expected). You can click on the graphics for bigger, easier-to-read versions. 

The term "shovelware" was coined specifically to refer to poorly thought out Wii waggle-fests, so it's no surprise that the Wii has the lowest median score of the lot - 64 for The Simpsons Game. This score is even more damning when compared with the Wii's current-generation contemporaries, the PS3 and the Xbox 360. It lags a long way behind in this generation. Of course, Nintendo has a lot of money to help them feel better about that.

Nintendo need not feel too ashamed, though, since they also take the top spot with the grand old Nintendo 64, sporting an amazing median score of 79. What is particularly remarkable about this is that the median game is the original Super Smash Bros, a game popular enough to spawn a series of sequels.

On the Nintendo 64, Super Smash Bros. was an "average" game, and that has to impress even the most jaded Nintendo-hater. Of course, the entire Nintendo 64 catalogue consisted of only 89 games, less than half as many as the Wii has already, early in its lifespan.

I think the very high standard for N64 games and the small number of releases for the console can both be explained by Nintendo's strict control of third-party developers during that era. Not many games were released, but the few that slipped out were generally of very high quality, Superman 64 not withstanding

I know numbers aren't the be all and end all but with confidence I can say that my favourite console of all time was my N64. It had the best games of that era and most are still great to play today. It comes as no surprise that it has the best rating overall. As for the current gen consoles it would come as no surprise that the Wii, due to all the crap that has been thrown at it by publishers comes in last. I can live with it because I just but the awesome games anyway. But for the PS3 to outscore the 360 came as a surprise. 

So what do you think? Are these numbers important to you or is what is written in reviews more important?

Good stuff. Not Ninty's fault that such vomit turns up on the Wii. Get those standards up. 360 done well with 400 titles.

This is meaningless. Having X amount of good games on a console is not diluted whether there is also 1, 10 or 1000000 bad games alongside it. The 'quality' of a console should be judged by the number of games you personally enjoy on it.

i look at metacritic a lot too but more often now i read gamerankings.

Often we get caught up in statistics without realizing that they have to actually be related to real numbers.

The truth is, we can't compare game tastes any more than we can compare food or music.

In all likelyhood, a large portion of Wii owners would prefer, say, Carnival games to Gears of War, while the average PS3 owner would not. If we must lable these gamers, we might as well use the generally accepted "core" and "casual."

Reviewers are, and thus base their reviews around, the core gamer. You might think I'm giving reviewers too little credit, however trust me, I'm not. Until we start hiring non-gamers to write reviews(yes, casuals know how to form paragraphs as well) we'll never know how much better Wii Fit is than Carnival Party. We just do not understand that market, from the point of view of its consumer.

So, it is very likely that, to the larger market segment, the Wii actually has an average game rating of say 90, while the 360 has an average game rating of say 5. Taste, again like music and food, is highly variable.

The most obvious example I can think of: Do you like rap?

Wii-Fit is rap. It's cool, it's mainstream. The old fogies of the industry hate it, but it's drawing new people to music. The old guys don't even call it music. They give rap albums terrible reviews. The kids, they love it.

Are you seeing the comparison here?

We have Wii verses, say PS3, in core gaming. Not the Wii's relative strong suit. However, in all likelyhood, the Wii has at least 5 core titles that are as good as anything on the PS3, not counting ports. I'd actually expand that list to 10. Not to mention the Wii actually does cost a lot less, comes with the ability to also play casual titles, retro games, full backwards compatibility with a system that not everyone owned last gen, and an innovative and cool(though gimmicky by nature, but still cool) new controller, tons of buzz, excellent marketing, and a huge hardcore and casual fanbase.

It really is no wonder this console sells as well as it does. Especially considering how relatively small the target market for HD consoles is, compared to the Wii.

That's the reality that we so often find ourselves forgetting in the midst of fanboy spin.

Who needs metacritic when you have half a brain?

I think the N64 had more than 89 games... but i think only 89 games are on Metacritics system for the N64...

My view is that Wii games in general are reveiwed lower because as Zenfolder pointed out the people who review games do not understand the wii. I do not know what score wii sports or MK wii got but these 2 games would get at least 90% from me.

OK Wii sports was 76/100 and MK Wii was 82. Both way too low for my liking but thats life I guess.

Too much shovelware on the Wii, and all the Nintendo haters lower the Wii's average.
The N64 was the greatest console ever!