Forums - Gaming Discussion - Should console-exclusive sites be allowed on metacritic?

Should console-exclusive sites be allowed on Metacritic?

Yes 31 63.27%
 
No 18 36.73%
 
Total:49
pitzy272 said:
Azzanation said:

Of course you can slightly increase the score same way sites slightly reduce the score. There opinions.

Also my personal review is a 8/10, the 10/10 was due to the amount of 0/10 the game is getting. Never go by User Scores, its a stupid system that does not work.

The game is getting mixed scores and some high scores which aren't all Xbox scores which shows variety, if it was only the Xbox sites giving the game high scores I would step up and say its misleading however guess what? There are others that actually like the game. There are many out there enjoying the game just like the many who are playing it right now. 

I believe many in here just wish hate on the game and want nothing but poor scores, many who haven't actually played the game. 

Modern gamer - The Metacritic is more important than the actual games themselves.

I’m not sure where all these “high” scores are that you’re referencing. The only truly “high” score is the 90 from that Xbox site. You might be able to argue that an 86 is “high”, but every other score is an 82 or lower, which makes them mid-level scores at best.

The rest of your post is just not worth responding to. Don’t know why you’re so desperate to defend this game. If you enjoy it, just enjoy it. 

High scores are indicated in green, average scores are indicated in yellow and bad scores are indicated in red. You are the perfect example of the modern gamer who only accepts 9s as a high score. 9 is closer to perfect, anything 8 and above is considered high which this game is getting aswell.

The bigger question to you is why are you trying to downplay a game i can safely bet you havnt played? Does the score really matter to you?



Around the Network

No, they shouldn't. You don't see movie critics who only review movies by Paramount, and I wouldn't trust them if they did. If non-platform-agnostic sites want to review games, fine. Keep them off Metacritic though.

A good example were the guys at ICXM (now moved to Windows Central) who are openly hostile to anything that's not Microsoft related. Those aren't guys I would trust to give objective reviews to Xbox games. People aren't going to like every game and genre, but sites that only feed into one console don't do anything for me for reviews. They're tainted.



LuccaCardoso1 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Yep. This is why I use Opencritic. I can use my own personal settings to "ban" clickbait sites like Slant, and Metro. 

Slant Magazine's scores are ridiculous. These are some crazy scores I found only looking through the first page:

Far Cry 5
Slant's Score: 50
Metascore: 81

Sea of Thieves
Slant's Score: 40
Metascore: 70

Ni No Kuni II
Slant's Score: 50
Metascore: 86

Yakuza 6: The Song of Life
Slant's Score: 60
Metascore: 83

Kingdom Come: Deliverance
Slant's Score: 20
Metascore: 76

Radiant Historia: Perfect Chronology
Slant's Score: 60
Metascore: 84

Monster Hunter World
Slant's Score: 70
Metascore: 90

All of this was only on the front page of their game reviews. On OpenCritic, they usually score 10.71 points below the average. It doesn't take a genius to see that they don't score based on game quality but on how many clicks they can gather.

This isn't bad. Sites aren't required to give games 9s or 10s automatically. This is the problem now.



First of all, sites are weighted on metacritic according to a bunch of criteria, the most important of them is the size and popularity of the site. Multiplatform sites scores always matter way more than console exclusive sites, because... well they are not locked on only one platform.

That said, right now there are a good handful of reviews of SoT that are, at least above 75, with some being above 80, and one of 86 that is not a Xbox site. Why seems more wrong a nine than a 4, or a 5? because they are an xbox site? Why is valid an xbox site that gave the game a 73, than one that gave it an 8? Only because one score is nearer to the Metascore?

What I can see is a polarizing game that have connected a lot with some people, and the majority of the rest find that in it's current state is just meh. That kind of game can score a 9 for some, and a 6 for others, and that's ok in both cases.



Tim and The Princes...

RJ_Sizzle said:

This isn't bad. Sites aren't required to give games 9s or 10s automatically. This is the problem now.

They're not obligated to give 9s or 10s indeed, but when they score so frequently so far from the average, there's something wrong. Some games are objectively not as bad, and as a critic, someone should be able to recognize that. Kingdom Come getting a 20/100 means that Slant thinks it got 80% of everything it did wrong, and it objectively didn't. Something's wrong with your evaluation system when the lowest score after yours is 20 points higher than yours, and the average score is 56 points higher than yours.



G O O D B O I

Around the Network
Azzanation said:
pitzy272 said:

I’m not sure where all these “high” scores are that you’re referencing. The only truly “high” score is the 90 from that Xbox site. You might be able to argue that an 86 is “high”, but every other score is an 82 or lower, which makes them mid-level scores at best.

The rest of your post is just not worth responding to. Don’t know why you’re so desperate to defend this game. If you enjoy it, just enjoy it. 

High scores are indicated in green, average scores are indicated in yellow and bad scores are indicated in red. You are the perfect example of the modern gamer who only accepts 9s as a high score. 9 is closer to perfect, anything 8 and above is considered high which this game is getting aswell.

The bigger question to you is why are you trying to downplay a game i can safely bet you havnt played? Does the score really matter to you?

The word Metacritic uses to define green-highlighted scores is “positive”, not “high.” But spin it however you want. And idk why you keep ranting about this “modern gamer” concept. And you’re basing your assessment of me off of nothing. One of my favorite games this gen has a MC of 83, and another favorite has a 79. And you’re confusing downplaying with my correcting you. A lot of your comments in this thread either make no sense or are just incorrect. But I should have just let it go. You’re obviously very defensive about SoT, and I get that to a degree when it’s a game you really like. Anyway, this is the last response I’ll give. This back and forth isn’t worth it. 



pitzy272 said:
Azzanation said:

High scores are indicated in green, average scores are indicated in yellow and bad scores are indicated in red. You are the perfect example of the modern gamer who only accepts 9s as a high score. 9 is closer to perfect, anything 8 and above is considered high which this game is getting aswell.

The bigger question to you is why are you trying to downplay a game i can safely bet you havnt played? Does the score really matter to you?

The word Metacritic uses to define green-highlighted scores is “positive”, not “high.” But spin it however you want. And idk why you keep ranting about this “modern gamer” concept. And you’re basing your assessment of me off of nothing. One of my favorite games this gen has a MC of 83, and another favorite has a 79. And you’re confusing downplaying with my correcting you. A lot of your comments in this thread either make no sense or are just incorrect. But I should have just let it go. You’re obviously very defensive about SoT, and I get that to a degree when it’s a game you really like. Anyway, this is the last response I’ll give. This back and forth isn’t worth it. 

So you are saying an 8 is not a high score? Haha right.

Like usual, if they cannot debate there own posts than its best to retreat. 

Also i dont care for Metacritic i just find it funny gamers are willing to jump on something based off a figure than there actual experience.

Enjoy.