By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - God of War review thread - Meta: 94 OC: 95

Intrinsic on 17 April 2018
VGPolyglot said:
Intrinsic said:

And you have totally missed the point....... unless of course you were replying to him and not me.... even then your reply would still be off, albeit less so.

I'm saying that I want an overall view of what the average rating was, I don't want some reviews to weigh heavily over others because that makes it so that we're essentially being told which reviews are important. It's especially a conflict of interest when Gamestop and Giant Bomb are owned by the same people that own Metacritic.

Ok fair enough. But that doesn't detract from what I(or we) are saying though.

If ou want an overall view of what the average rating was, wouldn't you want that view to be at the very least accurate?

Here's another scenario. Say for instance there is a site called true reviews and has 120 certified gaming publications (they can't all be owned by one person). Spanning across websites and youtube channels dedicated to gaming. All vetted and having a long standing track history and pedigree. All actually get review copies of games from publishers because they aren't blacklisted for doing stupid things like breaking embargos or detracting from review guidelines and spoiling stuff. and that site has an average of 95 for a game.

Then another called quick reviews that has all of the above but is open to everyone else that reviews the game. Even those that just buy a copy at launch then review it after 10hrs. And that site scores it a 70.

Which will you take more seriously?



Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 17 April 2018
Intrinsic said:
VGPolyglot said:

I'm saying that I want an overall view of what the average rating was, I don't want some reviews to weigh heavily over others because that makes it so that we're essentially being told which reviews are important. It's especially a conflict of interest when Gamestop and Giant Bomb are owned by the same people that own Metacritic.

Ok fair enough. But that doesn't detract from what I(or we) are saying though.

If ou want an overall view of what the average rating was, wouldn't you want that view to be at the very least accurate?

Here's another scenario. Say for instance there is a site called true reviews and has 120 certified gaming publications (they can't all be owned by one person). Spanning across websites and youtube channels dedicated to gaming. All vetted and having a long standing track history and pedigree. All actually get review copies of games from publishers because they aren't blacklisted for doing stupid things like breaking embargos or detracting from review guidelines and spoiling stuff. and that site has an average of 95 for a game.

Then another called quick reviews that has all of the above but is open to everyone else that reviews the game. Even those that just buy a copy at launch then review it after 10hrs. And that site scores it a 70.

Which will you take more seriously?

Metacritic already has vetting though, it doesn't allow every site to have their scores up there (VGC being an example), so I don't think it's an issue.



pitzy272 on 17 April 2018
VGPolyglot said:
Intrinsic said:

Ok fair enough. But that doesn't detract from what I(or we) are saying though.

If ou want an overall view of what the average rating was, wouldn't you want that view to be at the very least accurate?

Here's another scenario. Say for instance there is a site called true reviews and has 120 certified gaming publications (they can't all be owned by one person). Spanning across websites and youtube channels dedicated to gaming. All vetted and having a long standing track history and pedigree. All actually get review copies of games from publishers because they aren't blacklisted for doing stupid things like breaking embargos or detracting from review guidelines and spoiling stuff. and that site has an average of 95 for a game.

Then another called quick reviews that has all of the above but is open to everyone else that reviews the game. Even those that just buy a copy at launch then review it after 10hrs. And that site scores it a 70.

Which will you take more seriously?

Metacritic already has vetting though, it doesn't allow every site to have their scores up there (VGC being an example), so I don't think it's an issue.

It is an issue. Did you see the beginning of this conversation? We’re talking about a site (Quarter to Three) that consistently gives scores 30-70 points below the average Metacritic. How do you not see that as an issue?



VGPolyglot on 17 April 2018
pitzy272 said:
VGPolyglot said:

Metacritic already has vetting though, it doesn't allow every site to have their scores up there (VGC being an example), so I don't think it's an issue.

It is an issue. Did you see the beginning of this conversation? We’re talking about a site (Quarter to Three) that consistently gives scores 30-70 points below the average Metacritic. How do you not see that as an issue?

Quarter to Three hasn't even reviewed the game yet.



pitzy272 on 17 April 2018
VGPolyglot said:
pitzy272 said:

It is an issue. Did you see the beginning of this conversation? We’re talking about a site (Quarter to Three) that consistently gives scores 30-70 points below the average Metacritic. How do you not see that as an issue?

Quarter to Three hasn't even reviewed the game yet.

Yes. I’m aware of that. That’s what we’re discussing—that QtT could cock it up for GoW’s 95 score bc they like to troll highly rated games by giving scores far below the avg. 60 for TLoU (MC 95), 60 for Horizon (MC 89), 20 for Forza Horizon 2 (MC 86), and there are NUMEROUS other examples that people have listed earlier in this thread. 



Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 18 April 2018
pitzy272 said:
VGPolyglot said:

Quarter to Three hasn't even reviewed the game yet.

Yes. I’m aware of that. That’s what we’re discussing—that QtT could cock it up for GoW’s 95 score bc they like to troll highly rated games by giving scores far below the avg. 60 for TLoU (MC 95), 60 for Horizon (MC 89), 20 for Forza Horizon 2 (MC 86), and there are NUMEROUS other examples that people have listed earlier in this thread. 

But even if they give the game a lower score, what is the issue? Is a 94 going to make the game unplayable compared to a 95? Metacritic doesn't even say how they weigh each individual site to my knowledge so there is no transparency in that regard.



HyrulianScrolls on 18 April 2018
John2290 said:
ClassicGamingWizzz said:
95 these days is a 98 from 15 years ago :P

Would that make 98 these days the 101 from 15 years ago?  ;P

Haha. It makes 98 these days pretty much impossible, as BOTW proved. 



pitzy272 on 18 April 2018
VGPolyglot said:
pitzy272 said:

Yes. I’m aware of that. That’s what we’re discussing—that QtT could cock it up for GoW’s 95 score bc they like to troll highly rated games by giving scores far below the avg. 60 for TLoU (MC 95), 60 for Horizon (MC 89), 20 for Forza Horizon 2 (MC 86), and there are NUMEROUS other examples that people have listed earlier in this thread. 

But even if they give the game a lower score, what is the issue? Is a 94 going to make the game unplayable compared to a 95? Metacritic doesn't even say how they weigh each individual site to my knowledge so there is no transparency in that regard.

Why ask a silly question? People wanting a game they’re excited for to review well is not new. And 95 versus 94 is the difference between something unprecedented for a ps4/XBO game this gen and something that’s been previously achieved. 



VGPolyglot on 18 April 2018
pitzy272 said:
VGPolyglot said:

But even if they give the game a lower score, what is the issue? Is a 94 going to make the game unplayable compared to a 95? Metacritic doesn't even say how they weigh each individual site to my knowledge so there is no transparency in that regard.

Why ask a silly question? People wanting a game they’re excited for to review well is not new. And 95 versus 94 is the difference between something unprecedented for a ps4/XBO game this gen and something that’s been previously achieved. 

But 94 is still very high, it's not like that's a horrible score. It's a one percentage-point difference.



Faelco on 18 April 2018
VGPolyglot said:
pitzy272 said:

Why ask a silly question? People wanting a game they’re excited for to review well is not new. And 95 versus 94 is the difference between something unprecedented for a ps4/XBO game this gen and something that’s been previously achieved. 

But 94 is still very high, it's not like that's a horrible score. It's a one percentage-point difference.

It's not really the issue IMO. Imagine a niche game with less reviews, like 20 and a very good 90 score. And then this guy arrives and give it a 20 just for trolling sake. This would make a 86. And for a niche game that people will see for the first time on MC, 4 points can make the difference between "Wow, I don't know it but great score, I should try it" and "Bah, so much games around 85-86...". So a game could lose sales because some random internet hater is accepted on MC. The weighing is important to keep real reviewers more meaningful. Otherwise we could just read the user's reviews...

 

Obviously the best thing would be for MC to do their job more seriously and kick that thing out of there.