Metacritic isnt going to convince me to like your crappy game.

[ZenfoldorVGI]

Hapimeses said:

Edit: Bloody hell! This post is far longer than I expected! Go on, read it all; I dare you!

Given where I'm posting, the following may analogy may seem controversial, but it works for me, so I'm running with it.

Relying on Metacritic to provide an absolute rating for a game is like relying on VGChartz to provide 100% accurate sales data.

On one hand, we have a site that collects a information from a minority of sources and extrapolates from this figures to represent the entire market; on the other, we have a site that collects information from a minority of sources and extrapolates figures from this to represent the entire market.

So, Metacritic uses a minority of reviewers, ones the site claims are the most reliable and unbiased voices, and averages them -- not a particularly scientific system, as anyone skilled with basic statistics can reveal -- to create a number the site claims represents the reviewing community as a whole. Similarly, VGChartz uses a minority of sales data and extrapolates its figures using a fairly arbitrary system, one based, in part, upon hope and guesswork, to result in figures we all know are not accurate, but accept for what they are given the lack of alternatives.

Now, if Metacritic was treated in the same way as VGChartz -- as an unreliable source -- then everything would be cool. If we all accepted that the numbers are nothing more than a loose guide, then all would be god in the world. But, it's not like that. In fact, it's the opposite, and it's a problem that plagues not just the fan community, but the business as a whole.

When companies start boasting about Metacritic scores, then we have a problem. Not only do we have a problem because the companies involved are building their arguments about their games, and the games of their competitors, on foundations of sand, for Metacritic does not represent much more than a poorly constructed average of a select few, but we have a problem because the companies imbue the Metacritic numbers with worth. The numbers begin to matter. They become a part of the PR war. Metacritic becomes a battleground. This is bad because we all know big business rightly takes its business very seriously indeed. Thus, if anyone thinks all reviews collated by Metacritic are free from pressure from the companies involved with the games, then they are naive in the extreme. Companies cannot afford to lose the PR war, so they take action, sometimes in small acceptable ways, sometimes in unforgivable ways. The extent of this influence, be it through advertising pressures, or sponsorships, or concerted attacks on the quality of Metacritic, or restricting the reviewing environment, or ensuring fans of one system or genre secure appropriate reviewing jobs, or perhaps even outright corporate espionage of the reviewing machine, is unknown, but we all know it exists in many forms, and have all seen examples of different companies attempting to influence reviews.

Thus, not only are the numbers on Metacritic unsound, but they are also subject to an unknown level of pressure from the corporate machine, a machine that has invested Metacritic with undeserved worth, a machine that has money running on what Metacritic produces, thus, a machine that cannot be relied upon to be fair and evenhanded with its approach to Metacritic. So, not only are Metacritic's numbers unsound, but they are clearly manipulated to some degree, both up and down, making them all the more unsound. (As a small addendum to this, reviews are also manipulated without Metacritic in mind -- i.e.: companies just want good reviews -- but the effect on Metacritic remains the same).

But its worse than this.

All over the web, you have people claiming that one game must be better than another because 94 is higher than 93, or 75 is more than 70, or, the big one, the one most open to abuse, because 90 is bigger than 89. Indeed, 90 brings the fabled degree of AAA quality, but 90 is little better than 89, and 80 is left being little better than 88, or 87, or 80 -- hell, the game could as well not exist! Given the above, and the ease with which the numbers can be subtely manipulated up or down a few points by the unscrupulous, the 90 is better than 89 is a crap argument. In fact, the whole AAA situation is absolute nonsense, especially when you're not comparing like for like, which Metacritic does not do.

Sure, if only 10 review sites were used every time on Metacritic, then we'd have something that was, although not representative of the entire market, certainly consistent. However, we don't have that. We have one game with 20 reviewspitched against another with 40. Or one game with more reviews from biased sources (as the game is only on one gaming platform) set against another game with reviews from all quarters (as it's on all systems). Or we have one game with reviews using percentages and out-of-10 scores set against others with reviews using letter grading systems or a five-star rating. In fact, the quality of the reviews used by metacritic is so inconsistent that their final numbers are little better than useless. But, still, the numbers are quoted like they were handed down from the heavens by a chorus of angels, and not made up by a bunch of 'gamers' and 'journalists' keen to have their opinions blasted across the net for whatever reason.

My advice: treat Metacritic for what it is: a guide, and a very loose one at that. High scoring games are generally good. Low scoring ones are generally bad. Everything else is in the middle somewhere, but you may feel they shouldn't be, for even this loose approach is a poor guide for what a game will mean to the individual. Take the OP: whilst I agree with his opinion of Metacritic, I could care less for his taste in games. MGS4, for me, was gaming heaven, although the installs were gaming hell.

And with that we see the ultimate problem. Unlike sales figures, reviews are not an absolute business. Reviews are entirely subjective. There is no right or wrong, there is only opinion. Any number provided is made up, and means nothing (which is one of the reasons the numbers are so easy to manipulate). While my brother loves Halo, I could care less for it, but not much. While I may adore Everybody's Golf: World Tour, not everyone share my love. While my wife loves SingStar, I am not it's biggest fan. The numbers provided by Metacritic do not represent this. Hell, the numbers sometimes don't even represent the reviews they are trying to collate (a 4/5 star review is better than the Metacritic 80% to many reviewers, as a single example -- heck, when a two-star game is seen as solid, a three star as good, and a four star as great, the coverted 40% should be seen as a solid score, but it isn't).

So, we have a flawed system trying to create numbers for a subjective opinions of a select bunch of reviewers, some of whom are biased, some of whom are influenced, some of whom are poorly qualified, some of whom use crazy reviewing systems, some of whom are barely literate (some of the reviews Metacritic has linked to have stunned me with their poor use of language and their inability to express themselves), and some of whom I disagree with (the worst crime, in my book), for no reviewer has a better opinion of the games I like than me.

At best, the numbers provide nothing more than a snapshot of some opinions, or an amusing view of reviewing practices at the time (which are far more critical for some games than others -- I'm looking at you GTA4! And, given that, how can that game's Metascore ever be compared to any other?).

In short: Metacritic = Unreliable nonsense. The numbers have no meaningful, inherent worth. Anyone claiming citing Metacritic as a serious source should be laughed at. And pointed at. And laughed at again.

We all know the only people that care about the silly numbers are fanboys and businessmen keen to score points, and I care little for either contemptuous breed at the best of times, so pointing and laughing comes esy to me.

So, with that all said, I'll conclude that Metacritic is, as far as I am concerned, considerably less reliable and less useful than VGChartz numbers, even though their practices are more transparent. VGCharts is at least attempting to track something that has an objective answer, even though they get it seriously wrong a lot, and are hugely inconsistent (really, where are my Others Everybody's Golf numbers? It sold tons over here, god damnit! Any stop calling it Others and using the EU flag! Gah! But, I digress...)

Oh, and Assassin's Creed isn't a 'garbage glitchy game', it's a repetitive, glitchy, oddly great game. It gets 'I enjoyed it'/10 from me.

I liked the part where you said that Gears 2 was better than Resistance 2 and KZ2 combined.

Of course, I'm joking, nice post.