GB reviews are a mixed bag. They're well written and honest, but often on the wrong end of history. LA Noire, Fable 3, etc. I also think the star system doesn't quite fit with metacritic's scoring.
GB reviews are a mixed bag. They're well written and honest, but often on the wrong end of history. LA Noire, Fable 3, etc. I also think the star system doesn't quite fit with metacritic's scoring.
GB reviews are a mixed bag. They're well written and honest, but often on the wrong end of history. LA Noire, Fable 3, etc. I also think the star system doesn't quite fit with metacritic's scoring.
"On the wrong end of history"?
I really don't understand that in relation to Fable 3. Didn't it get like 3 stars? Also neither of those games are very old.
Fable 3 was actually a lowpoint in a lot of ways for this generation of gaming. It got away with it though. Actually this makes me want to write a blog essay on it when I have more time.
GB reviews are a mixed bag. They're well written and honest, but often on the wrong end of history. LA Noire, Fable 3, etc. I also think the star system doesn't quite fit with metacritic's scoring.
"On the wrong end of history"?
He still didnt explain to us what any of what he said meant.....
I think Metacritic's aggregated scores are a huge waste of time. Don't get me wrong, I use Metacritic all the time, I love it, but I love it because it brings a lot of critic reviews to one place and gives me a general idea of who is sitting where on each game. I literally never look at the aggregate score. It is a great jumping off point to look for people who highlight the best things about a game as well as people who highlight the worst things about it.
If anything, this is actually a good sign to me, because it means that there is no favoritism going on. CBSi owns both GB and Metacritic, and seeing Metacritic choose to lower the value of another CBSi company's opinion at least assures me that they aren't doing something super shady.
Or they are doing something even shadier and they are just doing this to divert attention, whatever. Regardless, it really doesn't matter. If I were GB, I would not give a shit about this.
I suspect that there's probably two things that put GB into that lower weighted group:
Fewer reviews. GB simply doesn't review as many games as a lot of the sites in the higher weighted groups.
GB has a five point scale (and they actually use the entire scale). This can cause GB review scores on Metacritic to sometimes appear that they aren't in line with other reviews even when the content of the review and intent of the score are generally consistent with the critical consensus.
I suspect that there's probably two things that put GB into that lower weighted group:
Fewer reviews. GB simply doesn't review as many games as a lot of the sites in the higher weighted groups.
GB has a five point scale (and they actually use the entire scale). This can cause GB review scores on Metacritic to sometimes appear that they aren't in line with other reviews even when the content of the review and intent of the score are generally consistent with the critical consensus.
I suspect that there's probably two things that put GB into that lower weighted group:
Fewer reviews. GB simply doesn't review as many games as a lot of the sites in the higher weighted groups.
GB has a five point scale (and they actually use the entire scale). This can cause GB review scores on Metacritic to sometimes appear that they aren't in line with other reviews even when the content of the review and intent of the score are generally consistent with the critical consensus.
I suspect that there's probably two things that put GB into that lower weighted group:
Fewer reviews. GB simply doesn't review as many games as a lot of the sites in the higher weighted groups.
GB has a five point scale (and they actually use the entire scale). This can cause GB review scores on Metacritic to sometimes appear that they aren't in line with other reviews even when the content of the review and intent of the score are generally consistent with the critical consensus.
Pahaha, how did they end up lower than Destructoid?? I suppose if you consider Happy Hour and Jar Time in the cold light of day, you can't be that surprised that they aren't taken very seriously... but still... Destructoid...
I suspect that there's probably two things that put GB into that lower weighted group:
Fewer reviews. GB simply doesn't review as many games as a lot of the sites in the higher weighted groups.
GB has a five point scale (and they actually use the entire scale). This can cause GB review scores on Metacritic to sometimes appear that they aren't in line with other reviews even when the content of the review and intent of the score are generally consistent with the critical consensus.
I think that it probably has a lot to do with the second. I think that if they went to a 10 point scale, Metacritic would probably override the first reason and just bump their score to one of the higher groups. Honestly, it makes a lot of sense that you would want to buffer a scale with so few options. A 4 star review could mean a whole lot of things, but Metacritic has to just treat it as some number from 1-100, so making it affect the net less makes it less jarring and misleading.
No real mystery to what I'm saying. Imo, GB reviews tend to lean heavily on "meh 3 stars" or effusive praise. And, in many cases, once a release has had time to be fully experienced, the lasting impression differs from the initial GB review. But like I said, they're honest and well written at the same time.
No real mystery to what I'm saying. Imo, GB reviews tend to lean heavily on "meh 3 stars" or effusive praise. And, in many cases, once a release has had time to be fully experienced, the lasting impression differs from the initial GB review. But like I said, they're honest and well written at the same time.
Reviews have become a fucked up business that barely seem to reach the consumers they are meant for; undecided or unaware consumers. If reviews are used in any other fashion then I think they are being misused. Metacritic has become the prime example of review misuse.
@the_laughing_man: @guided_by_tigers: I doubt that any media outlets really care about their weighting. However, a lot of video game publishers out there obsess over those details of the inner-workings of Metacritic.
Although his written reviews don't always reflect it, I do enjoy Jeff's thoughts on the bombcast a lot. He isn't afraid to say bold things that could get on people's nerves. Hating RDR and not backing down for example. I think it does actually take some balls to call something bad. And it makes the glowing reviews even more important.
I'm not saying anything super controversial here, btw. A lot of critical reviews are "wrong with time", if you will, across a lot of different media. GB's style of written reviews tends to be overly generous to bad games, and generally golden for anything AAA and functioning. It's a system less about the star score, and much more about the nuance of the writing and the follow ups in podcasts.
This changes everything! I wish more sites follow Giant Bomb's model of 5 stars to fuck with the system.
Completely destroys all the stupid but incessant conspiracy theories that Tom Chick (Quarter to Three) purposefully lowers games to below the average metacritic rating (i.e. using the whole scale properly) to skew the Metacritic score. Keep on trucking, Tom Chick.
Fable 3 was actually a lowpoint in a lot of ways for this generation of gaming. It got away with it though. Actually this makes me want to write a blog essay on it when I have more time.
I don't think it's really fair to put Fable 3 on the same level as Kinect Star Wars, Expendables 2: The Game, and NeverDead. Trying to act like Fable 3 is a legitimately bad game in any sense of the word ignores the hundreds of legitimately awful games that have been put out in the last few years.
Thats why I want to make a bigger post on it, to make the case. Spoilers: It has a lot to do with how they marketed, sold and worked the DLC for it. Obviously games like the Expendables 2 are bad, but Fable 3 was a culmination of a lot of factors that imo make it the worst game of the generation. It was lazy and cynical from a design and development perspective, all the way through how it was sold. In a very BIG way.
The weights are pretty bs, most of the reviewers up top I haven't heard of. But I haven't heard of most of the other sites around Giant Bomb. It is pretty evident that the main reason is that they don't review as much games as other outlets.
The weights are pretty bs, most of the reviewers up top I haven't heard of. But I haven't heard of most of the other sites around Giant Bomb. It is pretty evident that the main reason is that they don't review as much games as other outlets.
Pointed that out a bit ago. Gamasutra looks like an idiot now.
The truth is probably somewhere in between what the study said and what Metacritic now claims. I find it hilarious that Metacritic is calling bs on the study but refuses to be transparent about their weighting system, which tells me that there is something about the system that they wish to keep private.
I do think that Metacritic has to be way more transparent about this stuff due to the importance (rightfully or wrongly) placed on their scored via bonuses and stock prices.
GB reviews are a mixed bag. They're well written and honest, but often on the wrong end of history. LA Noire, Fable 3, etc. I also think the star system doesn't quite fit with metacritic's scoring.
.... the wrong end of history? One man's opinion about a game a can be on the "wrong end of history"? Weird.
Are you one of those people that says GTA IV is a bad game now? I liked LA Noire a lot... am I one of these people on the "wrong end of history"?
Thats why I want to make a bigger post on it, to make the case. Spoilers: It has a lot to do with how they marketed, sold and worked the DLC for it. Obviously games like the Expendables 2 are bad, but Fable 3 was a culmination of a lot of factors that imo make it the worst game of the generation. It was lazy and cynical from a design and development perspective, all the way through how it was sold. In a very BIG way.
Alright, saying it's a 2-star game is one thing, but worst game of the generation is pure hyperbole. Tony Hawk Ride. Rock Revolution. Steel Battalion. Tenorman's Revenge. Blackwater. PowerGig. Aliens: Colonial Marines. And that's just games reviewed by the site. I'm not even going to touch mobile/handheld games, because I could make an entire wiki out of all the shitty games made specifically for handhelds, completely ignoring phone game markets; including phones I could probably make 3, split up by category (shovelware, rip-off, plain-old shitty).
If I saw Fable 3 for $5 on a shelf somewhere, I'd probably pick it up, go home, and feel good after a couple hours playing it. You couldn't pay me to play Tony Hawk Ride, and in fact we had to pay Ryan to play it, because he sure as hell would've never touched that piece of shit board if it hadn't been for a site feature.
Thats why I want to make a bigger post on it, to make the case. Spoilers: It has a lot to do with how they marketed, sold and worked the DLC for it. Obviously games like the Expendables 2 are bad, but Fable 3 was a culmination of a lot of factors that imo make it the worst game of the generation. It was lazy and cynical from a design and development perspective, all the way through how it was sold. In a very BIG way.
Alright, saying it's a 2-star game is one thing, but worst game of the generation is pure hyperbole. Tony Hawk Ride. Rock Revolution. Steel Battalion. Tenorman's Revenge. Blackwater. PowerGig. Aliens: Colonial Marines. And that's just games reviewed by the site. I'm not even going to touch mobile/handheld games, because I could make an entire wiki out of all the shitty games made specifically for handhelds, completely ignoring phone game markets; including phones I could probably make 3, split up by category (shovelware, rip-off, plain-old shitty).
If I saw Fable 3 for $5 on a shelf somewhere, I'd probably pick it up, go home, and feel good after a couple hours playing it. You couldn't pay me to play Tony Hawk Ride, and in fact we had to pay Ryan to play it, because he sure as hell would've never touched that piece of shit board if it hadn't been for a site feature.
I'll put together a full breakdown on this sometime later. It's my choice for worst of the generation for a variety of reasons. Let's move on for now.
And to the other guy asking if he's wrong for thinking LA Noire is good - no you're not. But the review was. Let that blow your mind and generate hatred for me.
The weights are pretty bs, most of the reviewers up top I haven't heard of. But I haven't heard of most of the other sites around Giant Bomb. It is pretty evident that the main reason is that they don't review as much games as other outlets.
Pointed that out a bit ago. Gamasutra looks like an idiot now.
They state that it's not their information and they link to the statement Metacritic made on Facebook at the start of the article. I don't think they messed up that bad. But i do feel it was kind of irresponsible them to publish the article without doing proper fact checking.
Its also just pure numbers: GB only has 5 ratings where if a game doesn't get 4 stars, it automatically gets 80. And you know how upset people get when a good game gets 80 on Metacritic.
The weights are pretty bs, most of the reviewers up top I haven't heard of. But I haven't heard of most of the other sites around Giant Bomb. It is pretty evident that the main reason is that they don't review as much games as other outlets.
Pointed that out a bit ago. Gamasutra looks like an idiot now.
True, though that doesn't explain why these weights need to be assigned in the first place. It seems rather arbitrary, no matter which site is assigned to what tier.
True, though that doesn't explain why these weights need to be assigned in the first place. It seems rather arbitrary, no matter which site is assigned to what tier.
Most likely because review scales with smaller increments (like the Giantbomb 5 star system) don't line up as well with the 100 point scale of their site as some. For example imagine a site with a thumbs up, thumbs down review system, if they were on Metacritic that would mean they give every game either a 1 or a 100. That's their prerogative as reviewers, but because their scale is so much more ambiguous, that totally screws up the consensus that Metacritic is trying to establish. Maybe they should just let that stuff be, but with the weight that publishers put behind Metacritic, frequently using them as a barometer to determine whether or not to distribute bonuses, you can start to see why Metacritic may want to exercise a little more control for the sake of everyone involved.
The weights are pretty bs, most of the reviewers up top I haven't heard of. But I haven't heard of most of the other sites around Giant Bomb. It is pretty evident that the main reason is that they don't review as much games as other outlets.
Pointed that out a bit ago. Gamasutra looks like an idiot now.
They state that it's not their information and they link to the statement Metacritic made on Facebook at the start of the article. I don't think they messed up that bad. But i do feel it was kind of irresponsible them to publish the article without doing proper fact checking.
So we are all just taking Metacritic's word on this? From the tone of the original article, these numbers were created with a scientific approach, using basic math skills to determine the values. The data is all there on the site: the original scores and the final Metacritic value. Makes sense that one could back engineer the values.
Metacritic doesn't present any evidence that this doesn't work, just says it's all wrong. It feels to be far more like a creationist dismissing evolution by just saying "nope." If these are NOT the values, Metacritic should show what the values ARE. Or at least show why these values don't work.
LOL man I forgot that metacritic was owned by CBSi..... this just makes this whole thing so much more hilarious. Also makes the Metacritic claim about the study being BS much more plausible for me, I mean if they are own by the same parent company there is no reason for Gamespot not to be in the top tier bracket for their weighting system and to some extend same goes with GB.
Now I want to see a GB rap video dissing metacritic for being weaksauce Too Human style.
Log in to comment