StephenSharp on 23 February 2010
| binary solo said: It's reviews like this that makes taking the median review score a better review indicator than the mean review score for Metacritic. For most games the median and mean review scores are the same or within .05/10 so it doesn't really make much difference. But for some games the difference between mean and median can be as much as 0.4/10, and in an industry where the current review structure puts a great deal of emphasis on the difference between an 8.6 game vs a 9.0 game (I just checked and the median score for PS3 Bayonetta is 90 whereas the metacritic score is 86) a 0.4 skewing by a few outlandishly low scores can be a big deal for some games. I bet the median review score for HR will be 9/10 whereas the mean review score will be 8.7 - 8.8. Not a big deal perhaps but having that lovely looking 9 associated with a game is a rather nice to see for those who really like the game. |
Couple things:
-Yes, the median is a better indicator of central tendency, as it is not effected by outliers. Agree 100%
-Wasn't Bayonetta on PS3 a broken port? That would seem a case of bad sampling if the median was so high... unless I missed something.
-I think that the only place the median vs mean makes a real difference is when you're arguing whether something is a "AAA" game or not. Unfortunately, Heavy Rain, while a great game, really ISN'T a AAA (for a movie style game, the plot is too ham-fisted at time, and some of the voice acting is horrible while some is superb.... it's too extreme one way or another to be that top notch), so that .2 is just and fair in this case.
