I've always used the Metacritic site and always will. I go to the site because it gives me easy access to reviews from many different reviewers and I can read the user reviews also. The overall score of any game on Metacritic means very little to me.
I dunno, it didn't make me physically ill. I would have put UO higher, of course - that's just not right. But I also would have put WAR a little lower (prob 70s) and the garbage that is Champions and STO lower, maybe in the 50s or 40s. Lotro's my favorite MMO, so I would have put that higher, above WoW, but I admit, I do like WoW, so I feel that is fine where it is (though of course it's not perfect). Prob would have put AoC lower, too, securely in the 70s.
These rankings actually seem very sensible to me - they certainly don't make me angry at all. They are not, of course, a good metric of whether a MMO is all that interesting in the long term, but they fairly accurately reflect how polished a game is on release. Low ranking games such as Fallen Earth and UO are known for having quite a few bugs on release, while WoW was pretty polished out of the gate.
I completely agree that Metacritic scores as a means of giving bonuses or talking to investors about the success of a game is ridiculous. As stated earlier by others, the problem isn't that the reviews are bad; it's that MMO's need to be reviewed over the long haul, which can't really be done with this kind of a system.
Metacritic is only useful when I agree with the score and useless when I don't!
Having said that there is a case for saying MMOs need a special set of rules as they do change over time(well most do,some do a little and some don't at all)...so maybe Metacritic does need to take into account re-reviews into it's averaging.Of course this would require th emajority of reviewing sites to actually do re-reviews at regular intervals.Metacritic isn't the reviewer just the collector and publisher of data.
While I don't agree with the exact scores as I think all of the top end is placed too highly, t(here's never been a game above 9 in my book), though WOW deserves to be at the top.
But besides that, I think the order of placement on the list is pretty accurate, with the lone exception of WAR which I think got its ratings due to its excellent hype, and not so much on what the game was about.
I even understand the UO score, not because that's what the game is today, but its early years were very rough, with reputable gaming magazines giving it zeros (CGW rated it 'Coaster of the year, twice I think). That's bound to drag down the average over the long haul.
I take scores like this with a grain of salt, I usually compare what the reviewers said, vs the credibility of the site, vs what the users rate it at and factor that in with all that I read about a game before buying it.
Of course, if EVE was on the list, it be an 87 in my book.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The list seems pretty accurate to me and it's the same exact system used on this very site (this site does it even more). Explain how else a game like Atlantica Online would be number 1.
If anything this sites review system is more flawed since it allows your random joe to vote on the games. So now you have the issue of people voting multiple times, people voting down a game since they are mad at the games developers for 'nerfing' them or just general dislike of the game for whatever reason (welcome to 60% of the WoW votes on this site). At least a actual news site isn't going to be disgruntled about getting nerfed and will make a generally correct decision even if it's only the beginning of the game. I mean Aion has the score it has since the sites doing the reviews started realizing that it became a grindfest after level 30 with very little content.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Stradden is not a WoW player... In fact, he's likely a fanboy of a game not appearing on this list. Just a guess. I'll have to echo those who have posted before me and reiterate that this list doesn't seem off to me. Looks quite reasonable.
I dunno, I look at Metacritic occasionally, it's a good one-stop shop for reviews available on games. However, having spent enough time there over the years, it's pretty apparent that some of the links will be to professional, balanced reviews, and some to amateur nerd-ragey things. I'd like to think (but I'm probably wrong) that Metacritic will weight a more complete review (covering all features of a game) more heavily than a "Oh jeebus the lag, the hell, the agony, the pointlessness" posted by a reviewer using a sub-par system (just as an example).
I'm pretty sure they don't though.
If you look at FE as an example, Metacritic score 69, user score 7.8... I'd say a 78 is fair.
Aion: Metacritic score 76, user score 6.6, again, 66 would seem more fair.
All falls down when you come to WAR though, Metacritic score of 86 and a user score of 8.1....81? Hmmmm. Not so sure about that one.
Also worth noting that WoW's expansions have separate ratings, both BC and WoTLK rank at 91 to Vanilla's 93, Wrath's user score is a mere 6.4 (ouch!).
It's all a matter of perspective, even the user scores which seem to be largely more accurate than the weighted aggregates used to calculate the main score rely on someone creating an account to rank a game, which implies an interest in that game looking good or bad (like we see here). No zero score (from a user) should be allowed to stand, nor should a 100, since they are obviously coming from a place of extreme bias.
The time-frame on a "proper" review is an interesting point. I thought both Aion and WAR rocked in their early stages, took going into Tier 2 in WAR (and spending a good chunk of time there - weeks trying to grind renown on my zealot post healing RP nerf) to see how problematic the RVR "balance" and scenario grinding possibilities could be. Aion, the gloss just wore off, I rerolled from my lvl30 Asmo cleric and was shocked to find I was getting almost identical quests on the "other side", that did it in for me, the strict linearity of it all bugged me all along, but that just killed it.
Both games were hella fun to start with, but got dreary for one reason or another along the way. I'm seeing the initial rush portrayed well in these reviews, but not the ensuing drear.
As Justin said, looks like plenty of those reviews were just rushed out to be "exclusives" for smaller sites.
It doesn't surprise me that the industry uses Metacritic as a barometer of success, but maybe they should be looking at the user scores (since they keep being updated) rather than the critical scores? After all, the users are the ones paying to play, the critics are generally on freebies.
(ps - interesting that there are no reviews from MMORPG.com or Massively listed for many of the games, why? It looks like Metacritic has a slight bias towards reviews from mostly-console-centric publications, not such a great plan when it comes to MMO reviews.)
(ps - interesting that there are no reviews from MMORPG.com or Massively listed for many of the games, why? It looks like Metacritic has a slight bias towards reviews from mostly-console-centric publications, not such a great plan when it comes to MMO reviews.)
Just adressing this one part of your post as the rest I have no comment or argument with at all....I believe Massively and MMORPG.com are seen more as blog sites not review sites,though I might be completely wrong in that being the reason.
Also if you included massively's opinion on MMORPGs after launch Cryptic games would on average have a score of 150% hehe.
While I agree with the "basic" premise that mmo reviews are, overally, poorly done, I don't think you make the best case with your list.
Quite a few of the numbers listed are near copies of mmorpg.com's scores...and, if you throw in the Lich King expansions review numbers, you get even more parity. Certainly not enough absurdity in the scores to make one "wretch".
Actually, the bigger problem seems to be that money folks are putting too much emphasis into these numbers...and the folks in the industry aren't doing much to stop them from this poor decision. But, then again, what do you expect from an industry that is (admittedly) becoming more and more under the control of investors and not developers.
Yes...review scores, and reviews in general, of mmo's are spotty at best. It's a problem that needs to be fixed. By the gaming media. Developers have little control over the media and the choices they make. I suggest the developers who are "sick" over these numbers actually focus on the one thing they can change...the affect it has on those that supply their cash. Instead of rolling over an allowing them to base your work on some ridiculously created metric, get them to understand how it all really works.
But, that will take time, and could risk angering those who pump the well. And, admit it Mr. Webb, tthat means they won't...because no one wants to turn off the faucet....
Instead, we'll likely just hear more complaints (possibly in article form)
When you say MMORPG's are not easily reviewed, I think you really hit the nail on the head. One of the X factors that is (almost) never mentioned when reviewing an MMORPG, is the community. Community is generally something that's beyond the marketing departments mental grasp, and therefore beyond their control, yet is crucial to a games success or failure. Bit of a tangent, but it's something I've been thinking about, and I think it's somewhat related to your article.
I just wanted to reiterate this. As a for instance, I loved playing WoW and the game itself was what kept me going for many months. What kept me from turning those months to years was the abhorrent community. Once the gameplay was mostly exhausted, the community ensured that there was little to keep me involved. For MMOs, it always seems to come down to the community as the final arbiter as to whether or not I stay with it. When this is reflected in Metacritic scores, I'll start paying attention to them when it comes to MMOs. Otherwise, I'll only give them any credence when it comes to single player games. Even then, it's with a grain of salt.
One thing i think a lot of people are forgetting is that most mmo's now a days are linking sites on there main page for there players go do "positive reviews" to review sites. How many people have started playing a game and go to there game web site to find a "link" to go rate the game?
Most people that are playing normally like the game. EVE is a big user of this. I love EVE but it is a very time consuming game so I dont play it due to the fact that it isnt much fun for me unless I invest a large amount of time which i just dont have right now. You will find though that people that due play it are normally very hard core about it and will go to such sites and give it a review that is not for the "masses".
The problem with Metacritic is that it is complete garbage.
Those scores make little sense, since the "sources" aren't in any way consistent, their weighting is messed up for people who use a scoring system that you can not easily divide 100 out of, and in so far as the percentile score at the top of the page goes, removes any and all context, essentially rendering it worthless, but looking important and "scientific" anyway.
A rotten tomatoes style aggregator would be far more useful, and less of an affront to anyone who wants their reviews to be any actual use.
I agree that is very hard to score an MMO, due to its constant change and the longevity of the player’s interest. I don’t see anything wrong with the list, other than STO being higher than UO. All information there should be looked at like an average and not an actual number. People shouldn’t look at this list as a defining number, rather a fluctuating number that gives you an idea what to expect. So if I’m looking for a game to play new or old, I’ll go to this site and look at the scores that pass 75, anything lower is not worth my time or a waist of money.
Reviews are always problematic - on this site as well as any other. Aggregates of those reviews are worth about as much as the digital media they're stored on.
Take movie reviews, which are far more mature as a process. Roger Ebert (given the thread title) is very well known, very well published and yet I agree with about half of his critiques. He absolutely loves some films that I wouldn't even bother to pirate, and hates some that I would like.
The biggest problem of the article is not that Metacritic scores do or do not agree with popular sentiment - it's that there are know-nothing CEOs and management goons out there that think it's some sort of bullet-proof gospel. In broad strokes sure - WoW is the best MMO, the others are varying degrees less, but to use them as a fine-grained indication of which studios are better than others is purely wrong-headed.
Metacritic is a terrible "tool" and a general bane. Theres so much focus on doing shit with the game just to eek out a better metacritic score that gameplay suffers, which is bullshit. Scrap the stupid site and let people make opinions on their own. Reviews have their place, but games shouldn't suddenly start adapting themselves just to please a handful of reviewers instead of the community following it.
Sadly Meta score system is completely broken. While an MMO game shouldn't be there in the first place those are the reviews that seem to be the worst. To use an aggregate scoring system you have to at least have someone previewing the scores coming in to make sure that the reviewer has any clue as to what they are talking about and Meta does not. While reading reviews there for games that I ended up buying, (single player as well as multi player), there were too many errors to count. One game I bought had a mediocre score with half the reviews being high and half being very low. Most of the lower scores had reviewers that had clearly not played the game for more than a few minutes if at all. If that reviewer didn't like the game fine, but when its a lie from someone whose only experience with the game are other people's reviews and press releases that system fails. They really should have their own in house reviewers that have played game X to make sure that no matter what the score is, that at least it was truthful. I continually find reviews of games I've played where the reviewer says they disliked the game because of, (insert whatever reason), where its something I know from first hand experience is untrue.
I don't believe in a "Metacritic" system. IMO, besides all the reasons that the article mentioned, there's one other thing about the system that makes it not work. That something is a little 4-letter-word called "bias". There's no such thing as a review that is 100% free of it.
If I'm thinking about getting a new release game, I'll do my own research.
Looks like accurate scoring to me, pretty much how i would rate those games myself. Its not like the scoring here is any better. Its all about personal opinion anyway, if someone rates a game higher that one that you would prefer, there is no need to get angry, who cares, as long as you enjoy the game. Not to be rude or anything, but this seemed like a rage post.....For whatever reason they score games, whether it be financial or just plain biased, always trust yourself over an internet site. And if they do it for money, can you really blame them for wanting a couple extra bucks in this messed up economy?....Bleh
I kinda find it amusing to see a MMORPG.com reporter talking about strange review scores. Specially talking about "exclusive" things when a game like AOC has been dominating MMORPG.com reports for weeks. 3 reports on improvements in 2009 ? How many reports have other MMOs had about their progress in 2009 ? WOW new dungeon party system even had a mention here ? ROM revisited after 2.0 ? Or even true REPORTS on AOC instead of just RP driven stories of how great this and that is while escaping all true talk about real issues in the game ?
Seriously ... I find NOTHING strange about those reviews. Nothing that hasn't been seen before when independent websites (including MMORPG.COM that answers their posters with "We are a private website and we do what we want" when gamers try to raise the awerness on how rotten from the core the entire gaming review industy really is.
Aside from the fact that a system like this is a terrible tool for rating MMOGs, I find it terribly disturbing that companies actually use this website as a tool to measure success and failure. It is beyond disturbing, and it is unfathomable to me that even people at the top of the food chain in the gaming industry are really that willfully ignorant that they use this "tool" at all. Never mind that they lend so much credence to it... It's sort of like TV producers still using the Nielsen rating system. It is antiquated for one thing, but it's so basic and doesn't take nearly all the factors into account that it needs to to be accurate at all. This is exactly why we see the same inane crap pooped out by these companies year after year.
------------------------- "Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P.Lovecraft, "From Beyond"
I went back to see what MC choose for the best games of 2009. The highest PC MMORPG game on the list was EVE - Apocrypha. I see nothing wrong with that review tbh.
We MMO gamers think we know how games should be. The thing is - in many cases MMOs are as far from a true pleasure of a spare time enjoyment. Cause lets face it.. 90% of MMORPG gamers are nerds with little or no life that sit infornt of PCs day in and day out and claim they actually have a life....
Maybe we should ask the MMORPG.COM readers how many of the top 50 movies of 2009 they have seen. And then ofc I mean GONE to the movie. Not watched it in between raids and farming trips.....
Belive me - we will see alot of no lifers claiming they went to see 40 of them... when in fact we know very well they have maybe gone to the movies 1 or 2 times the entire year.
Comments
As an investor as well as an MMO player, the numbers look fine to me.
I've always used the Metacritic site and always will. I go to the site because it gives me easy access to reviews from many different reviewers and I can read the user reviews also. The overall score of any game on Metacritic means very little to me.
No signature, I don't have a pen
I dunno, it didn't make me physically ill. I would have put UO higher, of course - that's just not right. But I also would have put WAR a little lower (prob 70s) and the garbage that is Champions and STO lower, maybe in the 50s or 40s. Lotro's my favorite MMO, so I would have put that higher, above WoW, but I admit, I do like WoW, so I feel that is fine where it is (though of course it's not perfect). Prob would have put AoC lower, too, securely in the 70s.
These rankings actually seem very sensible to me - they certainly don't make me angry at all. They are not, of course, a good metric of whether a MMO is all that interesting in the long term, but they fairly accurately reflect how polished a game is on release. Low ranking games such as Fallen Earth and UO are known for having quite a few bugs on release, while WoW was pretty polished out of the gate.
I completely agree that Metacritic scores as a means of giving bonuses or talking to investors about the success of a game is ridiculous. As stated earlier by others, the problem isn't that the reviews are bad; it's that MMO's need to be reviewed over the long haul, which can't really be done with this kind of a system.
Metacritic is only useful when I agree with the score and useless when I don't!
Having said that there is a case for saying MMOs need a special set of rules as they do change over time(well most do,some do a little and some don't at all)...so maybe Metacritic does need to take into account re-reviews into it's averaging.Of course this would require th emajority of reviewing sites to actually do re-reviews at regular intervals.Metacritic isn't the reviewer just the collector and publisher of data.
While I don't agree with the exact scores as I think all of the top end is placed too highly, t(here's never been a game above 9 in my book), though WOW deserves to be at the top.
But besides that, I think the order of placement on the list is pretty accurate, with the lone exception of WAR which I think got its ratings due to its excellent hype, and not so much on what the game was about.
I even understand the UO score, not because that's what the game is today, but its early years were very rough, with reputable gaming magazines giving it zeros (CGW rated it 'Coaster of the year, twice I think). That's bound to drag down the average over the long haul.
I take scores like this with a grain of salt, I usually compare what the reviewers said, vs the credibility of the site, vs what the users rate it at and factor that in with all that I read about a game before buying it.
Of course, if EVE was on the list, it be an 87 in my book.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The list seems pretty accurate to me and it's the same exact system used on this very site (this site does it even more). Explain how else a game like Atlantica Online would be number 1.
If anything this sites review system is more flawed since it allows your random joe to vote on the games. So now you have the issue of people voting multiple times, people voting down a game since they are mad at the games developers for 'nerfing' them or just general dislike of the game for whatever reason (welcome to 60% of the WoW votes on this site). At least a actual news site isn't going to be disgruntled about getting nerfed and will make a generally correct decision even if it's only the beginning of the game. I mean Aion has the score it has since the sites doing the reviews started realizing that it became a grindfest after level 30 with very little content.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Stradden is not a WoW player... In fact, he's likely a fanboy of a game not appearing on this list. Just a guess. I'll have to echo those who have posted before me and reiterate that this list doesn't seem off to me. Looks quite reasonable.
There are many aspects that for example says that wow is bad, also i doubt they check many asian sites etc.
Would never trust such a site.
I dunno, I look at Metacritic occasionally, it's a good one-stop shop for reviews available on games. However, having spent enough time there over the years, it's pretty apparent that some of the links will be to professional, balanced reviews, and some to amateur nerd-ragey things. I'd like to think (but I'm probably wrong) that Metacritic will weight a more complete review (covering all features of a game) more heavily than a "Oh jeebus the lag, the hell, the agony, the pointlessness" posted by a reviewer using a sub-par system (just as an example).
I'm pretty sure they don't though.
If you look at FE as an example, Metacritic score 69, user score 7.8... I'd say a 78 is fair.
Aion: Metacritic score 76, user score 6.6, again, 66 would seem more fair.
All falls down when you come to WAR though, Metacritic score of 86 and a user score of 8.1....81? Hmmmm. Not so sure about that one.
Also worth noting that WoW's expansions have separate ratings, both BC and WoTLK rank at 91 to Vanilla's 93, Wrath's user score is a mere 6.4 (ouch!).
It's all a matter of perspective, even the user scores which seem to be largely more accurate than the weighted aggregates used to calculate the main score rely on someone creating an account to rank a game, which implies an interest in that game looking good or bad (like we see here). No zero score (from a user) should be allowed to stand, nor should a 100, since they are obviously coming from a place of extreme bias.
The time-frame on a "proper" review is an interesting point. I thought both Aion and WAR rocked in their early stages, took going into Tier 2 in WAR (and spending a good chunk of time there - weeks trying to grind renown on my zealot post healing RP nerf) to see how problematic the RVR "balance" and scenario grinding possibilities could be. Aion, the gloss just wore off, I rerolled from my lvl30 Asmo cleric and was shocked to find I was getting almost identical quests on the "other side", that did it in for me, the strict linearity of it all bugged me all along, but that just killed it.
Both games were hella fun to start with, but got dreary for one reason or another along the way. I'm seeing the initial rush portrayed well in these reviews, but not the ensuing drear.
As Justin said, looks like plenty of those reviews were just rushed out to be "exclusives" for smaller sites.
It doesn't surprise me that the industry uses Metacritic as a barometer of success, but maybe they should be looking at the user scores (since they keep being updated) rather than the critical scores? After all, the users are the ones paying to play, the critics are generally on freebies.
(ps - interesting that there are no reviews from MMORPG.com or Massively listed for many of the games, why? It looks like Metacritic has a slight bias towards reviews from mostly-console-centric publications, not such a great plan when it comes to MMO reviews.)
Just adressing this one part of your post as the rest I have no comment or argument with at all....I believe Massively and MMORPG.com are seen more as blog sites not review sites,though I might be completely wrong in that being the reason.
Also if you included massively's opinion on MMORPGs after launch Cryptic games would on average have a score of 150% hehe.
While I agree with the "basic" premise that mmo reviews are, overally, poorly done, I don't think you make the best case with your list.
Quite a few of the numbers listed are near copies of mmorpg.com's scores...and, if you throw in the Lich King expansions review numbers, you get even more parity. Certainly not enough absurdity in the scores to make one "wretch".
Actually, the bigger problem seems to be that money folks are putting too much emphasis into these numbers...and the folks in the industry aren't doing much to stop them from this poor decision. But, then again, what do you expect from an industry that is (admittedly) becoming more and more under the control of investors and not developers.
Yes...review scores, and reviews in general, of mmo's are spotty at best. It's a problem that needs to be fixed. By the gaming media. Developers have little control over the media and the choices they make. I suggest the developers who are "sick" over these numbers actually focus on the one thing they can change...the affect it has on those that supply their cash. Instead of rolling over an allowing them to base your work on some ridiculously created metric, get them to understand how it all really works.
But, that will take time, and could risk angering those who pump the well. And, admit it Mr. Webb, tthat means they won't...because no one wants to turn off the faucet....
Instead, we'll likely just hear more complaints (possibly in article form)
I just wanted to reiterate this. As a for instance, I loved playing WoW and the game itself was what kept me going for many months. What kept me from turning those months to years was the abhorrent community. Once the gameplay was mostly exhausted, the community ensured that there was little to keep me involved. For MMOs, it always seems to come down to the community as the final arbiter as to whether or not I stay with it. When this is reflected in Metacritic scores, I'll start paying attention to them when it comes to MMOs. Otherwise, I'll only give them any credence when it comes to single player games. Even then, it's with a grain of salt.
One thing i think a lot of people are forgetting is that most mmo's now a days are linking sites on there main page for there players go do "positive reviews" to review sites. How many people have started playing a game and go to there game web site to find a "link" to go rate the game?
Most people that are playing normally like the game. EVE is a big user of this. I love EVE but it is a very time consuming game so I dont play it due to the fact that it isnt much fun for me unless I invest a large amount of time which i just dont have right now. You will find though that people that due play it are normally very hard core about it and will go to such sites and give it a review that is not for the "masses".
The problem with Metacritic is that it is complete garbage.
Those scores make little sense, since the "sources" aren't in any way consistent, their weighting is messed up for people who use a scoring system that you can not easily divide 100 out of, and in so far as the percentile score at the top of the page goes, removes any and all context, essentially rendering it worthless, but looking important and "scientific" anyway.
A rotten tomatoes style aggregator would be far more useful, and less of an affront to anyone who wants their reviews to be any actual use.
I agree that is very hard to score an MMO, due to its constant change and the longevity of the player’s interest. I don’t see anything wrong with the list, other than STO being higher than UO. All information there should be looked at like an average and not an actual number. People shouldn’t look at this list as a defining number, rather a fluctuating number that gives you an idea what to expect. So if I’m looking for a game to play new or old, I’ll go to this site and look at the scores that pass 75, anything lower is not worth my time or a waist of money.
Reviews are always problematic - on this site as well as any other. Aggregates of those reviews are worth about as much as the digital media they're stored on.
Take movie reviews, which are far more mature as a process. Roger Ebert (given the thread title) is very well known, very well published and yet I agree with about half of his critiques. He absolutely loves some films that I wouldn't even bother to pirate, and hates some that I would like.
The biggest problem of the article is not that Metacritic scores do or do not agree with popular sentiment - it's that there are know-nothing CEOs and management goons out there that think it's some sort of bullet-proof gospel. In broad strokes sure - WoW is the best MMO, the others are varying degrees less, but to use them as a fine-grained indication of which studios are better than others is purely wrong-headed.
Not that it surprises me.
Metacritic is a terrible "tool" and a general bane. Theres so much focus on doing shit with the game just to eek out a better metacritic score that gameplay suffers, which is bullshit. Scrap the stupid site and let people make opinions on their own. Reviews have their place, but games shouldn't suddenly start adapting themselves just to please a handful of reviewers instead of the community following it.
Bans a perma, but so are sigs in necro posts.
EAT ME MMORPG.com!
Swap UO with WAR and the list seems to reflect the views of most gamers.
So overall it doesn't seem terribly wrong.
Sadly Meta score system is completely broken. While an MMO game shouldn't be there in the first place those are the reviews that seem to be the worst. To use an aggregate scoring system you have to at least have someone previewing the scores coming in to make sure that the reviewer has any clue as to what they are talking about and Meta does not. While reading reviews there for games that I ended up buying, (single player as well as multi player), there were too many errors to count. One game I bought had a mediocre score with half the reviews being high and half being very low. Most of the lower scores had reviewers that had clearly not played the game for more than a few minutes if at all. If that reviewer didn't like the game fine, but when its a lie from someone whose only experience with the game are other people's reviews and press releases that system fails. They really should have their own in house reviewers that have played game X to make sure that no matter what the score is, that at least it was truthful. I continually find reviews of games I've played where the reviewer says they disliked the game because of, (insert whatever reason), where its something I know from first hand experience is untrue.
My 2 cents on the topic is this:
I don't believe in a "Metacritic" system. IMO, besides all the reasons that the article mentioned, there's one other thing about the system that makes it not work. That something is a little 4-letter-word called "bias". There's no such thing as a review that is 100% free of it.
If I'm thinking about getting a new release game, I'll do my own research.
Looks like accurate scoring to me, pretty much how i would rate those games myself. Its not like the scoring here is any better. Its all about personal opinion anyway, if someone rates a game higher that one that you would prefer, there is no need to get angry, who cares, as long as you enjoy the game. Not to be rude or anything, but this seemed like a rage post.....For whatever reason they score games, whether it be financial or just plain biased, always trust yourself over an internet site. And if they do it for money, can you really blame them for wanting a couple extra bucks in this messed up economy?....Bleh
I kinda find it amusing to see a MMORPG.com reporter talking about strange review scores. Specially talking about "exclusive" things when a game like AOC has been dominating MMORPG.com reports for weeks. 3 reports on improvements in 2009 ? How many reports have other MMOs had about their progress in 2009 ? WOW new dungeon party system even had a mention here ? ROM revisited after 2.0 ? Or even true REPORTS on AOC instead of just RP driven stories of how great this and that is while escaping all true talk about real issues in the game ?
Seriously ... I find NOTHING strange about those reviews. Nothing that hasn't been seen before when independent websites (including MMORPG.COM that answers their posters with "We are a private website and we do what we want" when gamers try to raise the awerness on how rotten from the core the entire gaming review industy really is.
Aside from the fact that a system like this is a terrible tool for rating MMOGs, I find it terribly disturbing that companies actually use this website as a tool to measure success and failure. It is beyond disturbing, and it is unfathomable to me that even people at the top of the food chain in the gaming industry are really that willfully ignorant that they use this "tool" at all. Never mind that they lend so much credence to it... It's sort of like TV producers still using the Nielsen rating system. It is antiquated for one thing, but it's so basic and doesn't take nearly all the factors into account that it needs to to be accurate at all. This is exactly why we see the same inane crap pooped out by these companies year after year.
-------------------------
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P.Lovecraft, "From Beyond"
Member Since March 2004
I went back to see what MC choose for the best games of 2009. The highest PC MMORPG game on the list was EVE - Apocrypha. I see nothing wrong with that review tbh.
We MMO gamers think we know how games should be. The thing is - in many cases MMOs are as far from a true pleasure of a spare time enjoyment. Cause lets face it.. 90% of MMORPG gamers are nerds with little or no life that sit infornt of PCs day in and day out and claim they actually have a life....
Maybe we should ask the MMORPG.COM readers how many of the top 50 movies of 2009 they have seen. And then ofc I mean GONE to the movie. Not watched it in between raids and farming trips.....
Belive me - we will see alot of no lifers claiming they went to see 40 of them... when in fact we know very well they have maybe gone to the movies 1 or 2 times the entire year.