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

Forums - Gaming - German Mag Claims Ubisoft DEMANDED High Score for AC2 Review!!

Beint outed like this fucks a dev or game over more so then they think. Think about it, how credible are any 9(+) reviews that are out now? Aren't those scores bought?! Might Computer bild spiele be the only mag thatgives a fair score?!

I'd say that all sites and mags should just oust all devs from here on out and hope that this incredibly retarded practice stops as soon as possible.



The Doctor will see you now  Promoting Lesbianism -->

                              

Around the Network

Gta4 was probably a main culprit of this. I mean really, this game has a 98 on metacritic currently. It should have a 90...



Currently own:

 

  • Ps4

 

Currently playing: Witcher 3, Walking Dead S1/2, GTA5, Dying Light, Tomb Raider Remaster, MGS Ground Zeros

And this is why I hate people using reviews to judge the worth of a game. Reviews are made by another person who can be easily be just as fair or as biased at the same time. Plus, people are easily subjugated and influentiated to better fulfill some agendas.
In the gaming business, almost all developers know that a good review score can easily mean more sales for their game, so it's no wonder that more and more cases like these come out.

I think gamers should only judge a game based on it's worth and whether they want it or not, not let anyone else tell you what the game's worth or if you should buy it or not. One of my favourite games of all time has like a 67% rating in most sites, yet to me, it's one of the best experiences ever.

Let this article be an eye-opener or a warning for you who judge a game based on what other people tell you.



Current PC Build

CPU - i7 8700K 3.7 GHz (4.7 GHz turbo) 6 cores OC'd to 5.2 GHz with Watercooling (Hydro Series H110i) | MB - Gigabyte Z370 HD3P ATX | Gigabyte GTX 1080ti Gaming OC BLACK 11G (1657 MHz Boost Core / 11010 MHz Memory) | RAM - Corsair DIMM 32GB DDR4, 2400 MHz | PSU - Corsair CX650M (80+ Bronze) 650W | Audio - Asus Essence STX II 7.1 | Monitor - Samsung U28E590D 4K UHD, Freesync, 1 ms, 60 Hz, 28"

Riachu said:
The issues is that unlike movie reviews, video game reviews actually affect the sale's of a game.

It's even worse because most magazines and sites do not rely 100% on movie advertisements. For example, the New York Times probably gets only a few percent of their income from movie ads.

Most game magazines and sites rely nearly 100% on video game ads. Some of these companies would die if they got cut off from their biggest game advertisers.



Anyone can guess. It takes no effort to throw out lots of predictions and have some of them be correct. You are not and wiser or better for having your guesses be right. Even a blind man can hit the bullseye.

lestatdark said:
And this is why I hate people using reviews to judge the worth of a game. Reviews are made by another person who can be easily be just as fair or as biased at the same time. Plus, people are easily subjugated and influentiated to better fulfill some agendas.
In the gaming business, almost all developers know that a good review score can easily mean more sales for their game, so it's no wonder that more and more cases like these come out.

I think gamers should only judge a game based on it's worth and whether they want it or not, not let anyone else tell you what the game's worth or if you should buy it or not. One of my favourite games of all time has like a 67% rating in most sites, yet to me, it's one of the best experiences ever.

Let this article be an eye-opener or a warning for you who judge a game based on what other people tell you.

But most of the time I have found the metacritic rating to be correct

BTW what game is that 67% one?



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Around the Network

@Darth

Metacritic scores can be inflated artificially due to them having a Gausian Bell type of statistical count, as long as you push the final 5% of the scores, the entirity of the statistics will come along, the same goes for the first 5%. So, most of the times, that Gausian spread is artificially inflated or deflated until the scores even out, at that moment it doesn't actually matter much what scores are added, the statistics per se is tamponized.

The game that i'm referring is a PS game, The Grandstream Saga, it had a 6.7 in Gamespot and a 4/10 in RPGDreamer

http://www.gamespot.com/ps/rpg/granstreamsaga/index.html?tag=result;title;0
http://www.rpgdreamer.com/gs/gsrev1.html



Current PC Build

CPU - i7 8700K 3.7 GHz (4.7 GHz turbo) 6 cores OC'd to 5.2 GHz with Watercooling (Hydro Series H110i) | MB - Gigabyte Z370 HD3P ATX | Gigabyte GTX 1080ti Gaming OC BLACK 11G (1657 MHz Boost Core / 11010 MHz Memory) | RAM - Corsair DIMM 32GB DDR4, 2400 MHz | PSU - Corsair CX650M (80+ Bronze) 650W | Audio - Asus Essence STX II 7.1 | Monitor - Samsung U28E590D 4K UHD, Freesync, 1 ms, 60 Hz, 28"

lestatdark said:
@Darth

Metacritic scores can be inflated artificially due to them having a Gausian Bell type of statistical count, as long as you push the final 5% of the scores, the entirity of the statistics will come along, the same goes for the first 5%. So, most of the times, that Gausian spread is artificially inflated or deflated until the scores even out, at that moment it doesn't actually matter much what scores are added, the statistics per se is tamponized.

What? I don't understand at all.



@Slimebeast

Take for example a game that has the following scores:

90,85,90,85,90,90,90,95,90,90,85,90,90,90,100,100,95,90,100,90,85,90,80,85,90,85,90,90,90,100,100,100,95,95,95,90,80,85,85,80,90,90,100

If you average it (and that's 43 different scores) you'll get a 92,67 score. Even if you add, let's say, a 70 score, the score will be 92,15.

As you add scores that are kept to a normal pattern (and in my estimations I did too many variations so that my Gausian Curve was as wide as possible), it will come to a time that even adding a score that differs in a huge way from the normal pattern (the low 5% or the upper 5% of the scores), it's effects won't be felt too much.

This is what happens with reviews. As long as there are tons of 10's - 9's in a game score, you could have an odd out 8 or 7 score and it won't reflect as much on the final result, thus that score being "discredited" in the statistical analysis.



Current PC Build

CPU - i7 8700K 3.7 GHz (4.7 GHz turbo) 6 cores OC'd to 5.2 GHz with Watercooling (Hydro Series H110i) | MB - Gigabyte Z370 HD3P ATX | Gigabyte GTX 1080ti Gaming OC BLACK 11G (1657 MHz Boost Core / 11010 MHz Memory) | RAM - Corsair DIMM 32GB DDR4, 2400 MHz | PSU - Corsair CX650M (80+ Bronze) 650W | Audio - Asus Essence STX II 7.1 | Monitor - Samsung U28E590D 4K UHD, Freesync, 1 ms, 60 Hz, 28"

Not really a comment about the article as such but a thought about the need to get mid to high nineties scores.

It seems to me that this whole process is so hit and miss it almost depends on the type of game and how many sites will review how it ends up. A lot of sites still work scores of 1 - 10 with most not giving out the ten but hanging in with a 9. I you look at any game released recently that has been widely favourably reviewed you will see this.

It makes you wonder what sort of score Uncharted 2 would of received had the 1 - 10 been more flexible.



W.L.B.B. Member, Portsmouth Branch.

(Welsh(Folk) Living Beyond Borders)

Winner of the 2010 VGC Holiday sales prediction thread with an Average 1.6% accuracy rating. I am indeed awesome.

Kinect as seen by PS3 owners ...if you can pick at it   ...post it ... Did I mention the 360 was black and Shinny? Keeping Sigs obscure since 2007, Passed by the Sig police 5July10.

I wonder if they did this with every Magazine. "Bild" Magazines have a reputation for generating sales with their headlines and claims.



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’