Shaunodon said:
Johnw1104 said:
I think Sterling's may have been the one to drop it to 97, but then there were a couple other late reviews around 70 and 60 that came out as well.
|
I know, but my only point was Jim or whoever solely lowering the score at the time.
Is it that hard to fix the algorithm for Metacritic?
|
Well this an interesting phenomenon that speaks to the human psyche and is perfectly observable in all sorts of fields: Later reviews are more likely to be negative on an acclaimed game, as they begin reviewing the reviews as much as they are the game itself.
Basically, when someone tells you something is perfect, you don't look at a normal game/book/movie etc and give it a grade; instead, you instinctively look for the flaws to show that it's not perfect. Thus, when people wait a few weeks to turn in their reviews (all the while having the words "masterpiece" and "perfect" thrown in their face), their reviews will devote an inordinate amount of time to any negatives they can find.
This has been observed time after time with focus groups where a product will receive higher praise if they're given no indication of how it has been previously received when compared to the lower praise if they're told it did exceptionally well with previous focus groups. In fact, simply being told of a previous opinion completely changes the way they respond to questions and view the product.
It's why I personally wish there was a 48 hours window for those reviews that will actually count towards the metacritic score. Once enough time has passed, the reviewer is no longer reviewing in a vacuum and is instead reviewing the mainstream claim of it being a "masterpiece".