Ryan's 4 star review=80 points on Metacritic?

  • 141 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by mordukai (7149 posts) -

So I went on Metacritic to check the various reviews AC2 got. Having just finished it I wanted to know how other critics felt about it and what were the points the liked and didn't like. I went one by one when I see this: 
 

HUH? 
From I remembered Ryan gave it a 4 star review in which he spoke very highly of the game. Now, I've never been person to care much for scores but  I always considered a 4 star review to be in the 90 area. Even though a score of 80 is not bad all I personally always considered it to be an above average score. From his review I never once got the feeling that AC2 is above average game. Sure, I have my own issues with this game but If I was to score (number wise) it I would have given it 9. I wonder who is the person deciding how a score system like the one GB uses gets scored, if it up to Metacritic then something is very wrong with the way they attach numbers to a review system that specifically avoids that issue.  
  
So a 4/5=80, and a 5/5=100, where's the 90? 4.5/5?  
GB doesn't use that awkward score system, this just baffles me.  

I also like how Metacritic took the part out of his written review that fitted the number they attached with it. Classy.  
 
What do you guys think of this issue? 
 
Ryan, if you read this then I would very much like to hear your thoughts on this matter.      
#2 Posted by Creamypies (4059 posts) -

Do what I do. Never ever look at Metacritic.

#3 Posted by mordukai (7149 posts) -
@creamypies said:
" Do what I do. Never ever look at Metacritic. "
Good advice but the thing is that I read an article on GI with Glen Schofield that tackles that very issue. In it he says that publishers look at Metacritic very closely and according to the score a game gets they decide if the developers will  get a bonus or that sometimes a publishers will flat our deny developers money. Thats just sad. 
#4 Posted by Delta_Ass (3274 posts) -

Metacritic extrapolates numerical scores from reviews that are composed solely of text.
 
Metacritic is very flawed.

#5 Edited by Cornman89 (1579 posts) -
@Delta_Ass said:

" Metacritic extrapolates numerical scores from reviews that are composed solely of text.  Metacritic is very flawed. "

Whoa! Seriously? That is flawed.
 
Furthermore, where can I find this site that dispenses reviews without an accompanying score? You have a URL? I want to check them out.
#6 Edited by lucas_kelly (769 posts) -

This is why I have a problem with 5 star review score systems. They just don't give enough indication of how good the game is.

#7 Edited by Delta_Ass (3274 posts) -
@Cornman89 said:

" @Delta_Ass said:

" Metacritic extrapolates numerical scores from reviews that are composed solely of text.  Metacritic is very flawed. "

Whoa! Seriously? That is flawed.  Furthermore, where can I find this site that dispenses reviews without an accompanying score? You have a URL? I want to check them out. "
Ummm... a lot of movie reviews on different sites don't give scores. The NY Times, for example. 
 
Reviews without a score or grade are a bit more common in movies then video games.
#8 Edited by Cornman89 (1579 posts) -
@Delta_Ass said:

" @Cornman89 said:

" @Delta_Ass said:

" Metacritic extrapolates numerical scores from reviews that are composed solely of text.  Metacritic is very flawed. "

Whoa! Seriously? That is flawed.  Furthermore, where can I find this site that dispenses reviews without an accompanying score? You have a URL? I want to check them out. "
Ummm... a lot of movie reviews on different sites don't give scores.   Reviews without a score or grade are a bit more common in movies then video games. "
Hah! Of course! That is more common with movies. Stupid me, for a moment there I forgot people reviewed things besides video games... 
 
...

Wait, what? So you're telling me Metacritic assigns scores to pure-text movie reviews? (Turns out I don't frequent the site very often, so I wouldn't know.) ...Well, now we're back to where we started - which is Metacritic making no goddamned sense.
#9 Edited by WilliamRLBaker (4777 posts) -

1 star 10-20 2 starts 20-40 3 stars 50-60 4 stars 60-70 5 stars 80-100.
 
Thats how i've allways looked at it.

#10 Posted by Binman88 (3685 posts) -
@Mordukai said:

" Now, I've never been person to care much for scores but  I always considered a 4 star review to be a in 90 area."

As impossible and futile as it is to try and convert a 5 star scale to a % scale, I don't see a problem with Metacritic converting Ryan's score to an 80 in this case. I would never think a 4 out of 5 score to be the same as a 90% score; for me, 5/5 falls around the 90 and above mark, for a near perfect game.
 
Also, an 80 is extremely well above average for a game. Description of a 4 out of 5 score from the GB FAQ: 

Still very good and easy to recommend, though it doesn't quite live up to its full potential. 

Sounds like an 80 to me.

#11 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

Metacritic is statstics if you erase all the writing and text. It gives you a very good idea or a direction of how the game is scores. Is it true giantbomb has a review system with no 4.5? If that is true, a game can only be 8/10 or 10/10 which is not credible. Honestly I rarely read reviews from individual gaming sites, I just go to gamerankings instead. That is not to say if a game doesn't get a good review on metacritic or gamerankings you shouldn't buy it, i'm not saying that at all, however it's good to have an idea, sort of like rotton tomatoes, when you want to know how good a movie like avatar really is without all the indivudual site opinions.

#12 Posted by Thrillhouse87 (230 posts) -

if 4 stars is 90, then what is 80, 3? and 70 2? numbers!
#13 Posted by oldschool (7264 posts) -

Metacritic just use a system of division to create a score out of 100.  Out of 5 means 20/40/60/80/100.  Out of 4 means 25/50/75/100.  Out of 13, but using letters (A=, A A-, B- et cetera) means 7/14/21/28/35/42/49/56/63/70/77/84/91/100. 
 
It isn't Metacritics fault if this isn't how a site sees it own score as they know what Metacritic will do with their score.  If they don't like it, then they don't have to have Metacritic host it.  We need to stop blaming Metacritic.  What is wrong with Metacritic though, is that every man and his dog reviewing a game is hosted.  Critics lack credibilty at the best of times, but with some, or even many reviews, you may as well read the User's Reviews.

#14 Posted by CptBedlam (4449 posts) -
@lucas_kelly: It's more than enough indication. All you need to know is if a game is outstanding, good, mediocre etc  ... the rest comes down to individual taste anyway. Would you also rate movies or books on a 100-scale?
#15 Posted by CptBedlam (4449 posts) -
"@HitmanAgent47 said:

Metacritic is statstics if you erase all the writing and text. It gives you a very good idea or a direction of how the game is scores. Is it true giantbomb has a review system with no 4.5? If that is true, a game can only be 8/10 or 10/10 which is not credible.

It's your logic that's not credible, son. Who says that a game has to get a grade on a 10-scale?
#16 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@CptBedlam: Why not? I didn't say it was on a 10 scale, i'm saying about percentages, maybe a hundred percent. 4 stars is like 80% and 5 stars is 100%. As the op said, where is the equilvent to 90% is it the 5 star review? Alot of review sites uses that and they all get averaged out on gamerankings down the very percentage. It doesn't change the fact assassin's creed 2 is not a 80% game, when they were really saying that it's suppose to be a good game. Anyways I don't care about any individual review sites, if they want to lower the average of gamerankings, that's fine with me. I don't take any individual review sites seriously, gamerankings/metacritic > ign, gamespot, gametrailers and giantbomb. Giantbomb's review system is flawed, i'll just ignore it, it's thrown in with the rest to make an average out of statistics anyways to round out the average fairly, giantbomb's review system does nothing to tarish the AAA quality of assassin's creed 2 on gamerankings or metacritic. 
 
Let's also throw out the concept of rotton tomatoes too then? I'm sure it's useful, however it's ultimately your choice how you waste your money and it's good to have a higher average than saying IGNorant.com said this or that.
#17 Posted by MattyFTM (14363 posts) -

A 5 star rating system simply doesn't translate to a 100 point scale. And there is no need to try. Just look at it as 4/5 - don't try to translate it to a 100 point scale, it's pointless. Metacritic try, and that's their choice, but just ignore them.

Moderator
#18 Posted by Atlas (2435 posts) -

Go have a look at the Metacritic totals for recent albums. Almost every single one is green, which means above average. It's ridiculous. It's not just video games where MC is a little dubious. But then again, GameRankings uses a very similar system.
 
In truth, though, there's nothing really wrong with Metacritic in and of itself. It all depends on how seriously you take it. Use it as a resource, but if you really want to know how good a game is or whether it's for you, then you need to read the reviews. Review systems in and of themselves are not perfect, but when you try and work out a score based on a whole bunch of them it's never going to be an exact science. But it's not without use.

#19 Edited by KamasamaK (2409 posts) -
@oldschool said:

" Metacritic just use a system of division to create a score out of 100.  Out of 5 means 20/40/60/80/100.  Out of 4 means 25/50/75/100. "

There are a couple things wrong with that, though. First, if you want to divide something into n points then you divide by n-1, not n. The quotient is the size of the interval. In the case of 5, you have an interval of 25 making the points 0, 25, 50, 75, 100. Although more important than that is their unnecessary need to reapproriate a score to a scale of differing precision. What about thumbs up/thumbs down? That would give a 0 or 100. They're supposed to be vague recommendations, but they're turned into something more precise than they are capable of being. In addition to that, it's listed with scores that are capable of greater precision. The user is not made aware of this discrepancy upon just viewing the list of scores. And who's to say they weigh the scores of differing precision appropriately to determine their metascore?
#20 Posted by CptBedlam (4449 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47: It's not Giantbomb's' review system that is flawed ... it's how metacritic translates it. Assigning percentage scores to entertainment products is bullshit anyway.
#21 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@CptBedlam: that's only your opinion, I disagree with. I rather trust that average than any individual site which is no longer just an opinion, rather a statistic. Stats are mathmatical unlike opinions and something you can actually average unlike opinions. If you hate rotton tomatoes too which gives an average or IDMB for movies, or metacritic, you shouldn't state your opinion as the only one that's absolute and right when others depends on these stastics to influence their decisions on what to buy, what to rent and what to skip. You won't change my mind and i'm all for these type of averages because I don't trust any individual site regardless for their review scores. 
 
All review scores from every other site can be translated to this 100% scale, unlike giant bomb. Ign has their 9.0, other sites has their 90% and other sites has their 4.5 stars or A, which all is 90%.
#22 Posted by KinjiroSSD (694 posts) -

I'm fairly certain 4/5 = 0.8
Maybe GB should give half stars to allow for greater range

#23 Posted by Stefan (519 posts) -

well, they try to get as much info on the game as possible... I guess they just go with 20,40,60,80,100 - that's what I would do. Don't blame them for trying to give you a brief overview of the different scores. I don't like metascores either but since there are sites like giantbomb, too, I don't give a damn.
#24 Posted by mordukai (7149 posts) -

My problem with metacritic is that they take a review system that deliberately avoids the out-of-a-100 and puts a score to it. That's where I think Metacritic's flew is, they impose their own score on a a system that tries not avoid that. If they want to aggregate a score system based on the 100th scale then they should use sites and review that uses that same score system. I think game critics should have more say on how metacritic scores their reviews. From what I understand, once metacritic decides on a score for the 5/5 system then that number is set and not even the reviewer himself changed it even if they give them a number.  
 
What I am trying to say is that Metacritic should at least make an effort and contact the reviewer and ask him which number they want assign to his review.  
 Personally I feel, as other already claimed, that trying to put a out-of-a-100 number on the 5 stars score system is futile. 

#25 Posted by MoistJohn (235 posts) -
 where X is the number of stars given by Ryan. Jeff has a different one.
#26 Posted by Valkyr (667 posts) -

I have visited Giant Bomb since it was a blog, I never liked the scoring system, it is a way of avoiding awkward score comparison between good games and in my opinion the journalist should be more proffesional and take a risk giving the game at least an score from 1 to 10. I love GB because of the hilarious video content and the bombcast, I don't read the reviews any more, just listen to their opinion about the games they played during the week on the bombcast

#27 Edited by CptBedlam (4449 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47: Giantbomb and other sites don't do their scores for metacritic. If you want to use it, fine. But don't expect other sites to succumb to their scoring philosophy.
 
And my posts here are obviously my opinion. Do you need a disclaimer for each and every post?
#28 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@CptBedlam: However they are part of their philosophy. Some sites like ign might give a game like resistance 2, 9.5/10 and other sites might only give it 4 stars which is 80%, which is averagely 87% right now if I remembered correctly since I remember most of the scores from there, lol. Honestly these sites are participating to help the average. Not every site will have the same average as gamerankings or metacritic, it's either higher or lower which will move the average around. It also shows how bias some reviews are when they are too far from the average, like resistance 2 for example on ign which is helpful imo. Every review, highs and lows are important. 
 
I also have a belif, i'll use a metaphor, sterotypes, it's never true for the individual yet more accurate when you take a group of ppl and average it out. Then when you take more ppl in a group, then you have even more accuracy. I know that's not the best metaphor, however if anything, if there was such a compass that gives you a direction and it gets more and more accurate of the direction when you add more reviews rounding out these sites like giantbomb which may not follow this 100% scale, it's still going to be more accurate that way.  
 
Some games has 30-50 reviews or whatever, the more reviews a game has, the more accurate down to the percentage a game will be. That's my belif and I always say gamerankings doesn't lie. If you actually look at the games that are 90% and higher on gamerankings, it meets the criteria on every site with enough reviews backing it up stating it's an A (or AAA) game, a game over 90% averagely. It definetly passed a vigorous testing process. Gamerankings and metacritic doesn't lie and it's more accurate down to the percentage. It's devoided of opinion rather it's a more accurate statistically with more reviews.
#29 Posted by Binman88 (3685 posts) -
@Mordukai said:

"What I am trying to say is that Metacritic should at least make an effort and contact the reviewer and ask him which number they want assign to his review. "

That's crazy. They use a 5 star system here for a reason, purposefully avoiding a 100 point scale. It's not Metacritic's place to ask a reviewer to give them a different score they can use for their own system.
#30 Posted by Vorbis (2750 posts) -

Reviews are essentially peoples opinions, people who get upset that game X got a 9.6 and game Y got a 9.5 is why I can't stand that kind of system. Reviews are meant to be read and not skimmed over just to check the stars. The GB system is good enough to give you a basic idea, but if you wan't to know more then read the review.
 
(Taken from the Help page)


While we don't believe any game is perfect, we recommend this game without reservation.


Still very good and easy to recommend, though it doesn't quite live up to its full potential.


The halfway point. An inherent appreciation of this game's specific gameplay style, characters, subject matter, and so on may play as big a role in your enjoyment as the actual quality of the game.


This game's problems outweigh its good qualities.


This game will make you wish you had died in a fire moments before turning it on.
-----
 
Metacritic is just terrible for many reasons, it's only use is that it shows all the reviews in one place, if you are unsure about buying a game then you should read more than just one review.

#31 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

If what vorbis posted is true of giantbomb's review scale, then shouldn't most games be 4 stars? It's either 3 stars that's the half way point, or a game that is recommendable and has no flaws or 4 stars as a game isn't good enough to be AAA quality according to the site, which is most games.

Or maybe assassin's creed 2 score was a bit too low here? Maybe these reviews are more casual, since they don't review every game, it's more of a hear our point of view, our opinions over the actual statsitic. I rather listen to metacritic which assassin's creed is at 91% based on 71 reviews and just watch the video review on this site. That's my conclusion.

#32 Posted by CptBedlam (4449 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:
" @CptBedlam: However they are part of their philosophy. Some sites like ign might give a game like resistance 2, 9.5/10 and other sites might only give it 4 stars which is 80% "
No they are not and they don't have to give a shit about how other sites review their games.
 
Giantbomb deliberatedly rejected the percentage-scale because they believe that games cannot be judged this way. I and lots of others believe that, too. If you think otherwise, blame metacritic for translating different scales into theirs but don't blame other sites for using a different rating system.
#33 Posted by RHCPfan24 (8609 posts) -

Metacritic is a terrible institution that sadly has gotten a lot of support from the business side of video games. For some reason, they believe these scores, made using Metacritic's "secret" way of inflating certain outlets while deflating others, are the final authority on how good a game is. And that, ladies and gents, is despicable. As far as I am aware, movie and music producers don't judge their product's quality based off of Metacritic scores but for some reason video game officials see it as a viable benchmark for the quality of their game. The fact that Metacritic makes a score from a pure text review is even worse. Ah, how I hate Metacritic.

#34 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@CptBedlam: It's okay because they have more reviews, assassin's creed 2 had 71 reviews, even the difference with the rating system will be negated by all the other reviews. This review is just another drop in the bucket weighing the game down to it's percentage of how full a bucket is. Metacritic and gamerankings doesn't lie, this game is a 91% game. Reviewers not wanting to be part of this process is irrelevent.
 
I don't blame them for anything or any other site, nothing can go past a 100% and everything can be scaled to it. It's how the world works to determine quality or everything else is the same. I just like the actual percentage because it gives me a good idea how good a game is without reading a single word or watching a single video review. That's only my opinion, I think metacritic, rotton tomatoes and IMDB are good sites to get a more accurate idea and the concept should exist, we should have a choice rather than some vague reviews on certain sites or bias reviews like IGNorant.com. Those games that are over 90% on gamerankings and metacritic are actually very good without any real major flaws imo and has replay value with good graphics. 
 
Like I said, I watch the video reviews here for another opinion, not for the stats. I still think assassin's creed here should of been higher and if they had the choice, they might of used 4.5/5 stars.
#35 Posted by Jimbo (9796 posts) -

Yep, Metacritic just use:
 
1* = 20%
2* = 40%
3* = 60%
4* = 80%
5* = 100%
 
As I've said many times before, this is clearly flawed because there is no Zero Star in a five star scale, and so 0%-20% doesn't even exist on a 5* scale according to metacritic.  
 
Mathematically speaking they should drop each of those scores by 10% (so that they represent the center of each group).  On the other hand, a 3* game anywhere else is ~70%, 4* ~80+% and 5* ~90+%.  But on the other other hand, Ryan is a star harsher (and a star 'correcter' for my liking) than the other reviewers at GB.  The moral of the story is Metacritic is pretty fucked and you need to get to know your reviewers.

#36 Posted by Lestater (394 posts) -

I think people need to realize that GB's review system isn't like other sites where they use numbers and percentages for how good a game is (much like a test grade), but just directly what the reviewer feels about the game, which I don't think should be accepted as a numerical value.

#37 Posted by Mesklinite (804 posts) -
@Cornman89:

Kotaku
#38 Posted by muttjones (95 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:
" @CptBedlam: However they are part of their philosophy. Some sites like ign might give a game like resistance 2, 9.5/10 and other sites might only give it 4 stars which is 80%, which is averagely 87% right now if I remembered correctly since I remember most of the scores from there, lol. Honestly these sites are participating to help the average. Not every site will have the same average as gamerankings or metacritic, it's either higher or lower which will move the average around. It also shows how bias some reviews are when they are too far from the average, like resistance 2 for example on ign which is helpful imo. Every review, highs and lows are important. 
 
I also have a belif, i'll use a metaphor, sterotypes, it's never true for the individual yet more accurate when you take a group of ppl and average it out. Then when you take more ppl in a group, then you have even more accuracy. I know that's not the best metaphor, however if anything, if there was such a compass that gives you a direction and it gets more and more accurate of the direction when you add more reviews rounding out these sites like giantbomb which may not follow this 100% scale, it's still going to be more accurate that way.  
 
Some games has 30-50 reviews or whatever, the more reviews a game has, the more accurate down to the percentage a game will be. That's my belif and I always say gamerankings doesn't lie. If you actually look at the games that are 90% and higher on gamerankings, it meets the criteria on every site with enough reviews backing it up stating it's an A (or AAA) game, a game over 90% averagely. It definetly passed a vigorous testing process. Gamerankings and metacritic doesn't lie and it's more accurate down to the percentage. It's devoided of opinion rather it's a more accurate statistically with more reviews. "
100% scale is stupid. A review is a guideline to help you make a decision on the game and tell you about it. Having 1% differences is really pointless for it does not make a difference to the buyers purchase and if it does then that make me sad. My ideal site would have a sentence at the top summing up the game rather than numbers.
#39 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@muttjones: I disagree with you, I know alot of ppl on other sites that likes to determine what is an AAA game (90% or over). Maybe there are those out there that likes having a console war out there and want to determine who has the better exclusives or games. I'll use a game as an example of quality, I didn't like uncharted at all, it's 89% on gamerankings I belive and 88% on metacritic. However the next game, uncharted 2 is like 96% I belive and I really like that game and I couldn't find anything flawed about the gameplay. If you are part of those who cares to determine quality from one console to the next, down tothe percentage, it might be important.  
 
Here is my opinion, what makes an AAA game according to my research is three things, graphics, strong gameplay and replay value. If any of those things are lacking, it woudn't even be 90% according to my research. I treat it almost like a science and the numbers actually has meaning, however that's only my opinion. It doesn't influence what games I buy and don't buy though, however I do use the percentage to determine quality. Ppl always says treyard is better than infinityward, how can you dispute that? Without gamerankings or metacritic? You can't, it's just their word vs your word. Now most professional reviewers supports your arguement.
#40 Posted by CptBedlam (4449 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47: I think you're highly naive.
 
On imdb it's all user ratings. And have you ever heard of fanboys?
 
On metacritic, the site decides which other sites or magazines they choose for their rating and thereby they make the score. Sure, it's still a vague determination of a games quality but it's not accurate down to each and every percent. I frankly don't care if a game is 95 or 85 ... I know it's really good and I watch some videos and see if it suits me. And that's what Giantbomb is about.
#41 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@CptBedlam: Well that's your problem, I do want to know the difference between 90% and 85% since a site like ign gives every wii and ps3 games inflated scores. I have to know because I don't trust any individual site. Maybe imdb isn't the best example, however rotton tomatoes is. There are even user reviews on metacritic, it just doens't influence anything though. There is no need to insult me in any capasity because I don't agree with you. Trust me, I had arguements over this concept with alot of ppl, they don't want other to determine for them what quality is, that would make them wrong or inaccurate and no one wants to think of themselves like that for what reviews they trust and don't trust. No one is making you think anything, or implying you have to go by this percentage to buy anything, it's your money, waste it if you want to. If you like the genre, it might be a higher user score to you, however these statistics are derived from professional reviewers, some more professional than others, however ppl who are paid to review games > your opinion.
#42 Posted by CptBedlam (4449 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:
" @muttjones: Here is my opinion, what makes an AAA game according to my research is three things, graphics, strong gameplay and replay value. If any of those things are lacking, it woudn't even be 90% according to my research. I treat it almost like a science and the numbers actually has meaning, however that's only my opinion. It doesn't influence what games I buy and don't buy though, however I do use the percentage to determine quality. Ppl always says treyard is better than infinityward, how can you dispute that? Without gamerankings or metacritic? You can't, it's just their word vs your word. Now most professional reviewers supports your arguement. "
 
That's just bullshit, do your research again. You are relying way too much on a flawed percentage-rating-system.
 
Braid: 93% (graphics? replay value?)
Dragon Age: 91% (soso-graphics)
#43 Edited by CptBedlam (4449 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:

" @CptBedlam: I do want to know the difference between 90% and 85% "

A different person doing the review could easily be the difference between these ratings. And there you have one major flaw of percentage-rating systems.
#44 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@CptBedlam: I dare you to say the pc version of dragon age orgins doesn't look really damn good, I have a pc screenshot thread and I posted tons of dragon age screenshots, I dare you to say that. I put more than 60 hours into that game, how is that not replay value? I haven't played braid before, I can't comment on that, is it that 2d looking game? Maybe the gameplay is good and the style is good, I don't know.
#45 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@CptBedlam: Yet dispite that, having so many reviews negate the differences because there could be like 50 other right reviewers put in place to make up for that. You don't understand the stastistics, all these higher and lower numbers really helps the average. This incorrect reviewer is every bit as valid as every reviewer out there for metacritic, all scores are important and right. It's just the average is accurate. There are 71 reviews for assassin's creed 2, one wrong reviewer wouldn't make a difference and that wrong reviewer reviewed this game on this site. Yet it changed nothing, it's still an AAA game, replay value, trust me you would want to play the game again at a later time, not right away, however that's more replay value than a shitty game.
 
Look I sense you won't agree with me, however I am providing the other side of the arguement for metacrtitic. It's just self rightousness that ppl ignores it because psychologically no one wants to be wrong or told what to think.
#46 Posted by Red (5994 posts) -

You always thought that a four-star review is in the 90-area, which is the only place where above-average games are? 
 
  
 
You sir, are an idiot.

#47 Posted by PenguinDust (12481 posts) -

I think Metacritic has it's place as a link page to actually reading the reviews.  I sometimes to go Metacritic to easily navigate to all the reviews I am interested in reading.  Other than that, most of their base-100 score system is completely busted.  I think everyone who follows games knows this already. The same thing is true of Rotten Tomatoes "Tomatometer".  Want to know how the critic really feels?  Read the review, don't rely on the numbers.

#48 Posted by CptBedlam (4449 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47: Look, I understand the concept of the average.
 
I mainly reject your criticism of a five-star scale. The person who reviews games does not have to care about if their rating fits with metacritic. That's metacritics problem. If a reviewer thinks "I'm gonna rate this game but giving it a percentage score is purely dumb", then that's perfectly fine.
 
What percentage do you rate the movie (!) "Avatar", btw? 76? 85? 86? And why?
#49 Posted by HeghmohQib (183 posts) -

Great thread.  Glad people are actually trying to understand this crap.  Everything covered here is why I only ever bother with Giantbomb and personal friends for opinions on games. 
 
People at most sites don't know how to work a 100% scale.  This is how it generally works on most sites/magazines; 
0-20      Don't exist 
21-50    Worse game ever made 
51-75    Really bad game 
76-89    Very Average, not so good game 
90-96    Pretty Good game 
97-100  Paid for a Great Review 
  
Makes no sense.  That's why I prefer the stars.  You don't need to translate to numbers.  It's a good honest opinion on how they feel on the game. 
*       Bad 
**     Ok 
***    Average 
****  Good 
***** Great 
 
#50 Posted by addictedtopinescent (3645 posts) -

Meh Metacritic

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.