I hate meta critic too. The numbers are clearly fudged to sell steam games. Its funny had I rated the new AVP 1/10 I wouldve given it a 5 for crappy graphics, plain maps, terrible gameplay, horribly imbalanced teams, and no originality. Looks like a half life 1 mod with slightly better graphics and slightly less creative input. My Game Informer magazine gave it a 5.75. I said thats good. 5.75 reflects its total unplayability. Meta, which of course helps sell steam games, gave it something like a 76. Yea right I call shananigans. Another good example is Operation Flashpoint. 1/10 I wouldve given that game a 1. The controls didnt even work ffs. Duck didnt work, prone didnt work, vehicles didnt work, the game was alpha stage and literally unplayable. I think meta gave it a 76.
Never take life too seriously youre never gonna make it out alive.
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.
Assuming that was really the point of the article, I have to say, the argument you make isn't very compelling either. Consider that you only include three examples of how "horrible" these scores are when put in the hands of investors:
The first example is made up ("It literally makes me want to puke if I think about whether Metacritic scores were used to determine who got laid off last year.) This isn't a fact. It's your "worst case scenario", sure, but not fact.
The second example (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), while true, and certainly "bad", is a bit exaggerated. After all, it was a "bonus", and, by your admittance, only a chunk of it was based on that. Yes, basing pay for employees on outside, poorly formed, metrics is a horrible/terrible trend. But what, exactly, does one expect their "bonus" to be based on? Aren't "sales" an outside, and sometimes not clearly defined, metric as well? Worrisome...sure...but, IMO, not damning of the site,or the industry, just yet.
The third example ("Take a closer look at some of the investor reports that were released last week. Metacritic scores, and their inferred fiscal importance, are sprinkled liberally throughout all of them".) isn't unique. Investors put all kind of info into their yearly reports. Anything they can do to enhance their financial position, they will. Most folks know they pick and choose info to make them appear as positive as possible. That's been going on in all kinds of industries for decades. Why is it so bad now? Sure, it might lead to more pressure for developers, as they're work is tied more directly into the health of the investor company, but there are a LOT of other ways that same problem could come about. Why pick this one?
You've got three items to support your point. One is made up, one is exaggerated, and one isn't unique to the "cause" you identify. So, if your point wasn't to bash Metacritic, then I'd say you did a poor job of making your point.
I dont think you need to complexify this arguement. Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising recieved a 76 at release. Spawning was f'd, reloading didnt work but 1:100 times, you literally had to slam prone or duck hundreds of times to prone or duck, vehicles exploded after being moved. The game was so terrible the fact that anyone grinded through it to keep playing it only goes to show that all you need is accurate guns and good hitboxes to make a profit. Theres no arguments for whether meta score is a good system or not. Operation Flashpoint recieved a passing and average grade at release when its release was comparable to Vangaurd's alpha trial which was so unplayable and so horrible people vowed never to leave WoW even to try a new game. So if a game that deserves a -3508150 in a 1/10 scoring system gets an average game the whole system is a scam. Enough said.
Never take life too seriously youre never gonna make it out alive.
Comments
I hate meta critic too. The numbers are clearly fudged to sell steam games. Its funny had I rated the new AVP 1/10 I wouldve given it a 5 for crappy graphics, plain maps, terrible gameplay, horribly imbalanced teams, and no originality. Looks like a half life 1 mod with slightly better graphics and slightly less creative input. My Game Informer magazine gave it a 5.75. I said thats good. 5.75 reflects its total unplayability. Meta, which of course helps sell steam games, gave it something like a 76. Yea right I call shananigans. Another good example is Operation Flashpoint. 1/10 I wouldve given that game a 1. The controls didnt even work ffs. Duck didnt work, prone didnt work, vehicles didnt work, the game was alpha stage and literally unplayable. I think meta gave it a 76.
Never take life too seriously youre never gonna make it out alive.
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.
Assuming that was really the point of the article, I have to say, the argument you make isn't very compelling either. Consider that you only include three examples of how "horrible" these scores are when put in the hands of investors:
The first example is made up ("It literally makes me want to puke if I think about whether Metacritic scores were used to determine who got laid off last year.) This isn't a fact. It's your "worst case scenario", sure, but not fact.
The second example (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), while true, and certainly "bad", is a bit exaggerated. After all, it was a "bonus", and, by your admittance, only a chunk of it was based on that. Yes, basing pay for employees on outside, poorly formed, metrics is a horrible/terrible trend. But what, exactly, does one expect their "bonus" to be based on? Aren't "sales" an outside, and sometimes not clearly defined, metric as well? Worrisome...sure...but, IMO, not damning of the site,or the industry, just yet.
The third example ("Take a closer look at some of the investor reports that were released last week. Metacritic scores, and their inferred fiscal importance, are sprinkled liberally throughout all of them".) isn't unique. Investors put all kind of info into their yearly reports. Anything they can do to enhance their financial position, they will. Most folks know they pick and choose info to make them appear as positive as possible. That's been going on in all kinds of industries for decades. Why is it so bad now? Sure, it might lead to more pressure for developers, as they're work is tied more directly into the health of the investor company, but there are a LOT of other ways that same problem could come about. Why pick this one?
You've got three items to support your point. One is made up, one is exaggerated, and one isn't unique to the "cause" you identify. So, if your point wasn't to bash Metacritic, then I'd say you did a poor job of making your point.
I dont think you need to complexify this arguement. Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising recieved a 76 at release. Spawning was f'd, reloading didnt work but 1:100 times, you literally had to slam prone or duck hundreds of times to prone or duck, vehicles exploded after being moved. The game was so terrible the fact that anyone grinded through it to keep playing it only goes to show that all you need is accurate guns and good hitboxes to make a profit. Theres no arguments for whether meta score is a good system or not. Operation Flashpoint recieved a passing and average grade at release when its release was comparable to Vangaurd's alpha trial which was so unplayable and so horrible people vowed never to leave WoW even to try a new game. So if a game that deserves a -3508150 in a 1/10 scoring system gets an average game the whole system is a scam. Enough said.
Never take life too seriously youre never gonna make it out alive.