GameRankings and MetaCritic will probably do the same they did with Galaxy, and ignore every review of under 90 as trolling. Probably a good idea. =/
| Parokki said: GameRankings and MetaCritic will probably do the same they did with Galaxy, and ignore every review of under 90 as trolling. Probably a good idea. =/ |
Site Inclusion Policy
Q. What does it take to get a site included in the composite score of Game Rankings?
A. This is the most commonly asked question. The things we look for when adding a new site are:
Q. Why don't you just use every review you can find in the composite score?
A. Consistency. Sites scores must effect all titles equally. Let's say a source always gives high scores and it's lowest score ever was an 80%. It would be fine if that site reviewed every game, or at least a good number of games, and affected them all by raising their scores. Then when you compare two games, they would both have been affected. However, if it is from a site or magazine that either, we could only get a few reviews from, or only did a few reviews, then it would raise a small number of games causing their scores to be skewed.
The METASCORE is considered a weighted average because we assign more significance, or weight, to some critics and publications than we do to others, based on the overall stature and quality of those critics and publications. In addition, for music and movies, we also normalize the resulting scores (akin to "grading on a curve" in college), which prevents scores from clumping together
They use the exact same rules for all games across all platforms ... Realistically, the reason that these excluded sites were giving games like Super Mario Galaxy a low score was because they're small and they benefit from the traffic a low review score will provide.
| Parokki said: GameRankings and MetaCritic will probably do the same they did with Galaxy, and ignore every review of under 90 as trolling. Probably a good idea. =/ |
Do you actually have proof of a single source they normally use in their statistics and excluded for Galaxy?
Ocarina of Time did not have leaderboards. THE GAME'S A WITCH! BURN IT!
leo-j said:
No game deserves a 10, and you havent even played the game to state it deserves a 10. |
I agree he hasn't played it so he can't say it deserves a 10 (unless he has played the import on a modded Wii) but that first part is BS. Saying no game deserves a 10 is garbage. Saying no game deserves a 100 on GR/MC is one thing since obviously no game will ever be great enough for everybody to give it a 10 but if you say no game gets a 10 at all why have the system out of 10? Might as well make it out of 9.9 Then of course you have to say no game deserves a perfect score which now became a 9.9 so we can't do that either.
Giving Brawl or any other game a 10/10 doesn't mean the reviewer thinks it is perfect. Obviously no game will ever be "perfect". Graphics will always improve and control/features will always keep evolving. That doesn't take away from any current game though.
*This doesn't mean I think Brawl deserves a 10/10, I just hate people saying no game deserves it
On another point I agree completely with Ben about leaderboards. I am actually quite glad they aren't in so people won't have extra motivation to act like jerks online just to move up a bit.
leaderboards are good for showing off and thats it.
Heres what i think of leaderboards.
1) a useless statistic, you will never get anywhere on the list unless you play A LOT.
2) matches are less fun, people are always worrying about "oh if i lose it will drop my rating" and they proceed to unplug their internet leaving you with no one to fight 90% of the time.
3) Degrades the online experience, ie people will go online just to boost their score, not to have fun.
I don't understand some of you people....
If a 10 is a stupid score because it means the game is perfect, which no game is perfect, then the best score would be a 9.9...and then sooner or later after soo many reviewers start giving 9.9's, meaning that's the most perfect anybody will get, a 9.9 would become the new 10....then everybody will say the 9.9 is now lame and they will just pay attention to just 9's...and the cycle will just continue on and on....
I think the understanding of giving out 10/10 for everybody is that yes, we all know a game will never really be perfect, but it is that good that it is hard to make things any better than it already is. Does SSBB deserve that score? I don't know, since I don't have the game yet....but what I do know is that this game is already legendary....Nintendo has done more than it had to in order to please video gamers of all types, whether you are a Nintendo fan, a casual, or even a SEGA fan or a Solid Snake and Sony fan...and yet they still went beyond what is required of them to do. They could just give us Melee, added three or four new stages, added three or four more characters, improved the graphics a bit and call it a day. Enough gamers would buy the game to call it a success and we would move on with our lives. But we all know that didn't happen. It's more than what people should expect of Nintendo to do.
Of course, I know I am going to get the response "Bu...But-but...what about the voice chat?!?!....no leaderboards or stats?!Lammeee1!!...Mario is teh gayz lololol..." blah blah blah but in the end of the day for every one of you who have that opinion need to know that there are a hundred more who just don't give a crap...they want a game that is fun, a game they can play with their friends next to each other, play the game, order a pizza and have a blast. And if they aren't there, there is still plenty to do just on your own to keep you busy....So I don't know about you, but that kind of experience alone, deserves at least a 9...and the way Nintendo perfected the game and added as much as possible without alienating those who are just casuals, that in my book warrants a 10 out of 10....
But of course, scores like these are opinions only so who gives a damn in the end right?
Edit: azrm2k explains the perfect score part a bit better than I did, but yeah exactly that...everybody knows anything human beings makes are automatically faulty, but we still recognize that there are certain things are perfect, in the sense that they get as close to it as possible...so yes, certain games do deserve a 10/10 and anybody who disagrees to it will tell all their faults, but we all know that the only reasons they don't agree about it is because they just don't have a taste for that game, end of discussion. No need for further explanation, reasons or excuses. Nothing to be ashamed about it....(unless its a game that is universally accepted as one of the greatest ever and you claim its the poorest ever...then you are just somebody who cries for attention and needs a hug.)
Explanation of sig:
I am a Pakistani.....my name is Dan....how hard is that? (Don't ask about the 101...apparantely there are more of me out there....)
I guess we should stop pointing our fingers against DarkLich13. He has a point there.
Proud owner of all three consoles and handhelds.
Gamertag: MrKetchup911 (Add me up)
| SeriousWB said: Explain how the single player is "so lacking" for a fighting game darklich13. In fact, show me a better single player experience in a fighting game. |
You didn't read any of the reviews did you. Watch the ign video review also. For me a good single player fighting game was Tobal #2 for the Playstation. One of the most overlooked fighting games ever. At least in the US.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
