Log in or sign up to comment
139 Comments
  • 139 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by MrKlorox

Holy shit, is this actually Metacritic acknowledging their system isn't perfect and attempting to take steps to right the wrongs!?

Posted by YoungFrey

I think an article like this really suffers from not linking to the outside material in question.  You spend 11 paragraphs talking about metacritic and it gets no links?  It might be common practice, but it's lame and anti-reader.  Not even ones to the games in question?  I hate it when other sites do that, and I hate it here.
Posted by JoeyRavn

I don't like where this is heading. Then again, I don't use Metacritic, nor like Bastion. So no problem for me, for the time being.

Posted by DystopiaX

@Largo6661 said:

@DystopiaX: i have no problem with review scores or peoples opinions on a game, What i have a problem with is what metacritic has done to gaming culture. I mean 5 years ago 7 was a good score now a 7 is a terrible score, and devs say things like "hope this scores at least an 8 on metacritic or we are done". I hate the way a games success often lives and dies on its metacritic score. At the end of the day its just an arbitrary number. My main problem with the site is how it down plays the importance of the words writen in the review and pretty much focuses in on a number to convey to a person whether a game is good or not, and then whats next? metacritis scores for reviewers or maybe specific devs? its just a dumb site. its the review itself thats important not the number added at the end.

That has nothing to do with review scores, and that sentiment was around before metacritic was a thing.

Posted by Sammo21

Metacritic user reviews are complete trash.

Posted by lockwoodx

Metacritic caves in I see.

Posted by Elsolar

metacritic is cancer

Posted by Ravenlight

Nice job snapping up this scoop, Patrick. Glad to see Metacritic took action in this situation.

Posted by Winternet

See, that wasn't so difficult. Too bad a couple of devs and websites had to bitch about it for them to actually do what they are supposed to do.

Posted by Krakn3Dfx

This seems like a slippery slope to me when it comes to choosing who can and can't post user reviews for games. I'm not much for Metacritic anyway, but to have them picking and choosing which user reviews are valid and which aren't makes them even less reliable than they were before.

Posted by tourgen

@ZackHoagie said:

So... why exactly were they doing this? I mean, trolling is pretty unreasonable by design, but usually trolls have some sort of selection process for their targets.

well if scores determine royalty payouts and bonuses, a publisher could hire some people to bomb scores as a cost-saving measure.

Posted by Splodge

@tourgen said:

@ZackHoagie said:

So... why exactly were they doing this? I mean, trolling is pretty unreasonable by design, but usually trolls have some sort of selection process for their targets.

well if scores determine royalty payouts and bonuses, a publisher could hire some people to bomb scores as a cost-saving measure.

That's a bit of a stretch. I doubt any publisher would risk the kind of horrible PR and fallout that would occur if they got caught doing that.

Posted by WindFall259

If Metacritic makes so much attention to developers, then it should be held to a higher standard.

Posted by 234r2we232

Great. Now they should ban the people raising scores of games for their friends.

Posted by MormonWarrior

I like Metacritic, because it gives a good idea of what games are high-quality and which are simply okay, and I don't have all the time in the world to play every game to find out for myself if it's good.

However, I've always known that the user reviews on there are so completely trash they are totally useless. Where you see Halo Reach, a quality shooter, getting either 10 "Best game EVAR" or 0 "So overrated it's terrible HALO SUX" reviews. The normal reviews have some semblance of reason and rhyme behind them. I especially look for the ratings from sites I trust.

Posted by Alex_Carrillo

Metacritic is an utter shitshow.

@DystopiaX said:

@SinisterInfant said:

If I were to put on my conspiracy theorists hat, It could be publishers themselves posting bad reviews to drive down the metacritic score. Both of those games are now several weeks past their initial release window. From a publisher view point the majority of sales have likely been made. If they owe money to the developer based on a score, they could drive the score down pay the developer for the lower score then delete their comments and restore the score. Seems like an easy way to anonymously save some funds.

Would be dumb, plenty of people still buy games a couple weeks after they're out, and payouts are based more on critic than user reviews.

Wouldn't that affect future sequels should they happen? A publisher wouldn't burn potential dollars for a few bonus bucks to the developers.

Posted by Largo6661

@DystopiaX: Thats is true. But i do feel that metacritic has made this issue more pronounced. The words in a review matter less and less these days. most poeple i now never even read reviews they just go to metacritic and look at a number. Its not the user reviews i have a problem with its how a dozen or more reviews can be reduced to a simple digit seems really unfair to me. And personally the idea of having one all incompasing site to tell me whether a game is good or not makes me uneasy, due to the fact that its so easy to effect a games score on metacritic.

Posted by bkbroiler

Woah, Metacritic is used to determine royalties and bonuses? I find that incredibly shocking.

Posted by DystopiaX

@Largo6661 said:

@DystopiaX: Thats is true. But i do feel that metacritic has made this issue more pronounced. The words in a review matter less and less these days. most poeple i now never even read reviews they just go to metacritic and look at a number. Its not the user reviews i have a problem with its how a dozen or more reviews can be reduced to a simple digit seems really unfair to me. And personally the idea of having one all incompasing site to tell me whether a game is good or not makes me uneasy, due to the fact that its so easy to effect a games score on metacritic.

I think that you have a problem more with how people use metacritic than metacritic itself. If used properly it's actually a great tool, for example if I want to read alot of reviews I'll go to the metacritic review and read the summaries of scores, and click on the ones and read the fulll reviews of the ones that interest me... I think that no one should just look at the score a game got but that problem doesn't stem from metacritic.

Posted by Krelle

@bkbroiler said:

Woah, Metacritic is used to determine royalties and bonuses? I find that incredibly shocking.

Apart from sales, Metacritic is the only way for 'a suit' to judge the success of a game/studio.

Well, that or flipping a coin..

Posted by Largo6661

@DystopiaX: Yeah your right when used like that it is helpful. Its just a shame that the majority of its user base probably doesn't do that.

Posted by mavs

@Largo6661 said:

@DystopiaX: i have no problem with review scores or peoples opinions on a game, What i have a problem with is what metacritic has done to gaming culture. I mean 5 years ago 7 was a good score now a 7 is a terrible score, and devs say things like "hope this scores at least an 8 on metacritic or we are done". I hate the way a games success often lives and dies on its metacritic score. At the end of the day its just an arbitrary number. My main problem with the site is how it down plays the importance of the words writen in the review and pretty much focuses in on a number to convey to a person whether a game is good or not, and then whats next? metacritis scores for reviewers or maybe specific devs? its just a dumb site. its the review itself thats important not the number added at the end.

This has been true since IGN became popular, so at least since 1999. Anything below 8 has always been a bad score. What Metacritic introduced was a way for publishers to wield metascores as an objective evaluation against developers.

Posted by Boiglenoight

And Douglas Albright's comment seems very reasonable.

Posted by ryanwho

Now Metacritic has integrity. lol

Posted by crusader8463
@mavs said:

@Largo6661 said:

@DystopiaX: i have no problem with review scores or peoples opinions on a game, What i have a problem with is what metacritic has done to gaming culture. I mean 5 years ago 7 was a good score now a 7 is a terrible score, and devs say things like "hope this scores at least an 8 on metacritic or we are done". I hate the way a games success often lives and dies on its metacritic score. At the end of the day its just an arbitrary number. My main problem with the site is how it down plays the importance of the words writen in the review and pretty much focuses in on a number to convey to a person whether a game is good or not, and then whats next? metacritis scores for reviewers or maybe specific devs? its just a dumb site. its the review itself thats important not the number added at the end.

This has been true since IGN became popular, so at least since 1999. Anything below 8 has always been a bad score. What Metacritic introduced was a way for publishers to wield metascores as an objective evaluation against developers.

Buy, rent/borrow/pirate, pass. All you need for a review score.
Posted by craigbo180

Metacritic needs to ban Jim Sterling/destructoid reviews if they really wanted to be helpful.

Edited by Winsord

It's just a matter of time. Though, forcing people to actually write a review instead of just giving it a score without explanation is definitely a step in the right direction. Maybe it's taken a little longer than it should have, but good on Metacritic for at least addressing this issue.

Posted by Swoxx

Why would you put stock into what random people on the internet say anyways? They're all shitheads and dicks.

Except you Giant Bomb community, of course. You're a sweet little safe haven. <>

Posted by aajf

So the entertaining upshot of all this is that Bastion's user score is actually now inflated, since Greg Kasavin called for grateful players to combat the spam with their own positive reviews. I can't say I have a problem with that outcome.

Glad to see Metacritic at least attempting to get things together. I think it can be a great resource if approached with proper caution by the reader.

Posted by Hef

If metacritic didn't exist neither would double fine. Their first game, psychonauts, sold like shit. But it got really good rreviews from critics. This allowed them to say to EA: Hey, actually market my crazy new awesome metal game and I guarantee you sales. Of course it still didn't sell very well and reviewed slightly worse than psychonauts, but they got a new engine out of it. And that new engine DID lead to 4 awesome downloadable games. I say keep on keepin on metacritic.

Posted by whylessness

Bastion is my shit.

Posted by Sinful

metacritic, a concept that makes no sense and is easily corrupted.

Posted by SleepyDoughnut

Yay, a happy ending to this story

Posted by Gildermershina

@mavs said:

@Largo6661 said:

@DystopiaX: i have no problem with review scores or peoples opinions on a game, What i have a problem with is what metacritic has done to gaming culture. I mean 5 years ago 7 was a good score now a 7 is a terrible score, and devs say things like "hope this scores at least an 8 on metacritic or we are done". I hate the way a games success often lives and dies on its metacritic score. At the end of the day its just an arbitrary number. My main problem with the site is how it down plays the importance of the words writen in the review and pretty much focuses in on a number to convey to a person whether a game is good or not, and then whats next? metacritis scores for reviewers or maybe specific devs? its just a dumb site. its the review itself thats important not the number added at the end.

This has been true since IGN became popular, so at least since 1999. Anything below 8 has always been a bad score. What Metacritic introduced was a way for publishers to wield metascores as an objective evaluation against developers.

That's why the five star system is so great. Too much gradation is bad I think, and too much weight is put on getting a number to put in the metacritic cruncher as opposed to actual review text - thankfully that text does at least make it onto metacritic.

Posted by subyman

Good that they got it sorted out. I, however, do not use metacritic and have only been to their site a handful of times. I prefer a quicklook and a written review over SmokeDAWG420's numeric rating.

Posted by Enigma777

I bet it was some random forum.

Edited by stise

@subyman said:

Good that they got it sorted out. I, however, do not use metacritic and have only been to their site a handful of times. I prefer a quicklook and a written review over SmokeDAWG420's numeric rating

Fuck you man, SmokeDAWG420 is my ONLY trusted source for video game news and reviews.

Posted by Napalm

@MrKlorox said:

Holy shit, is this actually Metacritic acknowledging their system isn't perfect and attempting to take steps to right the wrongs!?

Temporarily, at least. It's not as if things won't be awful by this time tomorrow.

Posted by Mike76x

What about the people that gave all three versions of Dragon Age 2 zero's before it was released, or bitched about DRM that wasn't there?

I'd trust the ratings on Amazon.com, or any retailer before I'd give Metacritic any thought whatsoever.

Posted by steelknight2000

I always ignore user reviews anyway when it comes to games and movies.

I do think it's important for developers and publishers to consider criticism from a third party such as the users and press in order to get a less biased view of whether or not their game sucks.

Posted by sagesebas

Metacritic needs to get rid of the option to submit a user review and they need to make a minimum length for those reviews also why does anybody use metacritic for bonus payouts why don't they just, I dunno determine payouts based on how well the game sells

Posted by MattClassic

What kind of sad group of individuals takes the time to organize rating bombings on random indy video games? Jesus, their lives must be completely devoid of joy.

Posted by the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG
@stise said:

@subyman said:

Good that they got it sorted out. I, however, do not use metacritic and have only been to their site a handful of times. I prefer a quicklook and a written review over SmokeDAWG420's numeric rating

Fuck you man, SmokeDAWG420 is my ONLY trusted source for video game news and reviews.

You mean RepThePlantDawg420
Posted by librariangmr

Metacritic is often used to determine royalty and bonus payouts for developers, though its exact use varies from publisher to publisher.

Wait, what? Seriously? How awful :(

Posted by Acheron

Good on them for actually looking into it and fixing the problem. I give Metacritic a 9/10.

Posted by DonPixel

Metacritic = Troll Nation

Posted by Crazyhorse23

I guess this is good. I just wish that metacritic good be less dominated by trolls. Judging by this story, developers really care what the scores are for their games, but it seems to me that with all the trolling, devs can never really be sure whether or not their product is really all that good.

Posted by lacke

There is nothing wrong with Metacritic. It's the people who are abusing it who's at fault. Why blame Metacritic for publishers determining bonuses based on review scores? Why blame Metacritic for consumers who only look for a review score instead of reading a text? That consumer would probably not read any text on any of those websites either.

I'm not a fan of Metacritic and rarely ever use it but I don't think it's the cause for those actions. It just makes them easier.

Posted by Lonely_Ogre

That's cool, always nice to hear stuff like this! :)

Online
Posted by Getz

@BestUsernameEver said:

@ZackHoagie said:

So... why exactly were they doing this? I mean, trolling is pretty unreasonable by design, but usually trolls have some sort of selection process for their targets.

Yeah, metacritic is the target.

I'm with you; this smacks of anti-metacritic sentiment. A way to show off how flawed the system really is by abusing that system (e.g. Lulzec). Of course, I'm not condoning this bullshit because it still hurts innocent people in the process and is extremely childish.

Online
  • 139 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3