By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - And the new highest selling PS3 exclusive is! Yes you guessed it GT5!

fighter on 01 February 2011
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 !



Around the Network
fighter on 01 February 2011
FinalEvangelion said:

I'm glad I didn't listen to Meta, "the ultimate infalliable measure of quality," for Legend of Dragoon.


Just as reviewers opinions are dispersed on a scale of opinion the perception of the said game by an indivudual is equally varied.

Fans' opinions are dispersed  too but the more a game drags haters and/or fanatics the more it's average will be altered.



zgamer5 on 01 February 2011
fighter said:
FinalEvangelion said:

I'm glad I didn't listen to Meta, "the ultimate infalliable measure of quality," for Legend of Dragoon.


Just as reviewers opinions are dispersed on a scale of opinion the perception of the said game by an indivudual is equally varied.

Fans' opinions are dispersed  too but the more a game drags haters and/or fanatics the more it's average will be altered.


from your sig we can know that you dont think that mw2 is over rated.

end of discussion no one should be arguieng with you.



Being in 3rd place never felt so good

Scoobes on 01 February 2011
fighter said:
Scoobes 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.

Everyones point has been that it's still not a good measure of quality. It's the best of an incredibly bad bunch. That doesn't make it a good measure.

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.

It makes for decent PR when your games have higher meta ratings. The "pure win" comment just shows the immaturity of the industry as a whole.

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")

I'm not sure how this is a good thing. If anything it shows that meta ratings and scores are open to certain forms of bribery and manipulation. This doesn't in any way show it's a good measure of quality, actually quite the opposite. Do you honestly think this makes meta scores accurate representations of quality?

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

I've already made the point that they're nearly all amateurs. Enthusiast press does not equate to professionals, especially when a lot of publishers serenade reviewers. Many publications are simply an extension of PR especially when they're paying for adverts on these supposedly professional websites. 

Anyway, thanks for confirming my point

 

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

To be honest your post seems to confirm everything I've been saying. Your "enlightenments" just show how horrible meta scores are in the games industry.

no proposition either ? Thank you

 

Metas - still vgamings' _B3ST_ indicator of quality

Are you reading what people post properly?

Metas are still not a good indicator of quality and that's what people have been saying in this entire thread. They may become a good indicator when the industry's press and journalism is actually of a professional standard.

Maybe I just have very high reviewing standards but I can only think of about 5-6 publications I'd use for a metacritic average.

Edit- Especially when I've read reviews (counted on metacritic) of games where the reviewer played no more than 3 hours of a games, have played hand-held games without sound, released reviews early just to get numbers etc.




Get your Portable ID!

fighter on 01 February 2011
zgamer5 said:
fighter said:
FinalEvangelion said:

I'm glad I didn't listen to Meta, "the ultimate infalliable measure of quality," for Legend of Dragoon.


Just as reviewers opinions are dispersed on a scale of opinion the perception of the said game by an indivudual is equally varied.

Fans' opinions are dispersed  too but the more a game drags haters and/or fanatics the more it's average will be altered.


from your sig we can know that you dont think that mw2 is over rated.

end of discussion no one should be arguieng with you.

 

1/ I would give modern warfare 2 a decent 9 - you have to consider the genre of the game as well

2/ then don't... 



Around the Network
zgamer5 on 01 February 2011
fighter said:
zgamer5 said:
fighter said:
FinalEvangelion said:

I'm glad I didn't listen to Meta, "the ultimate infalliable measure of quality," for Legend of Dragoon.


Just as reviewers opinions are dispersed on a scale of opinion the perception of the said game by an indivudual is equally varied.

Fans' opinions are dispersed  too but the more a game drags haters and/or fanatics the more it's average will be altered.


from your sig we can know that you dont think that mw2 is over rated.

end of discussion no one should be arguieng with you.

 

1/ I would give modern warfare 2 a decent 9 - you have to consider the genre of the game as well

2/ then don't...

what genra? unbalanced mp, hacks and a terrible campaign.



Being in 3rd place never felt so good

zgamer5 on 01 February 2011
Scoobes said:
fighter said:
Scoobes 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.

Everyones point has been that it's still not a good measure of quality. It's the best of an incredibly bad bunch. That doesn't make it a good measure.

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.

It makes for decent PR when your games have higher meta ratings. The "pure win" comment just shows the immaturity of the industry as a whole.

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")

I'm not sure how this is a good thing. If anything it shows that meta ratings and scores are open to certain forms of bribery and manipulation. This doesn't in any way show it's a good measure of quality, actually quite the opposite. Do you honestly think this makes meta scores accurate representations of quality?

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

I've already made the point that they're nearly all amateurs. Enthusiast press does not equate to professionals, especially when a lot of publishers serenade reviewers. Many publications are simply an extension of PR especially when they're paying for adverts on these supposedly professional websites. 

Anyway, thanks for confirming my point

 

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

To be honest your post seems to confirm everything I've been saying. Your "enlightenments" just show how horrible meta scores are in the games industry.

no proposition either ? Thank you

 

Metas - still vgamings' _B3ST_ indicator of quality

Are you reading what people post properly?

Metas are still not a good indicator of quality and that's what people have been saying in this entire thread. They may become a good indicator when the industry's press and journalism is actually of a professional standard.

Maybe I just have very high reviewing standards but I can only think of about 5-6 publications I'd use for a metacritic average.

Edit- Especially when I've read reviews (counted on metacritic) of games where the reviewer played no more than 3 hours of a games, have played hand-held games without sound, released reviews early just to get numbers etc.


just shut up.

he knows hes wrong and hes just doing that to annoy us.

leave him alone and go watch the resistance 3 and ratchet trailers.



Being in 3rd place never felt so good

fighter on 01 February 2011
CGI-Quality said:
fighter said:


Are you saying sales are a better indicator than Metas or do you just not have a proposition ? (lol)

It's apparent that you aren't actually reading and/or understanding much of what others and myself are posting. Meta scores don't absolutely determine quality., they don't. The basis of quality can be determined a number of ways, and while Metacritic may be a contributor, it isn't THE dictator.

I see that you ignored a very important question, more than once, which now leads me to believe you're derailing this thread deliberately, so 'll ask this just once more - what do/does Metacritic/Meta scores have to do with GT5 being PS3's highest selling exclusive?

 

You must, consciously or unconsciously, refer to some indicator of a game's quality in order for you to pay for certain games and not for others, am i right ?

 

So, you ought as well to remember at least one of them that you believe is very useful to the masses. Whould you by any chance recall at least one them that would be a better indicator than metas ?

 

No ? I thought so... Buh-bye now lady (thanks for the ban you f ¨*)



fighter on 01 February 2011
zgamer5 said:
Scoobes said:
fighter said:
Scoobes 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.

Everyones point has been that it's still not a good measure of quality. It's the best of an incredibly bad bunch. That doesn't make it a good measure.

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.

It makes for decent PR when your games have higher meta ratings. The "pure win" comment just shows the immaturity of the industry as a whole.

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")

I'm not sure how this is a good thing. If anything it shows that meta ratings and scores are open to certain forms of bribery and manipulation. This doesn't in any way show it's a good measure of quality, actually quite the opposite. Do you honestly think this makes meta scores accurate representations of quality?

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

I've already made the point that they're nearly all amateurs. Enthusiast press does not equate to professionals, especially when a lot of publishers serenade reviewers. Many publications are simply an extension of PR especially when they're paying for adverts on these supposedly professional websites. 

Anyway, thanks for confirming my point

 

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

To be honest your post seems to confirm everything I've been saying. Your "enlightenments" just show how horrible meta scores are in the games industry.

no proposition either ? Thank you

 

Metas - still vgamings' _B3ST_ indicator of quality

Are you reading what people post properly?

Metas are still not a good indicator of quality and that's what people have been saying in this entire thread. They may become a good indicator when the industry's press and journalism is actually of a professional standard.

Maybe I just have very high reviewing standards but I can only think of about 5-6 publications I'd use for a metacritic average.

Edit- Especially when I've read reviews (counted on metacritic) of games where the reviewer played no more than 3 hours of a games, have played hand-held games without sound, released reviews early just to get numbers etc.


just shut up.

he knows hes wrong and hes just doing that to annoy us.

leave him alone and go watch the resistance 3 and ratchet trailers.


now that's a very trivial denial lol



fighter on 01 February 2011
zgamer5 said:
fighter said:
zgamer5 said:
fighter said:
FinalEvangelion said:

I'm glad I didn't listen to Meta, "the ultimate infalliable measure of quality," for Legend of Dragoon.


Just as reviewers opinions are dispersed on a scale of opinion the perception of the said game by an indivudual is equally varied.

Fans' opinions are dispersed  too but the more a game drags haters and/or fanatics the more it's average will be altered.


from your sig we can know that you dont think that mw2 is over rated.

end of discussion no one should be arguieng with you.

 

1/ I would give modern warfare 2 a decent 9 - you have to consider the genre of the game as well

2/ then don't...

what genra? unbalanced mp, hacks and a terrible campaign.

Benchmark mark it and see how well it does