pezus said:
eFKac said:
the-pi-guy said:
eFKac said:
So I've been overlooking infamous second son's meta, and it was getting a lot of over 80 scores, yet it still remained an 80, so I did an math equation and the average scores look like over 81.1. Can someone count it as well? Maybe I've made a mistake somewhere.
Or does the "Most Active" tab really matter, and we have some transparent system and know how much more does IGN's, Eurogamer's etc. scores weight vs some smaller sites, lower on the "Most Active" tab? |
To put it simply, a METASCORE is a weighted average of reviews from top critics and publications for a given movie, TV show, video game, or album.
Why a weighted average? When selecting our source publications, we noticed that some critics consistently write better (more detailed, more insightful, more articulate) reviews than others. In addition, some critics and/or publications typically have more prestige and respect in their industry than others. To reflect these factors, we have assigned weights to each publication (and, in the case of movies and television, to individual critics as well), thus making some publications count more in the METASCORE calculations than others.
|
ok, but do we know how much more "some publications" count than others? Or is it not at all transparent?
|
It's not transparent, unfortunately. IGN probably is in the top category.
|
I assume the hierarchy is in the "Most Active" tab that I've mentioned. Anyway, that's some shitty policy then. I'm all for giving different weights to IGN, Egde, Eurogamer etc. over sites like Quarter to three, Polygon, brand specific sites etc. but we should know by how much we are talking about, and how are they argumenting it. Otherwise it is very shady.
Of course someone may say that they can't do it on critique, by critique basis, cause someone's feelings may get hurt, some misunderstandings may occur, but if Metacritic admits, some are better than others, stand by it, show some balls, and tell us why. Or just ditch it.
