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

Forums - Nintendo - Shame on you if you didn't buy Madworld. You need to reconsider.

Video_Game_Critic said:
dougsdad0629 said:

Funny how so many Wii users are so willing to heap praise all over the Conduit (which I hated) which has a metacritic score of 70, yet most of those same people put down Madworld with a metacritic score of 81.

Why do I care what metacritic thinks?  I like "The Conduit" and I do not like "Madworld".

Metacritic is a collection of all reviews.  The general concensus (among reviewers) is that Madworld is significantly better than the Conduit.  Obviously, your mileage may vary.



Keep this in mind when reading what I type...

I've been gaming longer than many of you have been alive.

Around the Network
dougsdad0629 said:
Video_Game_Critic said:
dougsdad0629 said:

Funny how so many Wii users are so willing to heap praise all over the Conduit (which I hated) which has a metacritic score of 70, yet most of those same people put down Madworld with a metacritic score of 81.

Why do I care what metacritic thinks?  I like "The Conduit" and I do not like "Madworld".

Metacritic is a collection of all reviews.  The general concensus (among reviewers) is that Madworld is significantly better than the Conduit.  Obviously, your mileage may vary.


Many people disagree with professional reviewers, though. I mean, in the end, it's just a gathering of some people's opinions. They shouldn't in any way define your own personal opinion, the game should do that for you. So again, what does it matter what Metacritic says?



cant you see? its all about da internets



                                                                           

dougsdad0629 said:
Video_Game_Critic said:
dougsdad0629 said:

Funny how so many Wii users are so willing to heap praise all over the Conduit (which I hated) which has a metacritic score of 70, yet most of those same people put down Madworld with a metacritic score of 81.

Why do I care what metacritic thinks?  I like "The Conduit" and I do not like "Madworld".

Metacritic is a collection of all reviews.  The general concensus (among reviewers) is that Madworld is significantly better than the Conduit.  Obviously, your mileage may vary.


its all about personal preference. so maybe those people like fps' more than action/adventure games. maybe they just hate Madworld (as you hate The Conduit). reviews are just opinion. which is why most people dont care for "professional" reviews.



                                                                                                  

I don't put much stock in any 1 particular professional review over another. However, when you group them all together and achieve an "average" of sorts as metacritic does, I believe that stands for something. 1 sample means little. Multiple samples get you closer to accuracy.



Keep this in mind when reading what I type...

I've been gaming longer than many of you have been alive.

Around the Network
dougsdad0629 said:
I don't put much stock in any 1 particular professional review over another. However, when you group them all together and achieve an "average" of sorts as metacritic does, I believe that stands for something. 1 sample means little. Multiple samples get you closer to accuracy.

Personally, I believe it's the other way around. One review can give me a great idea of what the game is, if I have some sort of relationship to the person writing the review. On an aggregated score, that personal connection gets lost, and it's impossible to make any qualifying statements about the game. That's how I see it, anyway.



This is invisible text!

May be too short, but some of the best 5 hours in gaming haha. Better than Gears of War's 5 hours of single player haha.

If you are looking for a game on the Wii then I'd say this is a must. But if it isn't a necessity right now then I'm sure waiting til a price drop won't kill you.



Killergran said:
dougsdad0629 said:
I don't put much stock in any 1 particular professional review over another. However, when you group them all together and achieve an "average" of sorts as metacritic does, I believe that stands for something. 1 sample means little. Multiple samples get you closer to accuracy.

Personally, I believe it's the other way around. One review can give me a great idea of what the game is, if I have some sort of relationship to the person writing the review. On an aggregated score, that personal connection gets lost, and it's impossible to make any qualifying statements about the game. That's how I see it, anyway.

That's a very interesting way to look at it.  I'm just thinking of statistics (which I use at work).  One data point on a graph is statistically insignificant.  The more data points you add, the more accurate your graph.  There are outliers here and there, but the majority of the points should fall relatively close to one another.



Keep this in mind when reading what I type...

I've been gaming longer than many of you have been alive.

dougsdad0629 said:

That's a very interesting way to look at it.  I'm just thinking of statistics (which I use at work).  One data point on a graph is statistically insignificant.  The more data points you add, the more accurate your graph.  There are outliers here and there, but the majority of the points should fall relatively close to one another.

=) I studied statistics last term. I can feel the same from time to time. But I also know that when certain people say things about games, I can trust that their opinion will be, or not be, in line with what I myself would experience.

Average scores are very good indicators of a games general appeal or quality, but say absolutely nothing about the subjective experience. I guess you can say the best is when you can have both.

 



This is invisible text!

I will buy Madworld used at a discount price that is much fairer for the content you get.