Why does everyone hate metacritic?

it seems like a pretty awesome site, I'll admit I haven't used it very long, but everywhere I look for a long time it's gotten a lot of hate leveled at it. If you use it, you shouldn't just look at the average score, you should go and examine the critic scores it complied, check for any really low random scores (outliers for you statistic folks) that might have screwed with an otherwise good product (movie or game). You definitely have to be careful when comparing two game/movies metascores though, that's some hairy shit. no two metascores are created equal.

For exactly the reasons you say. People always end up looking at the raw average instead of taking outliers into account. It also doesn't really work well when aggregating a site that doesn't use a standard review scale, like GB. A 3 star game, while good on the GB scale, is a 60 on Metacritic.

Because people hate scores. Personally, I think it's a cool service, if you're willing to dig deeper than just looking at the base number. It's not for me, though, since I don't really read reviews anyways.

i suppose it's because of how they convert different store systems into a rank out of 100. like, giant bomb's review of Limbo was a 5/5, and on Metacritic, that would be converted into 100 out of 100, which may not have been what the reviewer intended. 

I wish Hitman was here right now so hard.

For exactly the reasons you say. People always end up looking at the raw average instead of taking outliers into account. It also doesn't really work well when aggregating a site that doesn't use a standard review scale, like GB. A 3 star game, while good on the GB scale, is a 60 on Metacritic.

Two main reasons. Firstly, it sparks fanboyish wars with the "Game X got a 91 but Game Y got a 92, Game Y must be better". Secondly, the way the game industry uses it to pay developers bonuses and decide on the future of studio's is messed up.

As a resource for finding varied reviews on one game, it's fine. It's the way certain people use it that is the issue.

I question who is misaligned, metacritic (an aggregate) or GB's singular approach. I find what Matty FM says pretty interesting though.

Its a great service but i think that the end result isn't always very good. 

Metacritic isn't really the problem. It's the people that use it and abuse it. Unfortunately, people misdirect their rage.

I like it and end up looking at several different reviews of game I already have, but the way it controls a lot of things is the reason people hate it.

Metacritic is excellent for having a load of reviews in one place. I love it.
The only problem I've seen, and it's a worrisome one, is the way Metacritic treats scores isn't always accurate.  I can't remember the specific games so it's not exactly airtight proof, but more than once I've seen 1up.com's reviews listed on Metacritic as a 67 when in fact they've scored the game with a B-.  No school I've ever heard of treats a 67 as anything higher than a D. 
Apart from that, any criticisms of "it causes fanboy wars" or "Publishers make devs live by Metacritic benchmarks" are silly.  REVIEWS in general spark fanboy wars so let's hate Giant Bomb. ...That's not a website's fault.  Similarly, blame the publisher if you don't like their practices with regards to developers.

I just hate how people use the data and how people think their favorite game should get a metacritic score of 100.

it's a beautiful site, so is rotten tomatoes. just because you like a review aggregating site doesn't mean you can't still go back to your favorite review site. 

I don't mind it at all, of course I won't think a 93 game is better than a 92 game, but it still gives you a rough idea of how the games were critically received

Because game publishers look at metacritic to decide bonuses and sequel potential. A 3/5 is reported as a 60% which is WRONG. Those not on a 10/20/100 point system has their website screwed over later. Example: "Giantbomb is not given a review copy of a game based on previous track record of reviews for a publishers titles and that would ruin their metacritic score so they aren't given review copies."

Also, I don't know who are listed in that aggreagte, I know Ryan, Jeff, Brad and their preferences more so than some dude at gamespy or ign.

Jim Sterling explains...

If you agreggate the scores of a very divisive game and a very boring game, you'll end up with the same median.  Because score aggregating only accurately sheds light on quality if you're a stupid person/person who only buys games that average 8.5 or above. You may think "hey my system hasn't steered me wrong" but no, you've missed out on a ton of interesting games using that kind of system. If you're cool with that, fine.

@charliesheen22 said:

@Dany: well what what do you expect them to do if everyone is using different wonky grading systems? they have to at least TRY to get them on the same page. and a 3/5 is most certainly a 60% in the real world, you just like the idea of the currently inflated review system that everyone enjoys using.

In a context of reviewing a product, a 3/5 is not the same as 60%

Aggregating the scores is fine in a sense but having publishers looking at those scores where people use a simple system of reviewing is bad.

A perfectly average game that has no major rights or major faults but holds on its own though it is average, like Capcom's old arcade title Varth, is 3/5. It's also 50%. If you think it should be more like 75% you have already been brainwashed. Twilight Princess deserved 8.8 out of 10 though.

Because nobody's heard of GameRankings :P.

@charliesheen22 said:

@Dany: well what what do you expect them to do if everyone is using different wonky grading systems? they have to at least TRY to get them on the same page. and a 3/5 is most certainly a 60% in the real world, you just like the idea of the currently inflated review system that everyone enjoys using.

In a context of reviewing a product, a 3/5 is not the same as 60%

Aggregating the scores is fine in a sense but having publishers looking at those scores where people use a simple system of reviewing is bad.

Jim Sterling explains...

I've fully enjoyed the odd game/album/film thats averaged 'low' scores (like Dark Void), so I don't base my sale on their scores.  And I've seen in some cases where they've taken only four or five reviews, and said game/album/film becomes one of the top rated of the year, whereas some other product has about fifty reviews and ranks a bit lower and so may not be considered one of the top rated. 

@Dany said:

@charliesheen22 said:

@Dany: well what what do you expect them to do if everyone is using different wonky grading systems? they have to at least TRY to get them on the same page. and a 3/5 is most certainly a 60% in the real world, you just like the idea of the currently inflated review system that everyone enjoys using.

In a context of reviewing a product, a 3/5 is not the same as 60%

Aggregating the scores is fine in a sense but having publishers looking at those scores where people use a simple system of reviewing is bad.

that's with an inflated review system. 50% is mediocre, middle of the road. everyone these days won't put anything below 7 (in an out of 10 rating system) unless it's unplayable.

@charliesheen22 said:

@Dany said:

@charliesheen22 said:

@Dany: well what what do you expect them to do if everyone is using different wonky grading systems? they have to at least TRY to get them on the same page. and a 3/5 is most certainly a 60% in the real world, you just like the idea of the currently inflated review system that everyone enjoys using.

In a context of reviewing a product, a 3/5 is not the same as 60%

Aggregating the scores is fine in a sense but having publishers looking at those scores where people use a simple system of reviewing is bad.

that's with an inflated review system. 50% is mediocre, middle of the road. everyone these days won't put anything below 7 (in an out of 10 rating system) unless it's unplayable.

THIS is where game reviews and people break down for me on the internet. No, sorry. If a site is using a 10 point (Gamestop) and it gives a game a 5, that's giving it an F.  Giantbomb using the 5 star system gives games a 3 star rating for something that's average. Not those 10 point sites, they are grading it out of 10. Read some games that sites score as a 7, they read like they are average games. Then read a 5 out of 10 review....they are calling it dogshit.  That's why Metacritic is kind of fucked....but still inconsequential.

Because good shit ends up with a 64/100 rating and mediocre shit ends up with a 20/100 rating. It's fuckin dumb, just use rotten tomatoes.

@Bruce said:

@AjayRaz:

Don't you think that a 5/5 should be akin to a perfect score? I think the real issue is when a Giantbomb 4/5 is interpreted as an 80. To most people, a score of 80 is above average.

I guess Giantbomb's leniency with giving 5/5s doesn't help, though.

Back to the topic: I like Metacritic. There are several albums (Hospice), and films, that I wouldn't have found otherwise

5/5 is not a perfect score. I don't see it as that, I doubt many people see that. What I see is a great game that excels in what it attempts to do with few if any issues.

Putting a score to a game is stupid in my opinion. I believe that reviews should only be text, that way you either have to read it and find out the actual details, or you try the game out yourself.

Besides the score aggregate business, which itself is fine, the big issue with Metacritic is that for websites that use different scales, like 1UP which uses letter grades, Metacritic decides what each grade is equal to in numerical value, I remember that being a big issue with 1UP specifically because their B grade translated into like 60% or something on Metacritic, which was completely not true as far as 1UP goes.
 
Basically Metacritic takes different websites review systems and translates them into cold hard numbers, which often aren't as meaningful unless you are familiar with the website. 3/5 on Giantbomb is still a pretty good score, but on metacritic it turns into 60%, which is a very bad score. 
 
Now factor in all this fucking craziness where you hear things like "You don't get a bonus unless the game does above 80 on Metacritic", and you can see how people's scores are being twisted and its causing a lot of grief.

It just gives a score without showing you the reasons it got that score.

I don't use metacritic as metacritic, I use it as a hub for other reviews. Instead of having to search them out, I just go there and start reading. That's really all it is good for.

That's bloody ridiculous. So a game that's given 3/5 is put down as 60%. even though technically it could be anywhere on their scale between 50% and 70%?

Are they really doing that?

All I know of the site is that it's hilarious to read the Portal 2 reviews. In fact, go to any good game and start from the lowest scores. Always a funny read.

MetaCritic is broken. The idea of 'aggregating' review scores that use wildly different scoring systems makes no sense. Use it as a hub to read other reviews, but never go there for numerical opinions.

because ratings and scores are juvenile yo. i want some plain text motherfucker.

metacritic just brought out the evil that was already in the industry, as far as that goes.

because numbers man

@FancySoapsMan said:

because numbers man

Roll credits.

Obviously its because its too meta.

@Marokai said:

Metacritic isn't really the problem. It's the people that use it and abuse it. Unfortunately, people misdirect their rage.

This exactly. I love using the site. If there is an old game I want to get, I check it out and go through the reviews of the game and see what people have to say.

78% of people hate Metacritic. I know this because I posted the same question on every media related forum and formed an average percentage of opinions. This make it a collective opinion apparently. And apparently it means it sucks because it got less than 80....

People don't hate Metacritic... they hate the idea of something as complex and personal as the opinion of a game being given an arbitrary score by multiple sources; an aggregate formed of them scores with some being weighed more than others and then given a mean and then someone making a purchase decision soely on that number.  It's a nonsense system in many ways to determine that Modern Warfare 2 is a 93 whereas Uncharted 3 is a 92. 
 
I like GiantBomb's system as it uses the scale in a meaningful way but it doesn't give that arbitray score which means very little at times.

I like Metacritic, I just don't like how it is used.

it seems like a pretty awesome site, I'll admit I haven't used it very long, but everywhere I look for a long time it's gotten a lot of hate leveled at it. If you use it, you shouldn't just look at the average score, you should go and examine the critic scores it complied, check for any really low random scores (outliers for you statistic folks) that might have screwed with an otherwise good product (movie or game). You definitely have to be careful when comparing two game/movies metascores though, that's some hairy shit. no two metascores are created equal.

I use it when a game comes out i'm interested in to find some reviews for it and it generally gives you a good idea about the general response that a game is getting.  

I like Metacritic, I just don't like how it is used.

Jim Sterling explains...