By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
fighter on 01 February 2011
Edit Thread
zgamer5 said:
fighter said:
 

Absolutely none of you have been able to come up with a better indicator of quality than metas. And it seems you are not even trying. That alone makes my point.

Still, as I have faith in the human kind I'll still grant you a few other enlightments :

Publishers and the whole industry take them into account. They are proud of having high scores and disappointed when not, but not only for the effect it will have on sales, also for the pure win.

Metas being an aggregation of reviews, the pressure of Publishers PRs on journalists is disminished. The smarter people will have noticed that early reviews are higher than the ones later. That's because the exclusivity of an early copy or of an early deenbargo onthe publication of the review comes at the price, more or less implicit, that the review must be favorable ('if you believe that the game deserves an 8.7 we would be glad to let you publish this week intead of the next" is a common tactic")

Last but not least, these metas are simply the most efficient indicator possible. Professionals and not amateurs. Non-selling entities instead of publishers' PR (god knows how fans of a game can buy everything a company says for years and then claim reviewers are the mistaken ones) XD

Anyway, thanks for confirming my point

 

http://gametheoryonline.com/2010/07/07/why-metacritic-matters/

like i said before until you reached level 20 a spec you cant havea minor opinion of gt5. now go derail some other thread.

also good job it took you 1 week to come up with an answer. thanks for bumping a dead thread.

third strike ! you're out !