By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Barozi on 22 October 2009
Edit Thread
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Barozi said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
BMaker11 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Why did you put "we need to talk about it" in your thread title? There's a million other threads about it, and we're all pretty much in agreement that nobody cares about this game, its lack of marketing (it's just a test), its lack of effort (it's just a test), its lack of sales, its lack of quality, or its lack of fans. Nobody cares and nobody likes it. We really don't need to talk about it. Anymore.

Nobody cared?

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=87763

Explain, please.

Lack of quality and effort?

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/wii/deadspaceextraction

Explain, please

Explanation 1: A couple people care.  Not enough for anybody else to care.  Let those 5 or so people enjoy their game.  But it costs too much.

Explanation 2: Metacritic is STUPID, and a horrible way to judge quality.  It is an aggregate of reviews from a very narrow population of gamers.  Nobody who writes at Metacritic is a friend of mine whose tastes I trust, so I really don't care what they have to say about any games that I like or dislike, and the only time I ever hear of the web site is when people on the internet use it to troll the Wii.

Or do you honestly believe the 3 greatest games of all time are Ocarina of Time (1998), Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (2000), and Soul Calibur (1999)?  If you agree with that 100%, by all means, use Metacritic in all your arguments.  Your tastes and Metacritic's scores are perfectly in alignment.  For me, none of those games would make my top 20, so the use of Metacritic in arguments is completely absurd.

And by "lack of effort" I mean "on-rails" and "calling it a test."  They really didn't care about the game, gave it no marketing, and sent it out to die.

No, no. YOU think it's a stupid way to judge quality.

You just don't understand how to interpret the numbers. That's all.

With my limited understanding, big numbers is good and small numbers is bad.  That's as far as my logic goes.

Please enlighten me, and explain how to interpret the numbers other than that, so I can understand why Metacritic is actually a reliable way to judge how much fun I'm having when I play my favorite games.

Sure a bigger number means the game is better than a game with a lower number.

BUT that's only if you're being a neutral gamer with no preferences. The reviewers rate a game knowing that many people read their articles, so they have to rate the game as objective as possible.

In the end no one can tell you that your favourite game with a score of let's say 82 is worse than a game with a score of 87. A 5 point difference is nothing. They're in the same quality category and only you're preferences make this game better in your opinion than the other game.

However a difference of more than 10 points is huge. If the game falls in the same genre it's almost a given that you'll like the game with the higher score much more. If the games aren't in the same genre it's a bit more difficult. Depends on if you can't stand the other genre or not.... too many variables here.

Anyway everyone should enjoy games with a score higher than 90. Doesn't matter which genre.

80-89 is considered as great. You don't have to be a major fan of the game series or genre to enjoy the game.

70-79 is considered as good. If you like the genre this could be a game for you. Others may like it too, but better stay away if you can't stand the genre.

Everything under 70 is only for hardcore fans of the genre and everything under 55 is just plain bad.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

You also shouldn't compare games from different generations. Expectations were different back then and so was the game experience. The numbers only would get legit if reviewers rate the game again.