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

Forums - Nintendo - X Play - Tenchu 4 - 2 stars !!!!!!!!!!!!

blazinhead89 said:
X-Play can go F themselves, They dis PS3 owners and Wii all the time. So pro 360 >_>

Yup... they even managed to diss PS3 members during the KZ2 review, in which they said that "PS3 owners finally have something to buy now"

Fuck them, and fuck their 2/5 for Tenchu. It deserves much better, and IGN sees this.

 



Around the Network
rajendra82 said:

I wanted to take another look at XPlay Wii reviews instead of just the latest 9, so I went ahead and compiled a chart of all of their Wii reviews to date against Metacritic average.  Here is the results:

  (Graphic deleted to save space)

 

Pretty clearly a logical system as far as I can see.  They don't keep their scores between 40 and 100 as most others do but tend to give the bad games 20.  May be different, but certainly not biased.

 

I would love to see a temporal element added to this discussion. Because it seems that the distortion bias has increased disprorotionately in recent months. In other words, the more recent reviews have been lower.

Mike from Morgantown

 



      


I am Mario.


I like to jump around, and would lead a fairly serene and aimless existence if it weren't for my friends always getting into trouble. I love to help out, even when it puts me at risk. I seem to make friends with people who just can't stay out of trouble.

Wii Friend Code: 1624 6601 1126 1492

NNID: Mike_INTV

I stopped watching X play reviews ages ago when I realized I didn't agree with 1 review that they made(could be because of content or number or both).



Grampy said:
rajendra82 said:
Grampy said:
rajendra82 said:
Grampy said:

I decided to take a look at X-Play Scores versus the MetaCritic Average. I took their list of Latest Games. Out of the 35 games listed, X-Play reviewed 9. The table lists the MetaCritic Score, the IGN score, the X-Play Score, the difference between X-Play and MetaCritic and whether or not X-Play gave the lowest score of all reviews.

 

MetaCritic

IGN

X-Play

Xp/Meta

Lowest

Mushroom Men

73

79

40

-33

yes

Rygar:BA

54

61

20

-34

yes

Tenchu:SA

74

80

40

-34

yes

RRRabbids:TP

73

70

80

+7

-

Castlevania J

47

75

20

-27

-1

Skate It

71

85

80

+8

-

Anim. Cross:CF

73

75

80

+7

-

TalesSymph:DNW

69

67

40

-29

yes

Average

67

74

50

-17

 

The result wasn't quite what I expected which was a constant bias. Not true, but instead something I  consider even worse. X-Play seems to treat Wii games in one of two ways. If they like it they give a very reasonable, even slightly generous score. If they don't like a game they stick it with an absurdly low score, about 30 points off average and with a single exception, the lowest score of all reviewers. In that single exception they were next to the lowest.

I think this is a deliberate effort to completely trash the MetaCritic average on any game they dislike. That really sucks. When I was a kid we called this torpedoing and even then we knew it was a lousy unfair thing to do.

THIS IS WORSE THAN BIAS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FACTOR IN A CONSTANT ADJUSTMENT, YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER THEY ARE ACTUALLY REVIEWING THE GAME OR JUST PLAIN F**KING IT OVER. 

I wonder if they do this to PS360 games as well. I leave that for someone else.

UPDATE: OK, I couldn't stand so I took a quick look at PS3 and XBox 360 for signs of the same pattern. Looking at all low scoring games (yellow or red), X-Play reviews were consistent or slightly higher than MetaCritic. Apparently this SCREW JOB is reserved exclusively for the Wii. Way to go X-Play.

I understand why X-Play scores games the way they do.  The HD games are sometimes good looking and sometimes not, so they get noticed for that, and then you find out other things about them, like gameplay.  The Wii games are generally plain looking, so the only thing to note are gameplay issues.  Therefore X-play tends to break out the Wii games into two seprate camps, good games (4 and 5stars) and bad games (1 or 2 stars) based on what they think of the gameplay.  Whereas with HD games you can potentially have four camps, good looking and good gamplay (5 stars) , good looking and bad gameplay (2 to 4 stars) , bad looking but good gameplay (2 to 4 stars), and bad looking and bad gameplay (1 star).  Naturally the HD games fall more on a spectrum, whereas Wii games are either in the love it or hate it categories.  X-Play review format being limited to a couple minutes on TV exaggerates the issues they notice and makes the scores vary more wildly than they would in a print or web format.

Why would the same criteria not apply to IGN? Or at least some other reviewer. If you really believe that being the absolute lowest score out of all the reviewers 5 out of 9 games and usually by a grotesque margin constitutes some rational system of judging ... well fine. What can I say, somewhere someone will believe almost anything. There are people that actually believe that George Bush will go down in history as a great president.

Here is a graph comparing the data in the post.  As you can see when the game is not good both IGN's and X-Play's rating go down,and when it's good both go up, but IGN's don't go way up and down like X-Play's do.  Both sites show a trend and a logic to scoring games.  It's just different way of scoring between IGN and X-Play.  I don't see it as an intentional bias, but as an inherent result of the two very different systems of scoring.

 

Plot X-Play's review scores for XBox360 and PS3 in comparison and tell me there is no bias.

 

 

 

There is no bias.



rajendra82 said:

 There is no bias.

A very nice job but you missed my whole point. I never said the X-Play was consistently lower on their Wii scores than MetaCritic. As I mentioned, on the games they like, they tend to actually score higher that the average and they have given a reasonable number of the top games 100.

What I dislike is the odd pattern where a game is Great, Very Good, Good, or we score it so low that it is buried forever. They have way too many, expecially recently, scores that are so far off average that they are unreasonabe. Any individual critique that is 30 points below average on a 100% scale should be subject to scrutiny. They also should be infrequent. A 30% rate, which they have in the latest 35 games is unreasonable especially when they do not tend to EVER do the same thing in other consoles.

 Obviously you could score half the games 30 pts below average and if you scored the other half 30 points above your graph would show no bias but then every review would be highly questionable. My challenge still stands. In gathering your data, how many games did you find for the XBox360 or the PS3 where X-Play was 30 or more points off average? Any? Anything close to 30%?



Around the Network
Grampy said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
Grampy said:

Plot X-Play's review scores for XBox360 and PS3 in comparison and tell me there is no bias.

What would it take for X-Play not to be biased?  The same average review score for all consoles?

That would make no sense as the same games aren't being released for all consoles.

 

 Some reviewers score higher and lower than the average and that's fine. But then we would hope to see somewhat the same high or low pattern across other consoles. Metacritic is the average score given by multiple sources with different scoring systems. This average, imperfect as it is, gives us an approximate baseline of the consensus. Sometimes a specific reviewer will be way different from this average. This particular game just pissed him off or rang all his chimes. That happens, but an individual review 30 points off average should al least be infrequent and the incidence should show some balance between platforms.

When you look at X-Play and 30% of their reviews for the Wii are 30 points below average and yet their reviews for XBox and PS3 are never that far off average then I call that bias.

It's not a question of them being totally anti-Wii. In the games they liked they actually tended to be slightly more generous than the average and they have given Wii games 100 (5 stars) it's just that in ALL the games they didn't like, they didn't just score them low, they didn't just score them lower than the average, they scored them waaaaaaaaaaaay below the average and they scored them lower than ANY other reviewer. I think this is unprofessional but I would dismiss it if they did the same thing to other consoles but they don't.

If this isn't a consistent pattern of bias then I don't know what would be.

You know, I find it utterly fascinating how some people see what they want to see and only what they want to see.

I also think most of the problems you have consist of X-Play having a 5 point scale which translates into no 7s or 9s (I don't remember X-Play giving halves back when I used to watch it).  Look closely at that chart above at the metacritic scores and look at the cluster of games in the 60-80 range to see what I mean.



Here is an interesting figure. In the most recent games on MetaCritic (the ones listed in the center).
Wii games scored 25 or more points lower than the average = 5

XBox360 and Ps3 games scored 25 points or more below average = 0
XBox360 and Ps3 games scored 10 points or more below average = 0

Not one single HD game was scored more than 8 points above or below the MetaCritic average where 50% of Wii games were scored 25 pts or more below average.

I don't really need a statistical analysis to see a problem here.



My point was that X-Play scores on a scale of 1 throgh 5 stars with no half scores.  The lowest 7.5% of the Wii games have gotten 1 star which is translated as a score of 20.  If you look at Metacritic average for the lowest 7.5% of the Wii games that are also reviewed by X-Play, the average score is about 42 (they are not the same games, but you get the point).  Therefore if a game is bad, X-Play, because of the way their scoring system is set up, will likely rate it 22 points below Metacritic average.  Conversley, they have rated the highest 7.5% of Wii games 5 stars, which is a score of 100, Metacritic average for the highest 7.5% games is 93, therefore X-Play will likely rate the highest games 7 points above Metacritic average score.  It's because of the wasy the scores are set up.

This is different than what I was initially thinking with Wii games being two camps and HD more of a spectrum.  That was just speculation, this is data.

As to why the Wii games scoring less than Metacritic average lately, there is a simple ans more innocent explation than X-Play trying to sabotage the Wii.  The games on the Wii lately have been below average in general, and those games are precisely where X-Play will below Meacritic average because they will hand out 1 and 2 stars while the averages will be 40% and 55% for the same games.



Grampy said:
Here is an interesting figure. In the most recent games on MetaCritic (the ones listed in the center).
Wii games scored 25 or more points lower than the average = 5

XBox360 and Ps3 games scored 25 points or more below average = 0
XBox360 and Ps3 games scored 10 points or more below average = 0

Not one single HD game was scored more than 8 points above or below the MetaCritic average where 50% of Wii games were scored 25 pts or more below average.

I don't really need a statistical analysis to see a problem here.

Why would you restrict yourself to recent games only.  Among the PS3 full list, here are several examples of what you seek:

  MetaCritic X-Play Xp - Meta
Darkness, The 80 40 -40
Top Spin 3 75 40 -35
FaceBreaker 53 20 -33
Dark Sector 72 40 -32
Hail to the Chimp 51 20 -31
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed 70 40 -30
Full Auto 2: Battlelines 67 40 -27
 

Don't worry X-Play are so pro-microsoft...