Why does everyone hate metacritic?

I respect the views of those who understand what metacritic is and what it is good for. the rest of you neckbeards apparently are afraid of numbers, looking for full length reviews on metacritic, which you refuse to believe they have (and encourage you to read on the metacritic website), and don't understand the full 100 point scale.

I hate Metacritic because they don't include Screened score into the aggregrate

@jkuc316 said:

I hate Metacritic because they don't include Screened score into the aggregrate

Has it been requested that they do so?

@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.

If you're looking at it from a purely mathematical stance, then yea, 3/5 equals 60%, but I've never thought 3/5 meant that. To me, the Giant Bomb scoring systems is the same as the grading system in school. So 5/5 equals an A, 4/5 is a B, 3/5 is a C, and so forth. I don't know of anywhere that equates a C as being 60%.

I don't hate it personally, I just don't think it's a valid way to judge a game. The one thing I do hate about Metacritic or more so, the implications of Metacritic is that it leads to publishers wanting a certain score for their game so that will get wider acclaim and thus more likely to sale more copies. My problem with an aggregated score on Metacritic is that it takes into account around a dozen or so reviews and then finds the average(the mean in math terms) while instead the median(basically the middle number going from lowest to highest) is a much better way to look at number of scores that low.

Because it's more of a mild suggestion.

@PrimeSynergy said:

Jim Sterling explains...

Embedded for viewing convenience:

The Escapist : Jimquisition : Metacritic Isn't the Problem

I actually came here to post this myself. Even if you don't like Sterling's style I think you have to give him some credit for making the amount of sense that he does.

Because it's worthless, just like Rotten Tomatoes.

Never cared about reviews, as such I don't care about metacritic. People take numbers too seriously these days.

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

I don't personally mind Metacritic. I always check to see who gave the scores at either end. I also check to see if there is a big disagreement with users. And they apply a custom hidden weight to every source. So I don't worry how they integrate different rating systems.

I respect the views of those who understand what metacritic is and what it is good for. the rest of you neckbeards apparently are afraid of numbers, looking for full length reviews on metacritic, which you refuse to believe they have (and encourage you to read on the metacritic website), and don't understand the full 100 point scale.

@Bruce said:

@Dany:

If you get an A in a college course, that's equivalent to a 4.0, which is a 100. So, for a game to get 5/5 stars, the numeric correspondence is likely to be 100 which is perfect. And considering that Gamespot's 10 score straight up has the word perfect labeled under it, yes, I think many people are of the opinion that A+, 5/5, 10, whatever it may be, represents perfect.

When the point system of a review is being reduced from 100 points to 20 (gamespot), to 10, to 5(giantbomb, to 3(yes, no maybe) or even 2(yes no) the numerical significance of the real value percentage also goes down vastly in my oppinion

Metacritic is like an addictive narcotic that coddles non-critical thinkers.
What? Reading the actual text of the reviews? Pffffffft, as if!

Why is it that people think that everyone hates a certain service just because they see part of the internet showing their dislike? I love Metacritic and use it often, it is especially a good tool if you use it the way you described in your post.

I hate how Metacritic not only gives more weight to bigger publications (for example, IGN's review might be given more of a pull than GB). I also hate they they try to interpret score from reviews that don't give a nominal score.

@QuistisTrepe said:

Metacritic is like an addictive narcotic that coddles non-critical thinkers.What? Reading the actual text of the reviews? Pffffffft, as if!

That's flimsy elitist drivel and you know it.

Sometimes it comes down to a time-allocation factor. Sometimes you need to quickly assess the quality of a product before you make a decision, and are short on time. You are going to spend 5-10 minutes for each review out there? No, you are going to scroll down to the bottom, read the highlights, and see the score. Metacritic just lessens the workload.

@QuistisTrepe said:

Metacritic is like an addictive narcotic that coddles non-critical thinkers.What? Reading the actual text of the reviews? Pffffffft, as if!

That's flimsy elitist drivel and you know it.

Sometimes it comes down to a time-allocation factor. Sometimes you need to quickly assess the quality of a product before you make a decision, and are short on time. You are going to spend 5-10 minutes for each review out there? No, you are going to scroll down to the bottom, read the highlights, and see the score. Metacritic just lessens the workload.

I hate how Metacritic not only gives more weight to bigger publications (for example, IGN's review might be given more of a pull than GB). I also hate they they try to interpret score from reviews that don't give a nominal score.

p 

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. 

@SethPhotopoulos said:

@charliesheen22 said:

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.

Rotten Tomatoes was recently bought by Flixter which is a part of Warner Bros so I see that entire site as a conflict of interest.

Rotten Tomatos was owned beforehand by Fox Corp. I doubt their practice is going to change at all.

I don't think there's anything interpretively 'wrong' with Metacritic, it's just that they don't have a good system of averaging scores. If they were to go about collecting data then separating the scores based on the metric they used, then it would be fine. Also a lot of the user reviews are written by people that are just mad about the system/game in general because internet=lol.