Was Nintendo right? | |||
| Sure, user scores are valid. | 37 | 21.39% | |
| No, user scores are to random. | 94 | 54.34% | |
| dunno | 14 | 8.09% | |
| see results | 28 | 16.18% | |
| Total: | 173 | ||
Zelda has over 300 negative userscores on Metacritics. It isn't reliable when majority of those scores are 0.
specialk said:
I don't really agree here. I played 15 hours of Final Fantasy XV. I think that was more than enough to eloquently communicate why I wouldn't recommend that game. I played probably about 20 hours of Bloodborne but never beat it. I think I played enough to eloquently communicate why (and to whom) I would recommend that game. |
Hmm...yea you're probably right. If you put in a substantial amount of time into the game then fine, but if a gamer barely progressed in a game then their opinion should be voided.
specialk said:
I also would argue in favor of the Metacritic user score. You just have to know how to use it. My local library kept a list of "banned books" from throughout history. I went through a phase as a teen where I checked out and read a bunch of these books. I seriously doubt whether most of the dudes and chicks who got these book banned during history actually read them. They just objected to the idea of the subject matter. They were the 0 / 10 metabombers of their time. The banned book list didn't tell me anything concrete about the quality of the books on the list. But it told me that all those books got people fired up enough to feel strong emotions about them. |
Well aren't you proving the point that user scores are indeed meaningless? lol
The point is that people who post their review or score on something like Metacritic may and often have ulterior motives. The same is happening right now on Netflix. This speaks more of ulterior motives than anything else. The least controversial the material, the more accurate user scores will be that I'm sure we can agree on. But how can you tell something is controversial if all you look at is user scores?
Mnementh said:
That's fine. That's why it is good most prints demand from professional reviewers to finish the game before reviewing. A good policy in my opinion. |
That's the good thing about those professional reviewers, they actually finished the game to give a fair review.
| V-r0cK said:
Hmm...yea you're probably right. If you put in a substantial amount of time into the game then fine, but if a gamer barely progressed in a game then their opinion should be voided. |
Yeah scores like that probably shouldn't factor into the average.
The opinion might be worthwhile... to somebody at least. If some dudebro plays 30 minutes of some anime game and tells one of his dudebro friends that it "sucks", that is probably a good review most of the time.
But yeah, you're right, in aggregate it is pretty meaningless and just kind of mucks things up for the final average.
| Boutros said:
Well aren't you proving the point that user scores are indeed meaningless? lol The point is that people who post their review or score on something like Metacritic may and often have ulterior motives. The same is happening right now on Netflix. This speaks more of ulterior motives than anything else. The least controversial the material, the more accurate user scores will be that I'm sure we can agree on. But how can you tell something is controversial if all you look at is user scores? |
Maybe the number itself. But you can usually tell something by looking at how it got there though.
If some piece of media averages 5/10 but the distribution of scores shows that half the people liked it and half the people hated it, that might be more worth checking out to me than something that averaged a 9/10.
specialk said:
Maybe the number itself. But you can usually tell something by looking at how it got there though. If some piece of media averages 5/10 but the distribution of scores shows that half the people liked it and half the people hated it, that might be more worth checking out to me than something that averaged a 9/10. |
But that's not what Metacritic does lol
| Boutros said: But that's not what Metacritic does lol |
It gives you all the data you need to do it yourself. i.e. average score, number of positive, negative, mixed reviews. Quotations from the reviews itself.
It doesn't take too much reading and looking into to determine what's what.
You can do all sorts of things to make the average score itself "better" or "more accurate", but just a score alone will always be imperfect. Even if you could develop a system for weeding people out, you still lose valuable information.
For example, if you could limit reviews to only people who have finished the game, you're biasing towards people who thought the game was good enough to be worth finishing. You're losing out on the opinion of everyone who dropped out 5 hours in.
Word of mouth is a much much better way to gauge a game.
It's just your typical PR. Nothing to read deep into.
Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are all companies. They are not in it for the gamers. They are in it for the money.
They will all say things that make them look better than their competitor to try and get sales.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
