Log in or sign up to comment
61 Comments
  • 61 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by steveurkel
@Nightriff said:

MGS4 is one of the greatest games this generation of consoles. Period.

How does it feel to be wrong on all levels
Posted by Antikythera

@fuzzypumpkin said:

@Antikythera said:

@Nightriff said:

MGS4 is one of the greatest games this generation of consoles. Period.

+1

+infinity.....I win

Thank you for your contribution.

Online
Posted by EXTomar

I am using the "sales" in very lose terms. Any modern game has away to measure how many people are playing it where they don't need to ask anyone else. There are other metrics they can use as well. Did they deliver the game on time? Did they deliver the game under budget? There are ways to reward that where the easiest is "You keep the money not spent".

Video games are a business and when a game is successful teams should share and relish the rewards. To me, managing Metacritic scores and subsequently tying bonuses to them doesn't improve anything about the game and seems like a giant waste of resources. So why do they do it? They seem to do it only because it is one of the few things they have to measure anything which is a pathetic way to look it.

Edited by HiHarryArcher

Interesting read. For what it's worth, the review behind the statistic provides food for thought.

Tom Chick's review:

"...The last few Halos seemed to be stretching their legs. The jazz bar melancholy of ODST’s ruined city and the last-stand grimness of Reach had character. They seemed to realize you can only go so far with a faceless dude in a suit of armor. But now we’re back to Master Chief doing all over again what he’s already done before. There is literally nothing that happens in Halo 4 that hasn’t happened in one of the earlier games."

Presently, this nails exactly how I feel about Halo 4. I don't particularly think Chick's being overly "look at me" with his reviews points, (perhaps the score is a little incredulous). Rather, it would seem that his personal experience with the game is very much similar to mine. I'm yet to find any great innovative leaps in Halo 4, it's just feels like a (lovingly) polished version of a pre-existing formula made to catch up with modern FPS expectations. For me, the game plays predictably and offers very little in the way of "new". It's all just a little boring, contrived and off-the-shelf manufactured. Perhaps a little too much attention was paid to the men featured in this article.

Also, they could have kept the Grunts funny. There's no need for the robotic voice 343i added.

Posted by Doctorchimp

@ProfessorEss said:

@SomeJerk said:

The sooner publishers realize they're digging their own graves by listening to metacritic the better, bring on the one-star reviews.

I'll take it one step further. Publishers shouldn't even get as far as ignoring Metacritic. Go right to the source and straight up ignore the review process all together.

The fact that a team of highly skilled and educated professionals can be effected so powerfully by an internet pack of video game playing big mouths with little to no tangible credentials to be doing so totally blows my mind.

Yeah jesus christ. I find it a little disheartening a team of creators and thinkers give two shits about what a website estimates what some smartass on the internet said.

Grow some balls videogame duders. Do you think Hollywood honestly gives two shits about rotten tomatoes?

Posted by Vinny_Says

I thought sales were still the default measure for industry success. I mean look at THQ, some great games released and still that company is in the shitter.

Edited by ProfessorEss

@SomeJerk said:

The sooner publishers realize they're digging their own graves by listening to metacritic the better, bring on the one-star reviews.

I'll take it one step further. Publishers shouldn't even get as far as ignoring Metacritic. Go right to the source and straight up ignore the review process all together.

The fact that a team of highly skilled and educated professionals can be effected so powerfully by an internet pack of video game playing big mouths with little to no tangible credentials to be doing so totally blows my mind.

Posted by Nonapod

The thing is, I don't believe there's enough evidence to even support the idea that higher Metacritic scores typically translate to higher sales. Someone did a little research on this a few years ago (only using vgchartz sales data unfortunately) and it seemed to indicate that there was no strong correlation between Metacritic scores and actual sales. Again, it's only vgchartz data so take it with a grain of salt, but I think it's silly for game publishers to assume a higher Metacritic score will automatically translate to more sales.

Posted by GERALTITUDE

@EXTomar: To some extent I agree (definitely about not rewarding for positive reviews), but how do you decide what good sales are? Enough to make a buck? More than the previous entry? And what if it's a brand new IP?

Doesn't rewarding sales just end up promoting mass appeal games like Madden and CoD and punishing good games that won't sell a lot like Ni No Kuni or even Darksiders II? And chasing dollars is still chasing dollars. Trying to make games that sell to the widest market possible is arguably the thought process that led to RE6 and the state of Modern Military Shooters.

Edited by EXTomar

As a side topic: I believe the process of "rewarding bonus on positive review scores" is a terrible thing. It promotes creating games and investing a bunch of money to manage a small and niche set of people instead of creating a game that they believe in that the masses come to appreciate. I see how developers and artists are enticed to work on challenging projects with bonuses is a good thing but it should be more rewarded on sales instead of review scores. Lets reward 343 for hitting 1 million and 2 million sales instead of whether or not Tom Chick or anyone else is happy with them.

Edited by Little_Socrates

@Sunjammer said:

Metal Gear Solid 4 is still the biggest piece of shit still in my collection, take that Metacritic average.

Dunno if I'd go THAT far, but it was an extreme disappointment and easily one of the most frustrating games this generation. Of course, I buy more games than most people; if you buy five or ten games a year, I could see MGS4 being the worst one.

EDIT: Shit! I forgot to respond to the question at hand! Brain fart!

Okay, so I agree that critics should be allowed their divergent and activist voices. And if 343 provoked such a violent negative reaction out of someone that they felt the need to drop the MC score by three points, maybe they shouldn't get their metascore bonus. But I hope Chick was absolutely, 100% conscious of what his review was going to do to that metascore and that he was probably going to affect the Halo 4 pay bonuses when he went with activism over objectivism. Obviously, objectively, Halo 4 is not a 1-star game. It functions, you can play it online, there's quite a bit of content, and it's technically very impressive. But he didn't just go with subjectivism, which would be a low score based on the fact that he didn't have any fun. He went with activism, complaining about changes that make the game rote, routine, and similar to every other game out there. I totally understand that choice, and if he understood the consequences he would inflict upon himself and 343 by doing so, then go with God.

But, let's just say I'm not about to trust Tom Chick to review a game through any lens other than activism down the line.

Posted by GERALTITUDE

Good write up! I had to laugh when, after reading the whole thing, the first comment was just MGS4 is sweet or whatever.

Which it fucking is, but yeah, ok, I can deal with you being the outlier on that one. :P

I've spent some time thinking about this topic, and certainly couldn't do it anymore justice than you did here. Just to respond to some of the comments in here, publishers withholding bonuses and developers paying attention to Metacritic is not anecdotal or theoretical in the slightest. It doesn't hold true for all pubs and devs, but it does for many of them.

It's hard to say exactly where one problem ends and one begins but Metacritic does matter, which, you know, it shouldn't. It's easy to say this from the outside but once you walk into the system it's another story altogether.

We just heard on the Bombcast for the nth time that Marketers and Public Relations peeps are often on the line for a game's score. This isn't a shit idea drawn out of nowhere, it's drawn from this question: How do I rate my employees? How do I measure their efficacy? How do I justify their salaries? How do I fire a poor employee? How do I justify increasing a salary? Metacritic is one tool to answer these questions, and it'll be important until the whole framework that surrounds it goes belly up, which it won't.

Hate to be Joe I Hate Corporations but until the men signing the checks care about more than the bottom dollar they will always depend on calculators to justify or deny a bonus, raise, project, salary, etc.

Posted by HoboZero

Man, I do love a good statistical analysis :) Doesn't the binary system used by Rotten Tomatoes raise the question of exactly what constitutes a "Good" or "Bad" score? I'm not sure what their methodology is - does the reviewer or publisher have to specify that a review is good/bad, or is it determined by the score; how do you translate 2 out of 4 stars, or one thumb up and one thumb down? I'd wonder what that would do to a 5 star scale like Giantbomb's; I don't necessarily think of 3-stars as "bad". But, as you say, the likelihood of Metacritic changing their methodology seems remote. Maybe RottenTomatoes should branch out into game meta-rankings?

Publications need, or think they need, the hits from aggregators like Metacritic, so they'll continue to participate And I don't think reviewers "poisoning the well" with more score outliers is necessarily the best way to bring change to the system. The only realistic alternative I see is another party coming in with a different aggregation methodology and supplanting Metacritic, but is that likely?

At any rate, really great read (and agreed on Metal Gear 4 being kind of shit, although I am still very glad to have played it, because that was some unique, crazy-ass shit :)!

Posted by Tackchevy

I approve of this message. Thumbs or stars work best for gauging relative excellence in the context of the times. Averages suck, especially averages that impact pay for hard working people.

Edited by CookieMonster

Does metacritic literally just take the average score? I'm sure there must be more to it than that. Otherwise, its more of a fucking dumb website than I thought it was. Also, good read.

Posted by Sauson

I like how this became an argument over MGS4.

Good job GB

Posted by makari

@Nightriff said:

MGS4 is one of the greatest MGS games this generation of consoles. Period.

Posted by TheHBK

@Nightriff said:

MGS4 is one of the greatest games this generation of consoles. Period.

No its not. Game? barely. Movie yes. But great, not even close. Fuck Hideo Kojima and his half assed story telling techniques.

Posted by geirr

I've never gone to Metacritic before, but today I've gone there twice due to links on these forums. Great.

@dcgc said:

@BigBoss1911 said:

@Nightriff said:

MGS4 is one of the greatest games this generation of consoles. Period.

I could go one forever talking about how incorrect this is.

Please, by all means...

MGS4 came out at a time of wonder and awe of the PS3; if not the best experience it was certainly a crazy experience and one I'll likely not forget, ever.

Posted by fox01313

I would just love if publishers & studios in the game industry would pay attention to the sites like gamerankings (followed by reading the reviews) where it just gives the score & collects links based on game journalism sites so viewers on the site can read reviews without worrying about the ever present flood of spiteful or fake reviews put in by some of the people on Metacritic.

Posted by dcgc

@BigBoss1911 said:

@Nightriff said:

MGS4 is one of the greatest games this generation of consoles. Period.

I could go one forever talking about how incorrect this is.

Please, by all means...

Posted by WickedFather

Three stars with no zero stars makes more sense. And to make it even more sensible every so often there should be a 4th star. But very, very rarely.

Posted by Aetheldod

All I wish to say that developers give only to 90%upward metacritic score bonuses because they are stingy ..... no reason for them to give more money to their employes unless they think they are getting more sales .... which in theory a 90% + grade would give ... but we all know that is BS in capital letters.

Also do what I do ... DO NOT GO TO FUCKING METACRITIC

Just see vids of the games/quicklooks/Lets play etc. (now very prominent because of Youtube) and see the game in motion or try out a demo , but we all know demos are scarce and rarely a good representation of a game :/ sometimes

Posted by CrossTheAtlantic

@Bos1014 said:

I like the way rotten tomatoes does the fresh and rotten, im surprised that it hasnt jumped on the gaming bandwagon and just used the same template for games that it does for movies. would be much less rage from fans for games such as Halo 4 would be getting 95% Fresh on RT than an 87 on MC

Also this was a really good read thank you.

Does it not anymore? I remember a few years ago, it used to. It also mentioned that video game scores were generally inflated, so I think they counted anything below a 70 as rotten.

Posted by doobie

that review was the kind of review i would expect to see as a user review on gamespot from some bitter PS3 fanboy that just wants to bring down the average score. even if you hate a game/franchise you should still be able to recognize it as a quality piece of software and halo 4 is a quality piece of software.

Posted by BigBoss1911

@Nightriff said:

MGS4 is one of the greatest games this generation of consoles. Period.

I could go one forever talking about how incorrect this is.

Posted by MordeaniisChaos

Any review of Halo 4 that gives that low of a score is either being disingenuous or is coming from a perspective totally useless as a reviewer. If you are going to give Halo 4 that score, you knew from the very beginning you'd feel that way about that way, and you were never going to give a score based on the game's merit because all ya see is a game you'll never be able to like. It's why big sites like IGN and Gamespot have people who review genre games. You wouldn't have Patrick review Call of Duty or Forza Motorsports games.

I dunno if this is the case with this review, but no matter what, no sensible and fair review of Halo 4 would give it a score so low.

Reviews are an opinion of an individual to a point, but if the game is actually well built, no matter how far from your taste it is, it should never get a very low star.

Posted by Sunjammer

@Veektarius: I think we can agree to disagree on the value of inferred information :)

As for Halo 4's metascore, considering it took an extreme outlier with intensely personal criticism of the game to bring it sub 90, I think it's fair to call that sub-90 average into question if it is presented as a precise gauge of game quality.

And I never compared NV to MW4.

Posted by RecSpec
@Nightriff said:

MGS4 is one of the greatest games this generation of consoles. Period.

Sorry, no. And I love the MGS series.
Posted by YOU_DIED

@Sunjammer: the bits about Rotten Tomatoes' system was pretty interesting, how about we start Rotten Potatoes for vid games?

Posted by WMWA

I actually really like the idea of adopting Rotten Tomatoes binary system. Never thought of it before

Posted by Veektarius

@Sunjammer said:

I disagree with almost everything you said :-) Metacritic IS okay as a site from a consumer point of view, but publishers applying its scoring as a precise metric is the problem. RT eliminates outliers, that is why i brought it up, whereas MC does not, and halo sees a sub-90 score as a result. As far as I gather, a sub-90 metacritic score denies you a bonus. My post is brought on specifically due to outrage by David Jaffe and analyst Kevin Dent on Twitter, outrage posed from a developer/industry worker point of view.

There is no defending the use of a capricious, imprecise metric as a contractual requirement for a bonus. It is ridiculous for developers to agree to such a clause, unless they fully expect not to be paid that bonus. I bring up New Vegas because Halo 4 and 343i now finds itself potentially in the same boat sub-90 boat due to a fundamental flaw with Metacritic as a mechanism.

Otherwise I find the notion that a critical darling selling poorly would translate to a retread in marketing to hit untapped sales potential for a sequel is naive at best. The road to Modern Warfare 4 is littered with the corpses of critical darlings dead on arrival. It simply doesn't happen that way.

Further, you ignore that MC does worse than delete information from individual models; It infers information. The 1/5 in question counts for 20 metacritic points. That is what Metacritic infers, not what 1/5 means to the reviewer. Inference is a much greater sin than simplification.

(As for Inception being better than anything other than maybe Samurai Cop, and that's a stretch, I think bringing up specific A vs B cases will almost always be moot points)

To address your points succinctly

1) The Halo 4 and Fallout: NV cases are actually very similar. They are both games that received some criticism for being more of the same without sufficient improvement on visible flaws. This merits a sub 90 score in my mind, and sends an important message to publishers that greater innovation is necessary.

2) Critical darlings that do poorly may or may not get greenlighted for sequels. It's definitely not a 100% proposition, but it's the reason that companies like Double Fine kept getting work, and the reason that DarkSiders got a sequel.

3) Translating a 1/5 score to 20% is probably legitimate. He gave it that score because he thought it was far, far, from a good game. Whether his opinion should be considered legitimate is another problem. JG has said that he feels the metacritic translation is appropriate for the GiantBomb 5 star system.

4) Criticizing my A v B example calls into question your Fallout: NV vs. MW4 comparison.

Posted by Bones8677

@Bell_End said:

@SomeJerk said:

The sooner publishers realize they're digging their own graves by listening to metacritic the better, bring on the one-star reviews.

wouldn't it be better just to do away with the arbitrary number at the bottom of a review instead.

That would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Scores are very useful, and provide people the kind of definition that some reviews miss. I've read lots of reviews that didn't provide an actual score, and after reading said review I often ask, "So is this game good or bad?" Some reviews are poorly written and vague. Scores have a way of fixing that to provide an overall feel. It's like using a ruler as opposed to saying "Well it's about yay long."

Posted by Ghostiet

@Bell_End said:

@SomeJerk said:

The sooner publishers realize they're digging their own graves by listening to metacritic the better, bring on the one-star reviews.

wouldn't it be better just to do away with the arbitrary number at the bottom of a review instead.

Exactly. If a number of outlets decided for a idiosyncratic rating system - like, I don't know, giving out only a "skip, rent, buy" "score" at the end of the review - the problem would at least be less pronounced. Maybe it would teach people to actually read reviews instead of paying attention just to the number of stars or shit.

Giant Bomb's review system shows what's broken about this shit. It's a 1-5 grade only on paper - in practice, there's a certain nuance, where 3 stars don't mean "mediocre" but "it requires a certain taste to enjoy".

Edited by Sunjammer

Just so I'm clear; I don't think Metacritic is bad. I think the way its resulting metric has implications for the industry and press is bad, due to the implied precision where there is little precision to be found.

Edited by Sunjammer

I disagree with almost everything you said :-) Metacritic IS okay as a site from a consumer point of view, but publishers applying its scoring as a precise metric is the problem. RT eliminates outliers, that is why i brought it up, whereas MC does not, and halo sees a sub-90 score as a result. As far as I gather, a sub-90 metacritic score denies you a bonus. My post is brought on specifically due to outrage by David Jaffe and analyst Kevin Dent on Twitter, outrage posed from a developer/industry worker point of view.

There is no defending the use of a capricious, imprecise metric as a contractual requirement for a bonus. It is ridiculous for developers to agree to such a clause, unless they fully expect not to be paid that bonus. I bring up New Vegas because Halo 4 and 343i now finds itself potentially in the same boat sub-90 boat due to a fundamental flaw with Metacritic as a mechanism.

Otherwise I find the notion that a critical darling selling poorly would translate to a retread in marketing to hit untapped sales potential for a sequel is naive at best. The road to Modern Warfare 4 is littered with the corpses of critical darlings dead on arrival. It simply doesn't happen that way.

Further, you ignore that MC does worse than delete information from individual models; It infers information. The 1/5 in question counts for 20 metacritic points. That is what Metacritic infers, not what 1/5 means to the reviewer. Inference is a much greater sin than simplification.

(As for Inception being better than anything other than maybe Samurai Cop, and that's a stretch, I think bringing up specific A vs B cases will almost always be moot points)

Posted by Kidavenger

@Sunjammer: Good post, I think you put a bit too much blame on Metacritic though, it's a simple tool that has become a bit too powerful in the market so now people with influence are playing with it, manipulating it's flaws. This points to a problem with no reasonable solution other than scraping the whole thing which isn't going to happen, so why go there?

I wish there was some way to hold reviewers accountable for their scores, high or low. I'm no fan of Halo, or console shooters in general, but I think anyone giving Halo 4 the lowest possible score is completely misguiding their audience and everyone else that may be exposed to their "opinion" through Metacritic.

Posted by Nightriff

@Sunjammer said:

Starting to think I should have edited out the MGS4 line :-P

Probably for the best, I just couldn't resist once I hit that line, sorry for derailing the board

Posted by Nonapod

@Sunjammer said:

If publishers withhold bonuses if a Metacritic score requirement is not met, I find it hard to believe developers don't pay close attention. Of course it's all anecdotal conjecture, and I'd be happy to be wrong.

I can't speak to what might be going on internally between publishers and developers either, but if they are indeed offering or withholding bonuses based if a game reaches a particular Metacritic score or not, it doesn't seem like a good system of evaluation of a particular developers work. A more logical system would be if a game reaches a particular sales goal, or simply giving developers actual revenue shares.

Posted by Veektarius

Metacritic is not the problem, and it provides an informative perspective. Yes, the average is skewed by outlying reviews, but any major release has enough reviews to overcome a few 'look at me' journalists. I challenge you to point at an individual metacritic review with a sufficient number of observations (I'd say 40, arbitrarily) and tell me that the score does not reflect the general critical consensus on that game, where green is 'near-universal acclaim', yellow is 'imperfect but enjoyable to many' and red is 'don't bother'.

It may seem that AAA games are rated on a different standard, but when you consider that the production values on these games are often astronomical, it decreases the range of sources from which a decrement could originate. Unlike a movie, which is rated mostly for its story, its artistic vision and the performances of its actors, a game is rated primarily on A) How well it controls, which will improve with testing B) Its technical proficiency, which will be improved by money in the same way as A, and C) How fun it is, which is the most subjective part of the rating, and often (I think as a result) receives the least weight in a reviewer's score in a game where A and B are excellent.

Your example of Fallout: New Vegas is a bit of a strawman. yes, it was an enjoyable game, but it's not as if Obsidian wasn't paid for it. We're talking about a bonus they would have received for delivering a top-tier product. Yes, New Vegas probably came closer to that goal than anything else Obsidian has done, but the critics who knocked it had legitimate reasons for doing so. A threshold has to be put somewhere, whether it's a Metacritic score of 9 or a rottentomatoes score of 85 or a total sales of $5 million, and wherever that threshold is, it's going to be possible to just miss it.

The RottenTomatoes score is definitely not a superior execution to metacritic. What it does is that it deletes information from the critics' individual models before aggregating them. This is necessary in the film world because there are critics who do not subscribe to a numbered system and cannot be combined except through such a simple model. However, in the end, your result is that Inception gets a Rotten Tomatoes score of 86% with an average critical rating of 8 and Looper gets a score of 94% with an average critical rating of 8.1. Your mileage may vary, but my conversations with others support my opinion that a nearly 10 point disparity in favor of Looper does not reflect people's generally mildly warm reception of the movie.

Much like in movies, a positive critical reception is only a means to an end, and that end is making money. Let's consider a two by two set of possible outcomes. A game can receive good or bad critical reception and good or bad public reception. If a movie, or a game, makes enough money, more games like it will get greenlighted, regardless of its critical reception. That allows two of the four possibilities to be a viable path for a game. The consideration of metacritic can only help good ideas by allowing these publishers to notice when a game has untapped potential that did not translate to sales... this time, but which might if attempted again with better marketing. This makes a third of the four conditions viable. So, not only do I say that Metacritic is valid, but I say that it is good.

Edited by Bos1014

I like the way rotten tomatoes does the fresh and rotten, im surprised that it hasnt jumped on the gaming bandwagon and just used the same template for games that it does for movies. would be much less rage from fans for games such as Halo 4 would be getting 95% Fresh on RT than an 87 on MC

Also this was a really good read thank you.

Edited by Sunjammer

If publishers withhold bonuses if a Metacritic score requirement is not met, I find it hard to believe developers don't pay close attention. Of course it's all anecdotal conjecture, and I'd be happy to be wrong.

well I was trying to use it as an example of a popular game not necessarily sitting right with everyone...

Edited by cexantus

And it all goes right back to the problem with attaching scores to reviews. I think sites like Giant Bomb should just get rid of the 5 star or 100 point scale and let the review speak for itself. The problem here is of the implication that "X game that gets an average of 80% is just as good as Y game that also received an 80%, which is why so many forum posts are filled with "CALL OF DUTY GETS THE SAME GRADE AS *insert favorite game here*? THAT'S BIAS!!!!!!" I mean, what exactly does a four-star rating or a perfect score even mean? Game criticism, or any criticism for that manner, is such a wildly subjective field that attempting to deduce game reviews to a percentage is absolutely crazy.

@Sunjammer:Yup. Seriously, calling out one of the more popular of this generation is a surefire way to make sure people nerd rage all over this thread.

Posted by Nonapod

@Sunjammer said:

Unfortunately for everyone, consumer and industry, “success” is currently measured in the Metascore

I get the point you're making but this statement isn't exactly true. While a games Metascore is certainly a small factor, strictly speaking from the industry's standpoint a game is successful if it makes tons of money. Reviewers can dump on a game (or movie or music album or TV show or book ect.) all they want, but if it still sells well and makes a hefty profit, then it was a success.

And if game companies are using their own internal reviewers to determine if an early build of a game will score well, I look at that as another level of QC that will most likely tend to lead to better games. After all, if someone is pointing out the glaring problems a game has earlier on, it's more likely that they will be fixed before release.

But I certainly agree that Metacritic is pretty far from an ideal quantifier of a games worth, I'm just not convinced that the game developers themselves are relying too heavily on it at this point.

Posted by Sunjammer

Starting to think I should have edited out the MGS4 line :-P

Posted by WinterSnowblind

@Nightriff said:

MGS4 is one of the greatest games this generation of consoles. Period.

MGS4 was a game?

Posted by Warchief

@Nightriff said:

MGS4 is one of the greatest games this generation of consoles. Period.

BWAHAHAHAHA just no, it is not.

Edited by OldGuy

@Bell_End said:

@SomeJerk said:

The sooner publishers realize they're digging their own graves by listening to metacritic the better, bring on the one-star reviews.

wouldn't it be better just to do away with the arbitrary number at the bottom of a review instead.

Of course it would but then (just as with a recurring topic here on GB made by those too lazy to actually read a review) you'd have an endless stream of complaints that there wasn't a score.

It wouldn't solve the problem anyway, it'd just fall to Metacritic to assign a score based on their best guess (should they choose to include that sites reviews).

Posted by Otogi

@Nightriff said:

MGS4 is one of the greatest games this generation of consoles. Period.

I love that this is the first post. Oh, Giant Bomb forums, please change someday.

With that said, though, this was a great read and even though I've heard the argument before, it's fantastic to have a perspective such as yours on it. You've got a follow fro me, and I can't wait to see more posts.

Posted by Sunjammer

I think the problem is less about scores and more about how those scores are interpreted and applied. I'm pretty happy with the GB 5-star range, much more so than endlessly elaborate sets of numbers (8.2/10 gameplay!). The real problem is publishers using metacritic as a measure of success and how that shapes the way games are made and how games journalism is conducted.

  • 61 results
  • 1
  • 2