@Denni5m
Itās always based on subjective opinion. Thereās no objectivity. Thatās the answer you will get if you criticise a review. Thatās why scores are bs.
I think a good way would be two parts reviews.
One part only based on facts
Second part based on the reviewer liking the game or not and how much.
First part should always be the most important in informing gamers about the game rather than informing gamers about the reviewer s feelings.
Unfortunately itās common even in news articles they mix opinion and facts completely blurring the lines.
Edit
I remember a few years ago an IGN reviewer told me having a āstrongā opinion is seen as a quality. Thatās what they go for. š
The crowd, accepting this immediately, assumed the anti-Eurasian posters and banners everywhere were the result of acts of sabotage by agents of Goldstein and ripped them from the walls.
First, a lot of people don't know that it uses weighted averages rather than true means, and nobody knows exactly how it's weighted so there's an air of secrecy to the whole thing that doesn't quite sit well with me.
But then you get the much bigger issue - not all media outlets use the same scoring policy, but Metacritic treats it like they do. So like, for example, in an IGN review, as long as the game doesn't crawl out of your console and stab you in the throat you're pretty much guaranteed a 6 or 7. They're known for being lenient reviewers where an 8 means it's a good game, and a 7 is average. You'll rarely see a big blockbuster score lower than that.
And that's fine as long as it's consistent. If you know that a 7 means average and it always means average then you can use that as reliably as a site that thinks 5 is average.
Here we regularly make use of the entire 10 point scale, and a 5 is average. So when I made everyone cry with my 6/10 Alan Wake review you could kinda see where the babies were coming from - for me, following our scale, a 6 is literally Not Bad, which I think is fair for a review of a game in which the combat - 60% of the game - is dated and repetitive but the story and atmosphere is great. But for people raised on lenient reviews a 6 seems like a hatchet job.
All of this then ties into the Metacritic score in which you've got a 6 from here and a 6 from IGN counting kinda the same in the average except IGN is weighted differently to here so it's not quite and also if they gave it a 6 like we did then it probably means they liked it less than we did since they're more lenient and oh no I've gone cross eyed
It's a whole thing.
But the only reason any of that matters is because Metacritic is basically only used as a fanboy weapon. Like does it matter whether a game is an 80 or an 81 or a 78? They're all basically the same score. If we used the info like that and moved on then none of this would matter. But that's not what happens. The fanboys need their games to score high and they need the ones for the console they don't like to score low and woe betide anyone who messes with that. The true purpose of Metacritic was lost long ago. And now, honestly, it's a net negative for the industry because of it.
So I don't know how I feel about it. It's weird, and secretive, and it fuels fanboy wars. But it's obviously useful as a tool for normal people to see roughly how critically acclaimed a game is at a glance.
Yeah I use metacritic (as I also use IMDb) as a barometer and 70 tends to be the āpassā mark I use for whether Iāll try a game or not. So in fairness, it would be pretty rare that an outlier would effect the overall in a way that it would effect my chances of playing it.
@johncalmc I have to agree. I think Metacritic is generally a good way to quickly answer the very general question "do people think this game is good" but arguing over a couple points on the scale is absolutely pointless.
In general, if you want to have an idea whether or not you would like a game, find some reviewers whose opinions aligned with yours in the past, or ones who are good at explaining what's good or bad about a game and why (preferably both) and stick with them.
Case in point - you gave SOPFFO (lol) a 6 but did a good job explaining why and I knew I wouldn't care about some of the things you viewed as flaws. On the other hand, IGN's Jada Griffin gave it an 8 and I know we enjoy a lot of the same stuff, so I decided to give it a go (having fun with the demo definitely helped too) and I'm enjoying it a lot
@Voltan Strangers of Paradise is the sort of game that kinda makes a mockery of the whole review score thing. I mean, I don't like review scores anyway, but I get why they exist and I get why some outlets prefer to use them to not using them. But for me how do you even score Stranger of Paradise. It's a game that you either get or you really don't. And if you don't get the vibe you'll likely think it's boring, ugly rubbish, but if you get on board then the ludicrousness of the whole thing lifts it up and papers over the cracks. I should have have just given it an 8 and a 4 at the same time.
@JJ2 There's just no chance on earth what you are proposing would make for a compelling read. Most people want opinions mixed with information in reviews, because it makes for better writing. I think Push Square does a great job on striking balance between the two, so I just don't see why it would need to change anyway.
@johncalmc From the review work Iāve done on sites (for Iām pretty sure illegally low pay), I fall both sides of the score vs no score debate. Scores are useful but then theyāre also kinda not in the same way. I also prefer a 0 to 4 star scale in half measures which Iām not even sure would translate to Metacritic. But I know my own scale even though other people probably wouldnāt understand what makes a great game for me. Iād rather score based on merits than start at full marks and take stuff off for missteps. Thereās also inherent bias towards production values. Unlike movies or music, you can paper over fundamental flaws with money meaning the presentation is a certain standard. But what do I know, Iād give Zoo Tycoon 2 3.5 stars and The Last of Us 3 stars.
I donāt know if Rotten Tomatoes came first or Metacritic, but itās the same issue ā a single aggregate score for a piece of art. Which is weird, because I wonder if art critics say a painting or a sculpture is a 9 out of 10. I donāt think so. Yet we all canāt help but be drawn to the number. It must speak to some part of our evolutionary grey matter or something. Iām just as guilty as anyone else of gravitating to the number.
And perhaps the difference is that weāre evaluating art, but weāre also making a consumer purchase decision. But unfortunately, the scores being as variable as they are, nearly every game now can have an advertisement which parades a bunch of ā10/10ā and ā5 stars out of 5ā from one or another critical outlets. Sometimes they have the most random site referenced, but the consumerās eye is just drawn to the ā10ā and they immediately feel more pressure to buy the game, even if the score came from āJoe-Bobās Awesome Gaming Blog and Reviews.ā Movie ads do the same thing.
Iām not a professional critic, and so I just write the reviews I write because itās fun to talk about games. I also think putting something in writing really crystallizes things in your own mind. When you have to write something down, reason it out, explain it and then offer evidence why you feel that way, the process actually teaches you things about yourself and how you really feel. I think it helps me better develop my critical thinking skills too, which are a nice thing to have in the world today.
Regarding scores ā lately Iāve been giving my reviews a number at the end, per the traditional style. But Iāve been doing so tongue-in-cheek with the different units so as to convey to the reader not to take the score too seriously. But at least it give a gut feeling at a glance of where on the continuum of āSuper Awesome Masterpieceā to āWorthless Garbageā that I feel a game is for me. Honestly, Iāve been known to rate a chicken sandwich the same way. (Chic-Fil-A is definitely a 9 out of 10.)
One thing I like to do lately (and I donāt know if Iām the only weirdo who does this) is go back and re-read reviews after I finish a game. Itās amazing how much of a review I glazed over before playing the game, but after actually experiencing it I can really say, āYeah, thatās really trueā or āI donāt agree with this pointā. The process can help to cement my impressions on what I just played.
āWe cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.ā
@Th3solution Technically Rotten Tomatoes is a different metric. Itās a percentage of positive/negative reviews which is both more helpful and less helpful. Something thatās not terrible but fairly bad can get a high score due to mediocrity being barely positive but enough to register as a positive review. Whereas a divisive and daring product can get a low score due to the amount of negative reviews. Something like Mother! springs to mind.
@nessisonett Oh yeah, I forgot ā it is a much simpler āthumbs up or thumbs downā aggregate. I rarely use Rotten Tomatoes anymore. I wonder if that type of scoring /
meta-averaging would work for video gaming. I think the issues weāve outlined about such variable scales from one reviewer to the next would make it difficult to use that system. Like @johncalmc ās review of Strangers of Paradise ā I would suspect it would be counted as a āthumbs upā under that system but his Alan Wake evaluation might be considered a āthumbs downā, even though they were both 6/10.
@Th3solution Rottentomatoes is another problematic site. Like a movie on there could get 100 out 100 6/10 reviews and it would be rated 100% Fresh whereas another could get 90 10/10 reviews and 10 5/10 reviews and it would be 90% Fresh. The latter, undoubtedly, would be the better movie but Rottentomatoes would lead you to believe the opposite.
Basically, what we should all be doing is just finding reviewers we jive with and then paying attention to what they say and not really what the arbitrary number on the end of a review says.
@Th3solution Welcome to the wonderful world of sentiment analysis AKA my first year project a few years back. Making a system that predicts scores based on how positive or negative the review is can be a nightmare.
Iām not sure whether this has been mentioned but there is obviously the issue of dev bonuses (and some would say the likelihood for a green-light on a sequel) depending on the eventual metacritic score. As metacritic is clearly nowhere near a āscienceāā¦ Iām thinking that devs should run a mile when publishers bring it up during negotiations.
@johncalmc Yeah, itās best to take the whole review in context of the personās background likes and dislikes as well as our own. Like with your two famous (or shall I say āinfamousā š) reviews I mentioned, I thoroughly enjoyed reading the whole experience and it gave me a clear context of what you thought of the games. Like when you mentioned the graphical shortcomings of FFSOP to me that was a big negative because I think I weigh visuals a little more than the average Joe. So if Iām on the fence and the visual fidelity is one of the shortcomings, I weight that more heavily than if it were say, a mediocre musical soundtrack, which I donāt usually care much about. And like your said, reading your review I could have easily seen you allotting it a 4-5, or a 7-8 based on the descriptions. But even if you gave it an 8, with the way you described the game I would have still placed it in the āwait for a steep discountā pile.
@nessisonett Thatās cool that you did a project on this very issue. I bet that was really fascinating to delve into, even if no simple solution to how to predictably quantify sentiment was found.
@colonelkilgore Therein lies the rub. Itās silly that they bonus and pay employees on such finicky and invalid metrics. I agree with you.
āWe cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.ā
@Herculean
Disagree. Opinion mixed with information yes but not completely blurring information to push an opinion. Thereās a balance to have. Itās not hard to imagine a good write up thoroughly describing the game on all aspects and then a second part like āWhat we like and donāt ā
I think itās been done.
A bad example of full opinion review was RDR2 Kotaku review which was a beautifully written metaphor for RockStar alleged toxic development culture.
Opinions are fair enough but thatās not what a review should be at all and neither should they be a vehicle for political , social or else agenda.
Just my thought. Iām just saying reviews nowadays are NOT perfect even if you donāt want to admit it.
Gaming is constantly evolving with a game possibly very different a few months after release. and so should reviews (evolve)
The crowd, accepting this immediately, assumed the anti-Eurasian posters and banners everywhere were the result of acts of sabotage by agents of Goldstein and ripped them from the walls.
@JJ2 Addressing crunch and workplace mistreatment isnāt a political agenda. Theyāre game reviews, the wider context around the game absolutely matters. Thereās no way in hell any reviews of that Rust movie will neglect to mention the death on set for example.
Never been all that drawn to Metacritic but i do use Rotten Tomatoes just to get a general idea about something. I do like how they have an audience score and a critic score. Maybe Metacritic should have something like that, if they don't already, instead of the secretive weighted average which I just learned about reading this thread.
In any case I like the idea of a place that gives an aggregate score. It gives you a general idea about overall sentiment and if you couple this with perusing a few of the reviews therein, it's not a bad way to pick imo.
PSN: frownonfun
Switch: SW-5109-6573-1900 (Pops)
"One of the unloveliest and least enlightening aspects of contemporary discourse is the tendency to presume that whatever one disagrees with must be very simpleānot only simple, but also simply wrong." - Elizabeth Bruenig
Forums
Topic: Metacritic š¤
Posts 21 to 39 of 39
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.