On the bright side we get some good entertainment whenever people get into MC fights. It always makes me giggle when gamers go crazy over tiny changes to the metascore, as if a score going from 75 to 74 is a huge deal. It's also fun to watch people truly believe that a game with a score of 88 is objectively better than a game that got 87.
I don't hate metacritic I just don't respect it.
There is barely less than a handful of score based reviewers I respect. Everyone else I don't. A lot are just nonsensical reviews and specific individuals that tend to have a bias at some point or other. There is also misinformation factors as well. A lot of the time, the collective scores don't reflect the collective view of gamers in terms of the game's overall quality. Thus, I don't respect those reviewers and metacritc is simply amalgamation of my lack of respect.
* If this is about the whole Fatal Frame review, let me just say it doesn't make sense at all to be bothered by it even if you follow metacritic heavily. Its Free-to-Start, an elongated demo that should tell you whether or not you want to purchase the game and should tell you whether a questionable review is validated.
The biggest issue with metacritic is that many people don't understand what it actually is, and end up using it as a universal quality indicator.
Some people also take issue with that they use a weighted average rather than a pure one, but I don't personally think it really matters. It rarely results in a gap of more than 1 point (which is less than general variance will usually cause), and to be honest I don't understand why MC don't just ditch it, given how little it ends up doing.
| Angelv577 said: I really don't take metacritic too seriously, I just use it as an additional information before buying a game. I hate more the facts that some here are so inconsistent. When a game they like, get a bad score, they start trashing metacritic but when the opposite happens, they use the metascore as a reference that the game is great. |
This is pretty much how I feel.
Metacritic is a great resource for people to find notable games.
It seems people get worked up when game they enjoy don't score great. Because a game scoring in the 50% - 70% somehow translates to nobody can enjoy it.
The worst is when people spin a relatively high score into something negative. For example, not long ago there were some people trolling Gears Ultimate for scoring less than the original Gears.
Recently Completed:
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)
It just is not a good way to see how good a game is. The better option is to find a site/reviewers who review games similar to what YOU like and guy with that.
| AEGRO said: I dont like how Metacritic weights the reviews, i dont underestand why a site like IGN has to be more credible than an indie site. But at the same time, Game Rankings do average the reviews equally, and their scores are always virtually the same as Metacritic, so i guess Meta must be doing something right. P.D. I dont know for sure if both scores are always similar, i believe there must be cases that the margin of error is way off, but i havent seen it. |
when you have above 50 or even close to 100 reviews, a weighted average is pretty much the same as a normal average.
Nothing inherently wrong with Metacritic. It's a great place to look up reviews. The problem is with the people who are inordinately influenced by Metacritic one way or another.
It is not an absolute. It has only as much meaning as you want it to have.
has any body mentioned this yet?
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/obsidian-denied-bonus-over-new-vegas-metacritic-score-studio-head/1100-6366337/
cause alone this why i dislike metacitic on top of other things such my bias against review scores in general and how they are just nothing but tools for fanboy wars.
Mr Puggsly said:
This is pretty much how I feel. Metacritic is a great resource for people to find notable games. It seems people get worked up when game they enjoy don't score great. Because a game scoring in the 50% - 70% somehow translates to nobody can enjoy it. The worst is when people spin a relatively high score into something negative. For example, not long ago there were some people trolling Gears Ultimate for scoring less than the original Gears. |
that's true. it's practically the same game but better so scoring less than the original won't change that. if you enjoyed it before, you will enjoy it again. As long as the game isn't broken, buying a game that score 60-70 shouldn't be problem if you are sure that you will enjoy it.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
