Although there's a point in this column, I don't think it's the point the writer's trying to make... Metacritic isn't the party at fault here. Their system works fine. The problem is that MMORPG's are, as the writer points out, difficult to review well. But then again... isn't reviewing any game difficult? It's always hard to balance subjective and objective "facts", lots of reviewers don't play through entire single player games either, some review games within a genre they dislike, etc. etc. So, to the writer: Yes, the scores on Metacritic can be (way) off, true. This has nothing to do with Metacritic though, it's down to the fact that reviews (of any kind, really) are simply not always correct. What Metacritic does actually lessens this problem, because they offer an average, so the truly ridiculous should be compensated... I got a strong feeling while reading this article that the writer has some personal beef with Metacritic, especially since he doesn't offer any ideas on how to improve the system, but simply says "you can't really review MMO's, so Metacritic sucks" which doesn't make a lot of sense.... Which leads me to discard his ideas the same as I, ironically, discard many reviews.
There have been a couple of posts like this one. Which only goes to show that I didn't articulate my point very well. My bad. I'll try harder next week.
However, I'd like to stress that I don't have a problem with Metacritic. I use it all the time. It's a very useful consumer tool. I was being a bit dramatic to show that Metacritic can occassionally spit out some spurious scores. But, i f you know how it works, you can work around these scores, or just go to the review sites you trust, or ignore Metacritic altogether. No biggie.
What I really wanted to get across, and seemingly failed at, is that publishers use these scores in a very real sense. Bonuses at some studios are based on scores. Publishers use Metacritic scores in their earnings reports (which is mind boggling). As a working designer, I really don't want an aggregate review site helping determine how much compensation i get. And I really, really don't want Metacritic giving ammunition to big-multi-studio publishers looking to trim any fat.
So, sorry for being a bit confusing. And thanks to everyone who's left a comment.
Cheers for the reply, I now have a better idea of what you were getting at.
I agree with you that major publishers basing bonuses or even lay-offs solely on metacritic scores is a bad idea, although in that scenario the ones at fault are still the reviewers and the publishers, not Metacritic (I imagine that before Metacritic publishers would collect reviewscores and take an average as well, though that's just a guess).
All in all, you do indeed have a good point, the major problem with the article was that it (apparently unintended) seemed to have a go at Metacritic.
You're actually having a go at stupid company bigwigs who love everything with numbers or charts, so much that they abandon common sense and logic for it... and with that, I can only wholeheartedly agree!
So the writer is angry and thinks Metacritic is trash. Okey I got it. I didnt get what MMOs in the list he thinks got unfair score? Would be better if he pointed at those and explained whats wrong there.
Although there's a point in this column, I don't think it's the point the writer's trying to make... Metacritic isn't the party at fault here. Their system works fine. The problem is that MMORPG's are, as the writer points out, difficult to review well. But then again... isn't reviewing any game difficult? It's always hard to balance subjective and objective "facts", lots of reviewers don't play through entire single player games either, some review games within a genre they dislike, etc. etc. So, to the writer: Yes, the scores on Metacritic can be (way) off, true. This has nothing to do with Metacritic though, it's down to the fact that reviews (of any kind, really) are simply not always correct. What Metacritic does actually lessens this problem, because they offer an average, so the truly ridiculous should be compensated... I got a strong feeling while reading this article that the writer has some personal beef with Metacritic, especially since he doesn't offer any ideas on how to improve the system, but simply says "you can't really review MMO's, so Metacritic sucks" which doesn't make a lot of sense.... Which leads me to discard his ideas the same as I, ironically, discard many reviews.
There have been a couple of posts like this one. Which only goes to show that I didn't articulate my point very well. My bad. I'll try harder next week.
However, I'd like to stress that I don't have a problem with Metacritic. I use it all the time. It's a very useful consumer tool. I was being a bit dramatic to show that Metacritic can occassionally spit out some spurious scores. But, i f you know how it works, you can work around these scores, or just go to the review sites you trust, or ignore Metacritic altogether. No biggie.
What I really wanted to get across, and seemingly failed at, is that publishers use these scores in a very real sense. Bonuses at some studios are based on scores. Publishers use Metacritic scores in their earnings reports (which is mind boggling). As a working designer, I really don't want an aggregate review site helping determine how much compensation i get. And I really, really don't want Metacritic giving ammunition to big-multi-studio publishers looking to trim any fat.
So, sorry for being a bit confusing. And thanks to everyone who's left a comment.
Didn't articulate very well???
Umm... heh, o.k.
Perhaps these statements might have been what led to that:
"Two Thumbs Way Down"
--- Yup, the title itself sets yourself up for being misunderstood from the very beginning.
"Clearly, there are some extremely ridiculous scores on this chart, scores that are making me physically angry just looking at them."
--- Really? "physically angry" and "clearly" Perhaps, that's an example of not "articulating" very well?
"...some of which are inherent to how Metacritic "works"; and all of which can be abused and manipulated."
--- How so? Again, perhaps it's just another example of how you didn't articulate very well... but that phrase sure seems like you are suggesting that metacritic's score is being "abused" and "manipulated". How else would you have "articulated" that sentence?
"Metacritic doesn't care if your review site is "small" -- your review is assumed to be as legitimate as one of the larger game sites, and given as much "weight"."
--- Ahh... so now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Are you sure this isn't a tiff between the importance of metacritic vs. mmorpg.com? With statements like that it sure comes off as one. Again... why isn't mmorpg.com a member of metacritic? What happened to the application from back in August of '09? www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3027577#3027577
"I've come to realize that the aggregate review process fails badly when applied to MMOs, and those scores should be treated with the utmost suspicion."
--- So then non-aggregate review scores are better? Wouldn't it make sense that an average of 30 reviews is better than a single review? Again... this type of statement makes your article come off as a jealousy piece. Is "re-articulating" it going to make that sound any different?
"So clearly, Metacritic scores, especially MMORPG ones, are wildly inaccurate and should be taken with a grain of salt, right?"
---Umm... how was that "clear" in the least? Again, you are making it seem like metacritic comes up with these review scores themselves. They are taking an aggregate of a host of review scores... which would be a BETTER example of a review score than using one from a single source... right?
"At some point in the last few years, the big publishers decided that Metacritic was the most awesome thing evah."
"It literally makes me want to puke if I think about whether Metacritic scores were used to determine who got laid off last year."
"Somehow, Metacritic became the quality yardstick for the video-game industry."
"I've been at one company where a chunk of my bonus was directly proportional to the Metacritic scores of the projects I worked on."
"If Metacritic is going to generate bogus scores for MMOs, it can't also be used as a financial tool to determine whether developers are successful or not. That's just not fair."
---Are you sure this is a case of just
"I didn't articulate my point very well"?
Because it sure looks like it's a personal vendetta from here.
Seriously... it's fine if you have a beef with metacritic... but don't try to be coy with us when we call you on it and say that you didn't "articulate" the point very well.
I think you articulated the point you wanted to get across just fine... it's just that the vast majority of us were able to see through it and call you out on it.
Although there's a point in this column, I don't think it's the point the writer's trying to make... Metacritic isn't the party at fault here. Their system works fine. The problem is that MMORPG's are, as the writer points out, difficult to review well. But then again... isn't reviewing any game difficult? It's always hard to balance subjective and objective "facts", lots of reviewers don't play through entire single player games either, some review games within a genre they dislike, etc. etc. So, to the writer: Yes, the scores on Metacritic can be (way) off, true. This has nothing to do with Metacritic though, it's down to the fact that reviews (of any kind, really) are simply not always correct. What Metacritic does actually lessens this problem, because they offer an average, so the truly ridiculous should be compensated... I got a strong feeling while reading this article that the writer has some personal beef with Metacritic, especially since he doesn't offer any ideas on how to improve the system, but simply says "you can't really review MMO's, so Metacritic sucks" which doesn't make a lot of sense.... Which leads me to discard his ideas the same as I, ironically, discard many reviews.
There have been a couple of posts like this one. Which only goes to show that I didn't articulate my point very well. My bad. I'll try harder next week.
However, I'd like to stress that I don't have a problem with Metacritic. I use it all the time. It's a very useful consumer tool. I was being a bit dramatic to show that Metacritic can occassionally spit out some spurious scores. But, i f you know how it works, you can work around these scores, or just go to the review sites you trust, or ignore Metacritic altogether. No biggie.
What I really wanted to get across, and seemingly failed at, is that publishers use these scores in a very real sense. Bonuses at some studios are based on scores. Publishers use Metacritic scores in their earnings reports (which is mind boggling). As a working designer, I really don't want an aggregate review site helping determine how much compensation i get. And I really, really don't want Metacritic giving ammunition to big-multi-studio publishers looking to trim any fat.
So, sorry for being a bit confusing. And thanks to everyone who's left a comment.
Didn't articulate very well???
Umm... heh, o.k.
Perhaps these statements might have been what led to that:
"Two Thumbs Way Down"
--- Yup, the title itself sets yourself up for being misunderstood from the very beginning.
"Clearly, there are some extremely ridiculous scores on this chart, scores that are making me physically angry just looking at them."
--- Really? "physically angry" and "clearly" Perhaps, that's an example of not "articulating" very well?
"...some of which are inherent to how Metacritic "works"; and all of which can be abused and manipulated."
--- How so? Again, perhaps it's just another example of how you didn't articulate very well... but that phrase sure seems like you are suggesting that metacritic's score is being "abused" and "manipulated". How else would you have "articulated" that sentence?
"Metacritic doesn't care if your review site is "small" -- your review is assumed to be as legitimate as one of the larger game sites, and given as much "weight"."
--- Ahh... so now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Are you sure this isn't a tiff between the importance of metacritic vs. mmorpg.com? With statements like that it sure comes off as one. Again... why isn't mmorpg.com a member of metacritic? What happened to the application from back in August of '09? www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3027577#3027577
"I've come to realize that the aggregate review process fails badly when applied to MMOs, and those scores should be treated with the utmost suspicion."
--- So then non-aggregate review scores are better? Wouldn't it make sense that an average of 30 reviews is better than a single review? Again... this type of statement makes your article come off as a jealousy piece. Is "re-articulating" it going to make that sound any different?
"So clearly, Metacritic scores, especially MMORPG ones, are wildly inaccurate and should be taken with a grain of salt, right?"
---Umm... how was that "clear" in the least? Again, you are making it seem like metacritic comes up with these review scores themselves. They are taking an aggregate of a host of review scores... which would be a BETTER example of a review score than using one from a single source... right?
"At some point in the last few years, the big publishers decided that Metacritic was the most awesome thing evah."
"It literally makes me want to puke if I think about whether Metacritic scores were used to determine who got laid off last year."
"Somehow, Metacritic became the quality yardstick for the video-game industry."
"I've been at one company where a chunk of my bonus was directly proportional to the Metacritic scores of the projects I worked on."
"If Metacritic is going to generate bogus scores for MMOs, it can't also be used as a financial tool to determine whether developers are successful or not. That's just not fair."
---Are you sure this is a case of just
"I didn't articulate my point very well"?
Because it sure looks like it's a personal vendetta from here.
Seriously... it's fine if you have a beef with metacritic... but don't try to be coy with us when we call you on it and say that you didn't "articulate" the point very well.
I think you articulated the point you wanted to get across just fine... it's just that the vast majority of us were able to see through it and call you out on it.
Nicely played -- I didn't have the motivation to go back and pull apart his work quote for quote ( ' :
Although there's a point in this column, I don't think it's the point the writer's trying to make... Metacritic isn't the party at fault here. Their system works fine. The problem is that MMORPG's are, as the writer points out, difficult to review well. But then again... isn't reviewing any game difficult? It's always hard to balance subjective and objective "facts", lots of reviewers don't play through entire single player games either, some review games within a genre they dislike, etc. etc. So, to the writer: Yes, the scores on Metacritic can be (way) off, true. This has nothing to do with Metacritic though, it's down to the fact that reviews (of any kind, really) are simply not always correct. What Metacritic does actually lessens this problem, because they offer an average, so the truly ridiculous should be compensated... I got a strong feeling while reading this article that the writer has some personal beef with Metacritic, especially since he doesn't offer any ideas on how to improve the system, but simply says "you can't really review MMO's, so Metacritic sucks" which doesn't make a lot of sense.... Which leads me to discard his ideas the same as I, ironically, discard many reviews.
There have been a couple of posts like this one. Which only goes to show that I didn't articulate my point very well. My bad. I'll try harder next week.
However, I'd like to stress that I don't have a problem with Metacritic. I use it all the time. It's a very useful consumer tool. I was being a bit dramatic to show that Metacritic can occassionally spit out some spurious scores. But, i f you know how it works, you can work around these scores, or just go to the review sites you trust, or ignore Metacritic altogether. No biggie.
What I really wanted to get across, and seemingly failed at, is that publishers use these scores in a very real sense. Bonuses at some studios are based on scores. Publishers use Metacritic scores in their earnings reports (which is mind boggling). As a working designer, I really don't want an aggregate review site helping determine how much compensation i get. And I really, really don't want Metacritic giving ammunition to big-multi-studio publishers looking to trim any fat.
So, sorry for being a bit confusing. And thanks to everyone who's left a comment.
Didn't articulate very well???
Umm... heh, o.k.
Perhaps these statements might have been what led to that:
"Two Thumbs Way Down"
--- Yup, the title itself sets yourself up for being misunderstood from the very beginning.
"Clearly, there are some extremely ridiculous scores on this chart, scores that are making me physically angry just looking at them."
--- Really? "physically angry" and "clearly" Perhaps, that's an example of not "articulating" very well?
"...some of which are inherent to how Metacritic "works"; and all of which can be abused and manipulated."
--- How so? Again, perhaps it's just another example of how you didn't articulate very well... but that phrase sure seems like you are suggesting that metacritic's score is being "abused" and "manipulated". How else would you have "articulated" that sentence?
"Metacritic doesn't care if your review site is "small" -- your review is assumed to be as legitimate as one of the larger game sites, and given as much "weight"."
--- Ahh... so now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Are you sure this isn't a tiff between the importance of metacritic vs. mmorpg.com? With statements like that it sure comes off as one. Again... why isn't mmorpg.com a member of metacritic? What happened to the application from back in August of '09? www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3027577#3027577
"I've come to realize that the aggregate review process fails badly when applied to MMOs, and those scores should be treated with the utmost suspicion."
--- So then non-aggregate review scores are better? Wouldn't it make sense that an average of 30 reviews is better than a single review? Again... this type of statement makes your article come off as a jealousy piece. Is "re-articulating" it going to make that sound any different?
"So clearly, Metacritic scores, especially MMORPG ones, are wildly inaccurate and should be taken with a grain of salt, right?"
---Umm... how was that "clear" in the least? Again, you are making it seem like metacritic comes up with these review scores themselves. They are taking an aggregate of a host of review scores... which would be a BETTER example of a review score than using one from a single source... right?
"At some point in the last few years, the big publishers decided that Metacritic was the most awesome thing evah."
"It literally makes me want to puke if I think about whether Metacritic scores were used to determine who got laid off last year."
"Somehow, Metacritic became the quality yardstick for the video-game industry."
"I've been at one company where a chunk of my bonus was directly proportional to the Metacritic scores of the projects I worked on."
"If Metacritic is going to generate bogus scores for MMOs, it can't also be used as a financial tool to determine whether developers are successful or not. That's just not fair."
---Are you sure this is a case of just
"I didn't articulate my point very well"?
Because it sure looks like it's a personal vendetta from here.
Seriously... it's fine if you have a beef with metacritic... but don't try to be coy with us when we call you on it and say that you didn't "articulate" the point very well.
I think you articulated the point you wanted to get across just fine... it's just that the vast majority of us were able to see through it and call you out on it.
Nicely played -- I didn't have the motivation to go back and pull apart his work quote for quote ( ' :
Just bugs me when someone tries to play the...
"I didn't articulate my point very well" card.
B.S.!
If you're going to write a smear piece article like the OP did... have the decency to own up to it when you're called on it.
To come back and say that it wasn't articulated very well... bleh!
I think the quotes from the piece speak for themselves.
How many times was metacritic cast in a negative light in that article? That was an accident?
How many times was the OP's OPINION written as fact? That was an accident?
Ahhh... and so the meat of the topic really comes out...
Posted again because I think this pretty much captures the essence - "the grapes were sour anyway" as it were. I honestly don't know if the writer had *any* idea how condescending and petty that came off, especially considering MMORPG.COM isn't factored into metacritic. Wow. I wonder why this is. Personal bias seen in the review staff or columnists, perhaps, or other reasons?
"Metacritic doesn't care if your review site is "small" -- your review is assumed to be as legitimate as one of the larger game sites, and given as much "weight"."
--- Ahh... so now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Are you sure this isn't a tiff between the importance of metacritic vs. mmorpg.com? With statements like that it sure comes off as one. Again... why isn't mmorpg.com a member of metacritic? What happened to the application from back in August of '09? www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3027577#3027577
MMORPG.com isn't factored into Metacritic because most people know that the majority of their writers are random bloggers hired off the street with no real industry knowledge, and in some cases, a very tenuous grasp of English. Look back through some of the reviews that have graced the front page of this site over the years.
There are exceptions of course. Scott Jennings is a well-known developer and his opinions are generally weighty and considered. Sanya Weathers was another MMORPG columnist who had actual industry experience and wrote well enough to be considered a professional critic. The author of this piece, Justin Webb, is also a working dev and while people may not have agreed with this column, he is a competent critical writer.
Those three are exceptions to the rule though. As a whole, the writers on this web site are amateurs, which is why it isn't really noted for anything other than it's forum combat.
So the writer is angry and thinks Metacritic is trash. Okey I got it. I didnt get what MMOs in the list he thinks got unfair score? Would be better if he pointed at those and explained whats wrong there.
This. Honestly, the article just seems to take it as given that the scores are somehow absurd on the face of it and doesn't discuss things at all. No mention is given about which scores are inaccurate and no points are addressed (at all) about why they are inaccurate. Without following the authors previous posting history to get an idea, an impartial reader of the article would have no idea which scores he disagreed with, let alone why he disagreed with them.
All in all, an extremely poorly written article I think.
MMORPG.com isn't factored into Metacritic because most people know that the majority of their writers are random bloggers hired off the street with no real industry knowledge, and in some cases, a very tenuous grasp of English. Look back through some of the reviews that have graced the front page of this site over the years. There are exceptions of course. Scott Jennings is a well-known developer and his opinions are generally weighty and considered. Sanya Weathers was another MMORPG columnist who had actual industry experience and wrote well enough to be considered a professional critic. The author of this piece, Justin Webb, is also a working dev and while people may not have agreed with this column, he is a competent critical writer. Those three are exceptions to the rule though. As a whole, the writers on this web site are amateurs, which is why it isn't really noted for anything other than it's forum combat.
This is what I was thinking. I usually like Jennings articles but lately I could do without the constant shilling for EVE and/or Aion. For Chrissakes in his last article about STO he ends it with a link to EVE. I get it, I get it... we all know Jennings is in love with EVE... this entire site seems to rotate around promoting EVE and Aion and bashing all other games. It only takes 15 minutes in a forum here if you mention anything positive about a game that isn't Aion or EVE to get some no-name, 2 post to their handle person to start bashing you.
I just stay out of the Eve and Aion forums here. Let the fanbois cavort.
So the writer is angry and thinks Metacritic is trash. Okey I got it. I didnt get what MMOs in the list he thinks got unfair score? Would be better if he pointed at those and explained whats wrong there.
He did?
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Maybe I was the only one but I found it quite easy to understand the points of this article.
1. Metacritic is a good site that the author uses often, However:
2. Metacritic scores for MMOs are borked because: MMOs are inherently difficult to review (he described why), reviews often aren't updated as time goes by and the MMO progresses, some companies give exclusive reviews and push reviewers to release reviews before they can be properly completed, smaller sites (assumed to be "reviews that anyone could be making up") can be given as much "weight" as larger (assumed to be professional) sites.
3. The metacritic scores are subjective because they are based on the amount of "weight" given to each site/reviewer. Which can compound the issues described in #2.
4. Metacritic scores are being used in the industry, specifically the MMO industry, to quantify the success or failure of games/companies to the extent of deciding bonus pay and possibly hiring and layoffs. The problem with this happening (specifically in MMOs) is described in #2 and #3.
5. "Two Thumbs Way Down" was in direct reference to #4, not #1.
It is my opinion that the only element that makes this article "unclear" is the emotion that the author injected into it. If I were to guess Justin (the author) did not give the article enough "sit time" where he walked away from it, say for a day, and them came back to read, review and edit. If that is the case I bet a 24 hour sit time would have taken out a lot of the emotion.
Oh my fucking god, guys. He's a writer. Writers fuck up, because writing's incredibly easy to fuck up. Emotion probably went behind it like almost everything that's written save the Twilight series. My case in point is that last sentence. He wasn't slamming Metacritic... he was pointing out what kind of position they are in to really ruin or make companies. Understandable, since most reviews can make or break a game regardless of what kind of game it is and how good it is. If anything, he was bashing the companies that base decisions involving hundreds of people on that small number.
Then again, what do I know? I'm just a pissed-off writer, fuckers.
Back to a Metacritic idea, I hate it, but it could be something amazing with a few tweaks as far as I know. Sure, what I'm about to say is complex, but in this case complex is good. We all have our preferences, right? We have agreements and disagreements on how import graphics are, or how good the gameplay has to be to be considered fun, right? Well, why not throw that into the equation by rating the game my a strictly neutral in all fields reviewer (or have the score sent backwards from the equations I'm about to mention.)
So, it'll be simple really, for one aspect of the game, you set an equation (or this can be done graphically,) of how important each aspect of the game is to you and at what levels. So if you're a Gameplay-nut (I can agree with you there) and any game below a 5 or 50% or so in gameplay you want to add little or none of the score to, and having the number increase either gradually, exponentially, or even in a full scale polynomial as the score of the game adds up. It's not as bad as it sounds, I promise! Though, if not done carefully with rounded values it could potentially be a server killer. Not sure how well I explained it... and don't really know how without drawing something.
People that put themselves above others put me in a bad mood. http://www.surrealtwilight.com/index.php ^Has nothing to do with that retarded Vampire Novel Series, I swear!^
Looks accurate to me. Metacritic, PC Gamer, and Gamerankings.com have always been a very good filter for my gaming experience. Hat's off.
I would have to agree. STO wasn't rated quite low enough, that's the only problem I see with the list. I use metacrtitic a lot and it has yet to steer me wrong.
The thing with MMo reviews is that community can can change how much you enjoy a game A LOT. So if you found a great community in one of the lower rated games you would naturally think there is something wrong with the list. Objectively the list is fine, though.
Originally posted by mmosnark What I really wanted to get across, and seemingly failed at, is that publishers use these scores in a very real sense. Bonuses at some studios are based on scores. Publishers use Metacritic scores in their earnings reports (which is mind boggling). As a working designer, I really don't want an aggregate review site helping determine how much compensation i get. And I really, really don't want Metacritic giving ammunition to big-multi-studio publishers looking to trim any fat.
That's what I picked up on... It's crazy how some business's operate. That's why I think things are all messed up.
I think what's going on is, if you flood their mind with so much info, the chances are greater you'll get a sell. or in other words "Baffle them with BS"
Errmm, actually Metacritic data is used a lot by game publishers. At some point in the last few years, the big publishers decided that Metacritic was the most awesome thing evah. Imagine the scene, a boardroom full of suits realizing that an internet site exists that can empirically tell them how good each of their products are. All of a sudden, performance reviews become much easier. Studios can be ranked against one another based on their aggregate "scores". Metacritic become an internal assessment tool. Suddenly, a publisher's "worst" studio could be identified. It literally makes me want to puke if I think about whether Metacritic scores were used to determine who got laid off last year. Read Two Thumbs Way Down.
I hope this is true in the case of CO and STO! Maybe Atari will tell Cryptic to stop screwing up MMOs that for all intents should have been goldmines.
Originally posted by Simsu Maybe I was the only one but I found it quite easy to understand the points of this article. 1. Metacritic is a good site that the author uses often, However: 2. Metacritic scores for MMOs are borked because: MMOs are inherently difficult to review (he described why), reviews often aren't updated as time goes by and the MMO progresses, some companies give exclusive reviews and push reviewers to release reviews before they can be properly completed, smaller sites (assumed to be "reviews that anyone could be making up") can be given as much "weight" as larger (assumed to be professional) sites. 3. The metacritic scores are subjective because they are based on the amount of "weight" given to each site/reviewer. Which can compound the issues described in #2. 4. Metacritic scores are being used in the industry, specifically the MMO industry, to quantify the success or failure of games/companies to the extent of deciding bonus pay and possibly hiring and layoffs. The problem with this happening (specifically in MMOs) is described in #2 and #3. 5. "Two Thumbs Way Down" was in direct reference to #4, not #1.It is my opinion that the only element that makes this article "unclear" is the emotion that the author injected into it. If I were to guess Justin (the author) did not give the article enough "sit time" where he walked away from it, say for a day, and them came back to read, review and edit. If that is the case I bet a 24 hour sit time would have taken out a lot of the emotion.
I agree. Everything was clearly stated despite the fact that he admitted to his article as coming off a bit "whiney". I think he might of just got caught up in the moment upon posting the whole thing. However, the message was still there and it was fairly clear. He even specially targeted the industry like in #4 and I think that's where most of the criticism really lies. I just think its some (or maybe a lot) people that like to focus their criticism on one aspect of the article and ignore the rest.
I just have to jump in briefly and defend the game review sites for a moment. I used to review RPGs and MMOs for an indie gaming site, and I reviewed Guild Wars, Tabula Rasa, AOC, WAR, and a handful of free-to-play games like Sword of the New World. It's very easy to get it wrong when reviewing a game at launch.
Take WAR and AOC for examples. I gave WAR a relatively high score because it was a lot of fun at launch. The early tiers were well designed, the public quest system was fun as long as you had people doing the quests, and there was plenty of PVP options for RVR and scenario fans alike. WAR really began to suffer as the player population dropped, but there's no way a reviewer would be able to honestly predict that. So, if you got into the game at launch, you probably had an 8/10 or even a 9/10 experience. Trying to level up through the lower tier wastelands nowadays and you're going to have a 4/10 experience.
AOC is the exact opposite, in that at launch it had major problems. Yet several big Websites and even PC Gamer have written about how AOC has done a 180 and is now a very enjoyable MMO. Once again, a reviewer can't predict which MMOs will win the "Most Improved" award.
The biggest problem with Metacritic from a reviewer's standpoint is it also serves as a Who's Who in the game review world. Marketing managers are quick to snub smaller sites that they deem unimportant, refusing access to betas or free game copies. That means small sites need to rush to get reviews up before say IGN or GameSpy. This leads to a viscious cycle of MMOs being reviewed based on beta, which IMHO is the only reason certain sites can justify having a Star Trek review available three days after launch
Finally, the smoking gun that proves that businesspeople cannot be trusted to be in charge of game companies. Devs should get together, get funded and then outsource their business management - keep the suits away from any authority whatsoever.
I just have to jump in briefly and defend the game review sites for a moment. I used to review RPGs and MMOs for an indie gaming site, and I reviewed Guild Wars, Tabula Rasa, AOC, WAR, and a handful of free-to-play games like Sword of the New World. It's very easy to get it wrong when reviewing a game at launch. Take WAR and AOC for examples. I gave WAR a relatively high score because it was a lot of fun at launch. The early tiers were well designed, the public quest system was fun as long as you had people doing the quests, and there was plenty of PVP options for RVR and scenario fans alike. WAR really began to suffer as the player population dropped, but there's no way a reviewer would be able to honestly predict that. So, if you got into the game at launch, you probably had an 8/10 or even a 9/10 experience. Trying to level up through the lower tier wastelands nowadays and you're going to have a 4/10 experience. AOC is the exact opposite, in that at launch it had major problems. Yet several big Websites and even PC Gamer have written about how AOC has done a 180 and is now a very enjoyable MMO. Once again, a reviewer can't predict which MMOs will win the "Most Improved" award. The biggest problem with Metacritic from a reviewer's standpoint is it also serves as a Who's Who in the game review world. Marketing managers are quick to snub smaller sites that they deem unimportant, refusing access to betas or free game copies. That means small sites need to rush to get reviews up before say IGN or GameSpy. This leads to a viscious cycle of MMOs being reviewed based on beta, which IMHO is the only reason certain sites can justify having a Star Trek review available three days after launch
Any subjective review is by definition unrelated to any reality whatsoever. I have to seek out articles by some Escapist folks, they are my kind of knowledgable/thorough/critical/snarky reviewers. That's where the real feeling of playing the game comes through well enough for me to make a decision.
I was just reading about another review site that botched a review for Global Agenda because they judged it based on like 6 hours of gameplay and they were suppose to base it on 30 hours. Something like that. They ended up pulling the review.
I'm sure because of the way many people are nowadays, that hurt.
Comments
There have been a couple of posts like this one. Which only goes to show that I didn't articulate my point very well. My bad. I'll try harder next week.
However, I'd like to stress that I don't have a problem with Metacritic. I use it all the time. It's a very useful consumer tool. I was being a bit dramatic to show that Metacritic can occassionally spit out some spurious scores. But, i f you know how it works, you can work around these scores, or just go to the review sites you trust, or ignore Metacritic altogether. No biggie.
What I really wanted to get across, and seemingly failed at, is that publishers use these scores in a very real sense. Bonuses at some studios are based on scores. Publishers use Metacritic scores in their earnings reports (which is mind boggling). As a working designer, I really don't want an aggregate review site helping determine how much compensation i get. And I really, really don't want Metacritic giving ammunition to big-multi-studio publishers looking to trim any fat.
So, sorry for being a bit confusing. And thanks to everyone who's left a comment.
Cheers for the reply, I now have a better idea of what you were getting at.
I agree with you that major publishers basing bonuses or even lay-offs solely on metacritic scores is a bad idea, although in that scenario the ones at fault are still the reviewers and the publishers, not Metacritic (I imagine that before Metacritic publishers would collect reviewscores and take an average as well, though that's just a guess).
All in all, you do indeed have a good point, the major problem with the article was that it (apparently unintended) seemed to have a go at Metacritic.
You're actually having a go at stupid company bigwigs who love everything with numbers or charts, so much that they abandon common sense and logic for it... and with that, I can only wholeheartedly agree!
Opinions are like assholes...
With respect... this is what MMORPG's hype meter of top voted games has in order from the list of games you provided, from highest to lowest....
------------------------
1. Lord of the Rings Online
2. Fallen Earth
3. EverQuest II
4. Warhammer Online
5. City of Heroes
6. Star Trek Online
7. Ultima Online
8. WoW
9. EverQuest
10. Champions Online
11. Age of Conan: Hyborean Adventures
12. Aion
Again, with respect, this doesn't reflect my personal ideas or what should be popular or what is a better game just because of arbitrary numbers.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
So the writer is angry and thinks Metacritic is trash. Okey I got it. I didnt get what MMOs in the list he thinks got unfair score? Would be better if he pointed at those and explained whats wrong there.
To be honest - maybe MMOs should not be judged on a raiting system ?
Maybe it should be based on:
Pros -
Cons -
Personal preference -
Subject to further testing - updates and fixing. -
I think the MMORPG.COM reviews could do with some of these points when reviews are made.
There have been a couple of posts like this one. Which only goes to show that I didn't articulate my point very well. My bad. I'll try harder next week.
However, I'd like to stress that I don't have a problem with Metacritic. I use it all the time. It's a very useful consumer tool. I was being a bit dramatic to show that Metacritic can occassionally spit out some spurious scores. But, i f you know how it works, you can work around these scores, or just go to the review sites you trust, or ignore Metacritic altogether. No biggie.
What I really wanted to get across, and seemingly failed at, is that publishers use these scores in a very real sense. Bonuses at some studios are based on scores. Publishers use Metacritic scores in their earnings reports (which is mind boggling). As a working designer, I really don't want an aggregate review site helping determine how much compensation i get. And I really, really don't want Metacritic giving ammunition to big-multi-studio publishers looking to trim any fat.
So, sorry for being a bit confusing. And thanks to everyone who's left a comment.
Didn't articulate very well???
Umm... heh, o.k.
Perhaps these statements might have been what led to that:
"Two Thumbs Way Down"
--- Yup, the title itself sets yourself up for being misunderstood from the very beginning.
"Clearly, there are some extremely ridiculous scores on this chart, scores that are making me physically angry just looking at them."
--- Really? "physically angry" and "clearly" Perhaps, that's an example of not "articulating" very well?
"...some of which are inherent to how Metacritic "works"; and all of which can be abused and manipulated."
--- How so? Again, perhaps it's just another example of how you didn't articulate very well... but that phrase sure seems like you are suggesting that metacritic's score is being "abused" and "manipulated". How else would you have "articulated" that sentence?
"Metacritic doesn't care if your review site is "small" -- your review is assumed to be as legitimate as one of the larger game sites, and given as much "weight"."
--- Ahh... so now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Are you sure this isn't a tiff between the importance of metacritic vs. mmorpg.com? With statements like that it sure comes off as one. Again... why isn't mmorpg.com a member of metacritic? What happened to the application from back in August of '09? www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3027577#3027577
"I've come to realize that the aggregate review process fails badly when applied to MMOs, and those scores should be treated with the utmost suspicion."
--- So then non-aggregate review scores are better? Wouldn't it make sense that an average of 30 reviews is better than a single review? Again... this type of statement makes your article come off as a jealousy piece. Is "re-articulating" it going to make that sound any different?
"So clearly, Metacritic scores, especially MMORPG ones, are wildly inaccurate and should be taken with a grain of salt, right?"
---Umm... how was that "clear" in the least? Again, you are making it seem like metacritic comes up with these review scores themselves. They are taking an aggregate of a host of review scores... which would be a BETTER example of a review score than using one from a single source... right?
"At some point in the last few years, the big publishers decided that Metacritic was the most awesome thing evah."
"It literally makes me want to puke if I think about whether Metacritic scores were used to determine who got laid off last year."
"Somehow, Metacritic became the quality yardstick for the video-game industry."
"I've been at one company where a chunk of my bonus was directly proportional to the Metacritic scores of the projects I worked on."
"If Metacritic is going to generate bogus scores for MMOs, it can't also be used as a financial tool to determine whether developers are successful or not. That's just not fair."
---Are you sure this is a case of just
"I didn't articulate my point very well"?
Because it sure looks like it's a personal vendetta from here.
Seriously... it's fine if you have a beef with metacritic... but don't try to be coy with us when we call you on it and say that you didn't "articulate" the point very well.
I think you articulated the point you wanted to get across just fine... it's just that the vast majority of us were able to see through it and call you out on it.
There have been a couple of posts like this one. Which only goes to show that I didn't articulate my point very well. My bad. I'll try harder next week.
However, I'd like to stress that I don't have a problem with Metacritic. I use it all the time. It's a very useful consumer tool. I was being a bit dramatic to show that Metacritic can occassionally spit out some spurious scores. But, i f you know how it works, you can work around these scores, or just go to the review sites you trust, or ignore Metacritic altogether. No biggie.
What I really wanted to get across, and seemingly failed at, is that publishers use these scores in a very real sense. Bonuses at some studios are based on scores. Publishers use Metacritic scores in their earnings reports (which is mind boggling). As a working designer, I really don't want an aggregate review site helping determine how much compensation i get. And I really, really don't want Metacritic giving ammunition to big-multi-studio publishers looking to trim any fat.
So, sorry for being a bit confusing. And thanks to everyone who's left a comment.
Didn't articulate very well???
Umm... heh, o.k.
Perhaps these statements might have been what led to that:
"Two Thumbs Way Down"
--- Yup, the title itself sets yourself up for being misunderstood from the very beginning.
"Clearly, there are some extremely ridiculous scores on this chart, scores that are making me physically angry just looking at them."
--- Really? "physically angry" and "clearly" Perhaps, that's an example of not "articulating" very well?
"...some of which are inherent to how Metacritic "works"; and all of which can be abused and manipulated."
--- How so? Again, perhaps it's just another example of how you didn't articulate very well... but that phrase sure seems like you are suggesting that metacritic's score is being "abused" and "manipulated". How else would you have "articulated" that sentence?
"Metacritic doesn't care if your review site is "small" -- your review is assumed to be as legitimate as one of the larger game sites, and given as much "weight"."
--- Ahh... so now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Are you sure this isn't a tiff between the importance of metacritic vs. mmorpg.com? With statements like that it sure comes off as one. Again... why isn't mmorpg.com a member of metacritic? What happened to the application from back in August of '09? www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3027577#3027577
"I've come to realize that the aggregate review process fails badly when applied to MMOs, and those scores should be treated with the utmost suspicion."
--- So then non-aggregate review scores are better? Wouldn't it make sense that an average of 30 reviews is better than a single review? Again... this type of statement makes your article come off as a jealousy piece. Is "re-articulating" it going to make that sound any different?
"So clearly, Metacritic scores, especially MMORPG ones, are wildly inaccurate and should be taken with a grain of salt, right?"
---Umm... how was that "clear" in the least? Again, you are making it seem like metacritic comes up with these review scores themselves. They are taking an aggregate of a host of review scores... which would be a BETTER example of a review score than using one from a single source... right?
"At some point in the last few years, the big publishers decided that Metacritic was the most awesome thing evah."
"It literally makes me want to puke if I think about whether Metacritic scores were used to determine who got laid off last year."
"Somehow, Metacritic became the quality yardstick for the video-game industry."
"I've been at one company where a chunk of my bonus was directly proportional to the Metacritic scores of the projects I worked on."
"If Metacritic is going to generate bogus scores for MMOs, it can't also be used as a financial tool to determine whether developers are successful or not. That's just not fair."
---Are you sure this is a case of just
"I didn't articulate my point very well"?
Because it sure looks like it's a personal vendetta from here.
Seriously... it's fine if you have a beef with metacritic... but don't try to be coy with us when we call you on it and say that you didn't "articulate" the point very well.
I think you articulated the point you wanted to get across just fine... it's just that the vast majority of us were able to see through it and call you out on it.
Nicely played -- I didn't have the motivation to go back and pull apart his work quote for quote ( ' :
There have been a couple of posts like this one. Which only goes to show that I didn't articulate my point very well. My bad. I'll try harder next week.
However, I'd like to stress that I don't have a problem with Metacritic. I use it all the time. It's a very useful consumer tool. I was being a bit dramatic to show that Metacritic can occassionally spit out some spurious scores. But, i f you know how it works, you can work around these scores, or just go to the review sites you trust, or ignore Metacritic altogether. No biggie.
What I really wanted to get across, and seemingly failed at, is that publishers use these scores in a very real sense. Bonuses at some studios are based on scores. Publishers use Metacritic scores in their earnings reports (which is mind boggling). As a working designer, I really don't want an aggregate review site helping determine how much compensation i get. And I really, really don't want Metacritic giving ammunition to big-multi-studio publishers looking to trim any fat.
So, sorry for being a bit confusing. And thanks to everyone who's left a comment.
Didn't articulate very well???
Umm... heh, o.k.
Perhaps these statements might have been what led to that:
"Two Thumbs Way Down"
--- Yup, the title itself sets yourself up for being misunderstood from the very beginning.
"Clearly, there are some extremely ridiculous scores on this chart, scores that are making me physically angry just looking at them."
--- Really? "physically angry" and "clearly" Perhaps, that's an example of not "articulating" very well?
"...some of which are inherent to how Metacritic "works"; and all of which can be abused and manipulated."
--- How so? Again, perhaps it's just another example of how you didn't articulate very well... but that phrase sure seems like you are suggesting that metacritic's score is being "abused" and "manipulated". How else would you have "articulated" that sentence?
"Metacritic doesn't care if your review site is "small" -- your review is assumed to be as legitimate as one of the larger game sites, and given as much "weight"."
--- Ahh... so now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Are you sure this isn't a tiff between the importance of metacritic vs. mmorpg.com? With statements like that it sure comes off as one. Again... why isn't mmorpg.com a member of metacritic? What happened to the application from back in August of '09? www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3027577#3027577
"I've come to realize that the aggregate review process fails badly when applied to MMOs, and those scores should be treated with the utmost suspicion."
--- So then non-aggregate review scores are better? Wouldn't it make sense that an average of 30 reviews is better than a single review? Again... this type of statement makes your article come off as a jealousy piece. Is "re-articulating" it going to make that sound any different?
"So clearly, Metacritic scores, especially MMORPG ones, are wildly inaccurate and should be taken with a grain of salt, right?"
---Umm... how was that "clear" in the least? Again, you are making it seem like metacritic comes up with these review scores themselves. They are taking an aggregate of a host of review scores... which would be a BETTER example of a review score than using one from a single source... right?
"At some point in the last few years, the big publishers decided that Metacritic was the most awesome thing evah."
"It literally makes me want to puke if I think about whether Metacritic scores were used to determine who got laid off last year."
"Somehow, Metacritic became the quality yardstick for the video-game industry."
"I've been at one company where a chunk of my bonus was directly proportional to the Metacritic scores of the projects I worked on."
"If Metacritic is going to generate bogus scores for MMOs, it can't also be used as a financial tool to determine whether developers are successful or not. That's just not fair."
---Are you sure this is a case of just
"I didn't articulate my point very well"?
Because it sure looks like it's a personal vendetta from here.
Seriously... it's fine if you have a beef with metacritic... but don't try to be coy with us when we call you on it and say that you didn't "articulate" the point very well.
I think you articulated the point you wanted to get across just fine... it's just that the vast majority of us were able to see through it and call you out on it.
Nicely played -- I didn't have the motivation to go back and pull apart his work quote for quote ( ' :
Just bugs me when someone tries to play the...
"I didn't articulate my point very well" card.
B.S.!
If you're going to write a smear piece article like the OP did... have the decency to own up to it when you're called on it.
To come back and say that it wasn't articulated very well... bleh!
I think the quotes from the piece speak for themselves.
How many times was metacritic cast in a negative light in that article? That was an accident?
How many times was the OP's OPINION written as fact? That was an accident?
Umm... yeah.
Ahhh... and so the meat of the topic really comes out...
Posted again because I think this pretty much captures the essence - "the grapes were sour anyway" as it were. I honestly don't know if the writer had *any* idea how condescending and petty that came off, especially considering MMORPG.COM isn't factored into metacritic. Wow. I wonder why this is. Personal bias seen in the review staff or columnists, perhaps, or other reasons?
"Metacritic doesn't care if your review site is "small" -- your review is assumed to be as legitimate as one of the larger game sites, and given as much "weight"."
--- Ahh... so now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Are you sure this isn't a tiff between the importance of metacritic vs. mmorpg.com? With statements like that it sure comes off as one. Again... why isn't mmorpg.com a member of metacritic? What happened to the application from back in August of '09? www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3027577#3027577
MMORPG.com isn't factored into Metacritic because most people know that the majority of their writers are random bloggers hired off the street with no real industry knowledge, and in some cases, a very tenuous grasp of English. Look back through some of the reviews that have graced the front page of this site over the years.
There are exceptions of course. Scott Jennings is a well-known developer and his opinions are generally weighty and considered. Sanya Weathers was another MMORPG columnist who had actual industry experience and wrote well enough to be considered a professional critic. The author of this piece, Justin Webb, is also a working dev and while people may not have agreed with this column, he is a competent critical writer.
Those three are exceptions to the rule though. As a whole, the writers on this web site are amateurs, which is why it isn't really noted for anything other than it's forum combat.
...
This. Honestly, the article just seems to take it as given that the scores are somehow absurd on the face of it and doesn't discuss things at all. No mention is given about which scores are inaccurate and no points are addressed (at all) about why they are inaccurate. Without following the authors previous posting history to get an idea, an impartial reader of the article would have no idea which scores he disagreed with, let alone why he disagreed with them.
All in all, an extremely poorly written article I think.
This is what I was thinking. I usually like Jennings articles but lately I could do without the constant shilling for EVE and/or Aion. For Chrissakes in his last article about STO he ends it with a link to EVE. I get it, I get it... we all know Jennings is in love with EVE... this entire site seems to rotate around promoting EVE and Aion and bashing all other games. It only takes 15 minutes in a forum here if you mention anything positive about a game that isn't Aion or EVE to get some no-name, 2 post to their handle person to start bashing you.
I just stay out of the Eve and Aion forums here. Let the fanbois cavort.
He did?
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Maybe I was the only one but I found it quite easy to understand the points of this article.
1. Metacritic is a good site that the author uses often, However:
2. Metacritic scores for MMOs are borked because: MMOs are inherently difficult to review (he described why), reviews often aren't updated as time goes by and the MMO progresses, some companies give exclusive reviews and push reviewers to release reviews before they can be properly completed, smaller sites (assumed to be "reviews that anyone could be making up") can be given as much "weight" as larger (assumed to be professional) sites.
3. The metacritic scores are subjective because they are based on the amount of "weight" given to each site/reviewer. Which can compound the issues described in #2.
4. Metacritic scores are being used in the industry, specifically the MMO industry, to quantify the success or failure of games/companies to the extent of deciding bonus pay and possibly hiring and layoffs. The problem with this happening (specifically in MMOs) is described in #2 and #3.
5. "Two Thumbs Way Down" was in direct reference to #4, not #1.
It is my opinion that the only element that makes this article "unclear" is the emotion that the author injected into it. If I were to guess Justin (the author) did not give the article enough "sit time" where he walked away from it, say for a day, and them came back to read, review and edit. If that is the case I bet a 24 hour sit time would have taken out a lot of the emotion.
How far down is way down?
I mean....just asking.
It's better to lurk in forums and be thought a fool...than to endlessly "Quote" and remove all doubts.
Oh my fucking god, guys. He's a writer. Writers fuck up, because writing's incredibly easy to fuck up. Emotion probably went behind it like almost everything that's written save the Twilight series. My case in point is that last sentence. He wasn't slamming Metacritic... he was pointing out what kind of position they are in to really ruin or make companies. Understandable, since most reviews can make or break a game regardless of what kind of game it is and how good it is. If anything, he was bashing the companies that base decisions involving hundreds of people on that small number.
Then again, what do I know? I'm just a pissed-off writer, fuckers.
Back to a Metacritic idea, I hate it, but it could be something amazing with a few tweaks as far as I know. Sure, what I'm about to say is complex, but in this case complex is good. We all have our preferences, right? We have agreements and disagreements on how import graphics are, or how good the gameplay has to be to be considered fun, right? Well, why not throw that into the equation by rating the game my a strictly neutral in all fields reviewer (or have the score sent backwards from the equations I'm about to mention.)
So, it'll be simple really, for one aspect of the game, you set an equation (or this can be done graphically,) of how important each aspect of the game is to you and at what levels. So if you're a Gameplay-nut (I can agree with you there) and any game below a 5 or 50% or so in gameplay you want to add little or none of the score to, and having the number increase either gradually, exponentially, or even in a full scale polynomial as the score of the game adds up. It's not as bad as it sounds, I promise! Though, if not done carefully with rounded values it could potentially be a server killer. Not sure how well I explained it... and don't really know how without drawing something.
People that put themselves above others put me in a bad mood.
http://www.surrealtwilight.com/index.php
^Has nothing to do with that retarded Vampire Novel Series, I swear!^
I would have to agree. STO wasn't rated quite low enough, that's the only problem I see with the list. I use metacrtitic a lot and it has yet to steer me wrong.
The thing with MMo reviews is that community can can change how much you enjoy a game A LOT. So if you found a great community in one of the lower rated games you would naturally think there is something wrong with the list. Objectively the list is fine, though.
That's what I picked up on... It's crazy how some business's operate. That's why I think things are all messed up.
I think what's going on is, if you flood their mind with so much info, the chances are greater you'll get a sell. or in other words "Baffle them with BS"
People are selling out
Godspeed my fellow gamer
I only use Metacritic for console games. I don't trust the movie and music reviews at all.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
I hope this is true in the case of CO and STO! Maybe Atari will tell Cryptic to stop screwing up MMOs that for all intents should have been goldmines.
I agree. Everything was clearly stated despite the fact that he admitted to his article as coming off a bit "whiney". I think he might of just got caught up in the moment upon posting the whole thing. However, the message was still there and it was fairly clear. He even specially targeted the industry like in #4 and I think that's where most of the criticism really lies. I just think its some (or maybe a lot) people that like to focus their criticism on one aspect of the article and ignore the rest.
I just have to jump in briefly and defend the game review sites for a moment. I used to review RPGs and MMOs for an indie gaming site, and I reviewed Guild Wars, Tabula Rasa, AOC, WAR, and a handful of free-to-play games like Sword of the New World. It's very easy to get it wrong when reviewing a game at launch.
Take WAR and AOC for examples. I gave WAR a relatively high score because it was a lot of fun at launch. The early tiers were well designed, the public quest system was fun as long as you had people doing the quests, and there was plenty of PVP options for RVR and scenario fans alike. WAR really began to suffer as the player population dropped, but there's no way a reviewer would be able to honestly predict that. So, if you got into the game at launch, you probably had an 8/10 or even a 9/10 experience. Trying to level up through the lower tier wastelands nowadays and you're going to have a 4/10 experience.
AOC is the exact opposite, in that at launch it had major problems. Yet several big Websites and even PC Gamer have written about how AOC has done a 180 and is now a very enjoyable MMO. Once again, a reviewer can't predict which MMOs will win the "Most Improved" award.
The biggest problem with Metacritic from a reviewer's standpoint is it also serves as a Who's Who in the game review world. Marketing managers are quick to snub smaller sites that they deem unimportant, refusing access to betas or free game copies. That means small sites need to rush to get reviews up before say IGN or GameSpy. This leads to a viscious cycle of MMOs being reviewed based on beta, which IMHO is the only reason certain sites can justify having a Star Trek review available three days after launch
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
Finally, the smoking gun that proves that businesspeople cannot be trusted to be in charge of game companies. Devs should get together, get funded and then outsource their business management - keep the suits away from any authority whatsoever.
Any subjective review is by definition unrelated to any reality whatsoever. I have to seek out articles by some Escapist folks, they are my kind of knowledgable/thorough/critical/snarky reviewers. That's where the real feeling of playing the game comes through well enough for me to make a decision.
I was just reading about another review site that botched a review for Global Agenda because they judged it based on like 6 hours of gameplay and they were suppose to base it on 30 hours. Something like that. They ended up pulling the review.
I'm sure because of the way many people are nowadays, that hurt.
Godspeed my fellow gamer
Metacritc would rate this article 3/10 and that would be accurate