Topic: Metacritic 🤔

Could we have a serious yet cordial discussion about Metacritic?

Over the last year or so we've seen some pretty dubious scoring handed out to PlayStation games from a small minority of sources. These scores often come with the most bizarre reasoning.

VGC for example gave GT7 a 7/10 because it didn't like the menus, while GameByte gave it a 7/10 claiming 'It is hard to recommend unless you like cars'. 🤨

Stevivor took to Twitter to complain that he wasn't given a review code for HFW before scoring it a dubious 6/10. This is a site that's quite well known for handing out low scores to PlayStation games. (They had previously scored Death Stranding 3/10)

SIFU and Returnal were given very low scores by a number of sources who claimed they were 'too difficult'. 🤨

It's seems pretty clear that some game journalists are not as professional as others.

It's left many people wondering if there is actually some kind of targeted attempt to peg back PlayStation's overall Metacritic scores this generation.

Microsoft doesn't seem to be having similar problems, in fact they scored the all time highest Metacritic average in 2021.

Do people have an opinion on this?
Is there some kind of agenda at play or have Sony simply set their own bar so high that they've become a victim of their own success?

No. This is laughable conspiracy theory level stuff. Xbox fans had the exact same complaints last gen because they saw the critical acclaim PS exclusives were getting. And before that, there were people going on about Nintendo getting favourable reviews. If everybody’s got problems with Metacritic then they can hardly be biased. Considering the threats of violence that video game journalists have faced over the last few years for daring to slight somebody’s favourite game, do you really think they would just give out a low score for sh*ts and giggles? VGC gave GT7 3 stars, which means ‘good’, because they, in their own opinion, weren’t that convinced that the gameplay cycle of navigating menus between races was that exciting. Which is their opinion that they’re entitled to. Questioning journalists’ professionality is a bit silly, if you think you can do better then you either start your own website and prove that you deserve review code, or you apply for positions at these sites and realise that this is a thankless job where nobody wins and doesn’t even pay very well.

I think the issue you’re hinting at is actually that a combined metascore is simply just that, a weighted average and not the defacto measure of a game’s quality. It’s just a measure of review scores. I’ve never been sure why people think of it like some kind of master one score to rule them all.

Personally, I’d remove the outliers on every games collection of critic reviews from the equation. I’d discount the top 5 and bottom 5 reviews and then take the average from the remainder, just my two cents.

Also, I’ve heard that stevivor have been blackballed since their Horizon Forbidden West review. Not sure that is the answer in fairness.

Okay, I actually think about scores a lot. The problem is that we try to compare say Journey and Elden Ring based on a 1-10 rating (which metacritic averages) and deem one to be better based on that with hilarious results.

The thing is, it’s very subjectvely based on what you like, but people want to get a score that tells them if it’ll be good FOR THEM.

The good part is we have statistical methods which make subjective things objective. In this case I think the 1-10 number should be a weighted average of the various aspects of a game (graphics, challenge, innovation, etc), and most importantly the weights should be provided by the user. So when I see CoD it’ll score like 4-5, but someone else will see it score 9-10. Because what they look for (popular multiplayer shooter) is different than me (single player math-y experience).

Once that is established personas can be used to build archetypes that fit groups of users based on the way they set their weights/preferences. That will improve the UX of the websites by offering “pre-set”s that match what people want, and will help actual game manufacturing by telling them what people think is important to them.

@antdickens looking forward to seeing you implement the above on this site in the near future

@Mega-Gazz surely it would be easier to remove scores and solely rely on reading the text, if you wanted something with deeper personal connection? Much easier to implement too.

@Fragile Not to mention there’s different scales involved. OP mentions a VGC review which isn’t a 7/10, it’s a 3 star review. Which is very different. And then a lot of the traditional newspaper movie reviews were 4 star reviews, with half stars increments. It’s almost as if people should read reviews that people have spent time and effort writing, instead of jumping to the score.

@antdickens naw, the text is subjective from the author’s perspective, rather than the reader. Also people want a quick score and this gives it to them.

@Mega-Gazz The point should be that people who want quick scores are stupid. It’s disrespectful to both the people who write reviews for a living and put their heart and soul into it and also the people who make the games.

This sort of thing is why I hate websites that assign singular aggregated review scores. They foster a sort of hive mentality where reviewers with outlier opinions are punished, or at least regarded with hostility and skepticism, for skewing the average.

Anyway, to speak frankly, no, the idea that multiple outlets are working in tandem to deliberately lower the metascores of Playstation games is embarrassingly silly. Playstation exclusives are no more entitled to high review scores than any other sort of games.

😆😆
If you game more, you'll be enjoying something you like to do, and you'll have less time to worry about reviewers opinion's.

I don't care what Metacritic said.
Games are very subjective, peoples can be biased with certain games.
If I think certain games are good then I will play it regardless of what Metacritic said.

TBH, The only time I think a review is dumb is when they just go from a review, to like some rant or something, and it stops being a review, the spyro review that said buzz was a hard fight, my problem wasn't that they thought it was hard (Even tho its sooo dead easy) Its that the review turned into a rant, and not a review.

There are other things that annoy me, like that one dude that couldn't even pass cupheads tutorial, I know opinions and everything, but I would like a review to help with me thinking if the game is worth it or not, so there is no way I can take the review for real.

Now Metacritic itself, well, its in the name, If people say stuff about it your free to disagree but its still there opinion, thats all metacritic is a big bundle of opinions, so this "Theory" of yours is sorta, eh, er, silly.

I’d just add, because I’m not sure anyone else here has mentioned, is that Metacritic weights it’s scores… it’s not quite a simple average. So a more trusted site will get a much heavier weighting than say a new site or a YouTuber. In makes sense in theory, as to why they are trying to improve their system, but personally that complicates it further as the maths isn’t transparent. I’m not sure if OpenCritic do it much differently (I believe they are more transparent) but at the end of the day it should always just be treated as a basic average score and not a strict yard stick. Always amazes me that some companies give employees bonuses based on their games metacritic score.

Try to look at it this way: some reviews you might disagree with, some might not be helpful at all, but who knows maybe they'll be interesting to someone else.
Deathloop was a game beloved by many reviewers, but some didn't like it. When I played the game myself I found I agreed with the minority. Now I was the one with the outlier opinion.

Just find a few reviewers you trust and who share your tastes instead of looking at Metasites. 🌞

@nessisonett Yl
I agree that threats of any kind are completely unacceptable however you absolutely can question the professionalism of Journalism, not just in gaming but as a whole. Sadly in the gaming sector we're seeing a rise of click bait articles which seem to be there for no other reason than to stoke fanboyism.

The only thing I find useful with Metacritic is that you get a 'good' overview of the critical opinions of the industry as a whole. A game that is generally well received will have a 'high' proportion of scores at the higher end so if its getting '90' or above, it doesn't matter if a few didn't enjoy their time, the vast majority did.

A game with an 'average' of say 80 can still have some 10/10 scores but overall, the 'general' consensus of critical opinion would seem to indicate that its about an 8/10 - which is still a 'great' game.

Certain aspects of any game are going to be very preference based and in 'reading' their review, you can generally determine if your preferences align. Racing games can vary a LOT - from very Arcade like racing to very serious, much more 'Sim' based racing so preference may affect the overall impression. I know from experience too that 'little' issues become much more apparent when you are not so 'engaged' in the story/game-play. You notice little issues a LOT more.

At the end of the day, Metacritic averages out the critical reviews to get an 'overview' of the responses. Some may well 'love' the games, the devs or even 'platform' its made for and their opinion is no less valid than those that disliked the games. Overall, its an 'average' score. Fans of GT7 will buy it and love it - but not 'every' PS gamer is a Racing game fan so would they rate it a '10/10' or maybe one may feel its not that different from any other Racing Game so an Average '7/10' and can't really play offline - the Menu's or Car love this game has are incidental to their scoring...

I find Metacritic to be a useful website. When I see a game being discussed that I know nothing about. I can easily look it up find reviews to tell me about it and get a red green amber on what the consensuses is.

Going beyond weather reviews are favourable unfavourable or mixed and treating it like a definitive list of what is better than what is probably not helpful.

Reading of the linked reviews ‘particularly if they come from site I recognise like push-square’ gives me a better idea of whether the game will be my kind of thing than the aggregated score.

I do believe that the majority of reviewers will score a game based on their experience.
Meta critic is weighted, so a site like IGN giving out scores is far more important than Stevior.

Yes Xbox was voted best publisher for last year, but Sony finished 2nd. Nintendo was like 14th I believe- behind the likes of EA & Activision, so it literally makes no sense to me.

Having said that I do value metacritic & review scores from sites I follow. There are a lot of great games, but I do believe that the cream always rises to the top. There’s only so much time someone can dedicate to a luxury hobby.

I think more and more games journalists are rating games on their highly subjective personal reasons instead of doing their job and rating games objectively.
Games getting perfect 10s when they are clearly flawed and the reviewers actually comment on the flaws but still go on to give it a 10.
Games getting scored low because of one weird thing like they didn't like the genre, or subject of the story.
These people are meant to be objective but most of them are just not journalists going off what I have read over the last 5 years and getting worse over time.