GiantBomb currently has the lowest review score on Metacritic

 ... because they stubbornly try to convert a 5 star scale in to a percentage for aggregation.
 
It is okay to say "who cares about metacritic?"  The problem is that a lot of publishers do and if GB cause Halo's ranking to fall (so many 100% mean it likely will not) then people are not going to get their bonuses or hit their silly targets and GB could be discriminated against in the future - through no fault of their own.  I mean Halo is Halo and has bullet proof sales but metacritic has been named as the reason for sequels being cancelled before and they need to take responsibility for the stupid regard they are held in by sections of the industry.
 
For Attention of John Davison (new VP from Programming on Gamespot, Metacritic and GameFAQS).
 
I know you have been critical of Metacritic in the past e.g. how they convert 1up/EGMs letter grades in to percentages, so please consider a better way of doing things.

143 Comments
145 Comments
  • 145 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by alternate

 ... because they stubbornly try to convert a 5 star scale in to a percentage for aggregation.
 
It is okay to say "who cares about metacritic?"  The problem is that a lot of publishers do and if GB cause Halo's ranking to fall (so many 100% mean it likely will not) then people are not going to get their bonuses or hit their silly targets and GB could be discriminated against in the future - through no fault of their own.  I mean Halo is Halo and has bullet proof sales but metacritic has been named as the reason for sequels being cancelled before and they need to take responsibility for the stupid regard they are held in by sections of the industry.
 
For Attention of John Davison (new VP from Programming on Gamespot, Metacritic and GameFAQS).
 
I know you have been critical of Metacritic in the past e.g. how they convert 1up/EGMs letter grades in to percentages, so please consider a better way of doing things.

Edited by The_Laughing_Man
@alternate said:

"  ... because they stubbornly try to convert a 5 star scale in to a percentage for aggregation.   It is okay to say "who cares about metacritic?"  The problem is that a lot of publishers do and if GB cause Halo's ranking to fall (so many 100% mean it likely will not) then people are not going to get their bonuses or hit their silly targets and GB could be discriminated against in the future - through no fault of their own.  I mean Halo is Halo and has bullet proof sales but metacritic has been named as the reason for sequels being cancelled before and they need to take responsibility for the stupid regard they are held in by sections of the industry.   For Attention of John Davison (new VP from Programming on Gamespot, Metacritic and GameFAQS).   I know you have been critical of Metacritic in the past e.g. how they convert 1up/EGMs letter grades in to percentages, so please consider a better way of doing things. "

So your mad because halo reaches score is gonna fall? And I do not think anything will happen to GB. I really do not think they are gonna just change how they score games. 
Posted by griefersstolemykeyboard

Yes I am sure Halo reach will flop cause Gb gave it 4 stars, bungie will be desolved and they will all die of hunger.

Posted by Gav47

Giantbomb cannot worry about peoples bonuses, they have to give the score they feel is right for the game and I don't think Reach will have any problem achieving a high Metacritic rating. 

Posted by Animasta

one score isn't going to stop a company from creating a sequel

Posted by Sanious

Yeah, Maybe they should lie so they won't lose any credibility, amirite?

Edited by SethPhotopoulos

Sequels are made for money.  The sequels are fixed for reviews.

Posted by Glak

One score will totally make Halo Reach flop, no one's going to buy it anymore

Edited by ProfessorEss

I'd be very surprised if Bungie used the Metacritic score employee bonus scheme.
 
And as far as Metacritic is concerned, all they are doing is collecting scores and using basic math to translate them into a numbers for the sake of calculating an average. I can't see how or why they could/should develop some convoluted translation equation to accommodate for sites that use strange and/or limited scales.

Posted by Branthog

I've never used metacritic, don't currently, and never will. It's meaningless. Most of the reviews are from publications that seem to be operated by the platforms they're reviewing and - even if they aren't - I don't give a fuck what some random guy for some random publication that I've never heard of before has to say about a game.
 
I also don't care whether a publisher and developer relies on metacritic or not. If they rely on metacritic and are too fucking lazy to read some reviews directly and in full, then fuck them. I'm not on the board of their company and it's not my job to look out for their best interests and guide their business. If you rely on stupid data, you'll make stupid decisions and someone else will come eat your lunch when you fail. Because, in the long run, if you stick to a metric that doesn't match the sales numbers, you're not going to improve. If you have wild scores on metacritic, but nobody is buying your game, then you're an idiot for basing your next steps on metacritic (or any other metric, for that matter).
 
And, as a developer, if you don't like metacritic, then stop agreeing to contracts where that is an element of your bonus. If anything, cross out the clause and agree with management that instead of metacritic, you'll rely on the reviews of a spcific list of say ten or twenty sites directly. Or more importantly, that all that fucking matters are sales and revenue.

Edited by mnzy
@The_Laughing_Man: It's a known fact though, that publishers take metacritic very seriously and GB seems to have gotten the reputation of being "low scorers" which of course is not the case if you actually read the reviews, but that doesn't matter to them.
Wasn't that a reason that they did not get a RDR copy early to review it? I thought that happened.
 
The good thing is...the more independent Whiskey Media is, the less it matters.
 
Watch this:
 
edit: Hm, embedding does not work, anyway, here is a link to Adam Sessler ranting about metacritic:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QsXrswJ-yM
 
 
@ProfessorEss said:

" I'd be very surprised if Bungie used the Metacritic score employee bonus scheme.  And as far as Metacritic is concerned, all they are doing is collecting scores and using basic math to translate them into a numbers for the sake of calculating an average. I can't see how or why they could/should develop some convoluted translation equation to accommodate for sites that use strange and/or limited scales. "

Because you can't just multiplay a system like giantbombs, it's absolute nonsense.
Posted by The_Laughing_Man
@mnzy said:
" @The_Laughing_Man: It's a known fact though, that publishers take metacritic very seriously and GB seems to have gotten the reputation of being "low scorers" which of course is not the case if you actually read the reviews, but that doesn't matter to them. Wasn't that a reason that they did not get a RDR copy early to review it? I thought that happened.  The good thing is...the more independent Whiskey Media is, the less it matters.  Watch this:   "
There are a few things ive heard. One of being that they DID get one and it just was not delivered. One being they just did not get one. And lots of other stuff. Who knows. 
Posted by bonbolapti

Metacritic conversation is slander as far as I'm concerned. GB's score is what it is, If that makes it the lowest on that site, then people obviously need to grow a pair.

Posted by EpicSteve

Someone will obviously be fired for Reach getting a 4 from Jeff. MetaCritic (for lack of better articulation) is dumb. It's nothing but an avenue to generate argument and piss reviewers off. You can read 2 reviews for a game and hangout on a message board to get the general consensus of a game, rather than looking at some abstract number.

Posted by Cube

Haha, that's not my problem. I don't care!

Posted by alternate

hmm, did y'all read what I wrote (past the title)?
 
I was atempting to highlight another example of how converting a letter grade or a star scale to a percentage doesn't work.
 
4 stars and the review text make perfect sense.  80 on metacritic with no context of the review (how many people actually click through) does not accurately represent the review.
 
I also said that Halo was bullet proof but referenced that other games that are not can have their funding pulled by publishers based entirely on aggregate sites.
 
JD has highlighted similar concerns in the past so now that he has taken the job in charge it is his responsibility to improve things.

Posted by pcguy2

why even look at metacritic?

Posted by CowMuffins
@Laketown: Yeah, just look at Kane and Lynch.
Posted by Lunar_Aura

You could say that such a fear is... 
 
a bit of a reach 
 
yeeeeeaaaahhhh
Posted by Hector
@CowMuffins said:
" @Laketown: Yeah, just look at Kane and Lynch. "
Bingo!
Posted by SethPhotopoulos
@CowMuffins said:
" @Laketown: Yeah, just look at Kane and Lynch. "
Which highlights my statement that reviews only give developers insight on how to fix a game.  Kane and Lynch 2 wasn't good but it was better.
Posted by OdinsThunder

But didn't Giant Bomb give MW2 5/5? So is MW2 a better game than Reach???? I certainly think not!!!

Posted by LordAndrew

Why does this matter? Just ignore the scores if it bothers you.

Posted by ryanwho
@alternate said:
"   It is okay to say "who cares about metacritic?"  "
Posted by Faint

basically you're saying giant bomb should give in to the corporations like every other game reviewing website. giant bomb doesnt do that. thus, i only use giant bomb for my gaming needs.

Posted by ryanwho

If developers are hired and fired based on arbitrary bullshit, you can't really help that. And that's no excuse for everyone to give credibility to arbitrary bullshit.

Posted by Jeffsekai

Oh my god, I feel bad for OP not a single person in this thread read what he actually wrote past the title. lmao

Edited by TenStoryMother
@LunarAura said:

"
You could say that such a fear is... 
 
a bit of a reach 
 
yeeeeeaaaahhhh "

Heh Ohhhhhhh....(and cymbal hit please) 
 
As for metacritic, I don't think their scores are truly representative of a reviewers score, especially if the score is based on a number or star scale of one to five.  I understand the underlying use of metacritic by publishers, as it's a down and dirty way of aggregating a game's score by multiple critics.  It is, however, broken in that said score doesn't take the reviewer's actual written review into account before generating a score.  The real rub lies in that metacritic scores actually coincide with a game's sale's figures.  Generally, the higher the metacritic score, the more sales a game will generate.  So for everyone who says that metacritic doesn't matter, the truth, unfortunately, is that it does...at least to publishers.  And so, a broken system goes on and on and on...  
Posted by SethPhotopoulos
@Jeffsekai said:
" Oh my god, I feel bad for OP not a single person in this thread read what he actually wrote past the title. lmao "
I want proof that Metacritic does determine the fate of games.
Posted by bhhawks78

5 Star system is ideal to me, not giantbombs problem if metacritic doesn't know wtf to do with anything short of a 20 point score.

Posted by Death_Unicorn

Don't worry, GiantBomb is in business with the customer now, they don't have to worry about these sort of new-fangled score shenanigans.

Edited by ryanwho

Games score poorly and sell well, others score well and sell poorly. People are choosing to carve out a pattern where there is none. Halo Reach sells well because its a Halo game and its well advertised. Ubisoft games sell well because their marketing is stellar. A game has never failed specifically because of metacritic. There's no tangible proof of that, and if game sites are scoring the way they do because they think metacritic does effect game sales, they're holding back the truth so people don't get fired and that's kind of ludicrous. If they're afraid to be honest, they shouldn't have the job. Their purpose isn't to make sure nobody ever gets fired. 
90% of game sites are like Paula Abdul. They're a complete joke but they'll tell you what you want to hear cus they don't wanna burn any bridges, so you send them review copies. Hearing what you want to hear doesn't serve anything other than the delusion you're propagating.

Edited by DeanoXD

reviewers could give reach the lowest scores of the series and it will still sell a bizillion copies, metacritics conversion of 4 stars to a percentage does not matter a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things in the halo universe. 

Posted by KaosAngel

Who cares. No one is gonna die or get fired over this.

Posted by vaportra1l

I really doubt it. 
 
It could get 3/10 from everyone and it will still sell like crazy.  Over 2 million preorders already guarantee they're making money on this.

Posted by Atomasist

Metacritic is stupid.

Edited by Vorbis

It would be better if GB wasn't on metacritic. Infact, it would be better if metacritic just went away.
 
Also Bungie aren't going to be hurt because they got a few 80% scores, you should be more worried about what will happen to them now they're moving to Activision. That's the kind of shit that will ruin a company.

Posted by Potter9156

GB confirmed attention whores? Get'cha clicks GB, get'cha clicks. 
 
 
 
 
Metacritic is dumb.

Posted by Jimbo
@alternate said:
"...metacritic has been named as the reason for sequels being cancelled before and they need to take responsibility for the stupid regard they are held in by sections of the industry. "
Not really.  Metacritic just do what they do - if the industry & consumers pay more attention to it than they should then the responsibility for that belongs with the industry & consumers.  The only responsiblity Metacritic really have is to try and convert review scores as accurately as possible.  I agree they could be better at that, but converting 4 stars as 80% is not an unreasonable conversion (whereas converting 5* as 100% is totally unreasonable).  
 
I don't believe these games have a god given right to mid-90 MC scores just because that's what they're expected to score.  It's a slightly better looking version of the last iteration with a few minor tweaks, much like MW2 and Gears 2.  That these games manage to score exactly the same as their almost identical predecessors did 2 years earlier is crazy to me.
 
That said, I think the influence of Metacritic on sales is exaggerated.  There is correlation obviously, because good games are more likely to sell well anyway, but the correlation it isn't exactly tight.  You have games like Assassin's Creed 1 scoring 'only' 80% and selling 8 million+ copies, then 90%+ games like Arkham & Bioshock selling less than half that.  Bayonetta scored 90% and sold about a million.  A 90% score pretty much guarantees success, but doesn't seem to say a lot about the exact level of success - the latter still has more to do with marketing and how much competition a game has.
Posted by Wolverine

It's important that the staff here reviews games honestly instead of worrying about upsetting publishers.

Posted by KaosAngel

If I got those fancy press kits, I'd never give bad scores. >.> Jk

Posted by drewm135

Metacritic is always going to fail when they try to convert someone else's opinion into a number. But geez I can't imagine having a bonus that is related to a Metacritic score

Posted by PrivateIronTFU

Seriously, who cares? Even converted, 80% being the lowest score is still pretty damn good.

Posted by BraveToaster
@Wolverine said:
" It's important that the staff here reviews games honestly instead of worrying about upsetting publishers. "
QFT
Posted by Hunkulese

I don't know why people think metacritic is dumb. It's a great resource to get a feel how the critical community views a game and all the reviews are collected in one place. I'll agree that the number system is kind of useless, but it's no more useless then a 5 star scale or a 10 point scale. What the hell does 4/5 mean? an 8.7 game is clearly better than an 8.4 game. Right? Metacritic is the same as any review site. It's only useful if you take the time to actually read what's been written. 

Posted by kmdrkul

I don't get why people are complaining about this.  It's a non-issue.  Four out of five is 80%, lets everyone just take it as it is and not get our panties in a bunch.  Metacritic as a website has no other option but to do a conversion; stop pointing fingers at them.

Posted by HitmanAgent47

Maybe it's about time they have like .5 stars for their reviews. Of course that's not going to happen and we can't tell them what to do. It's unfortunete it brought halo reach's average down.

Posted by A_Wet_Shamwow
@griefersstolemykeyboard said:
" Yes I am sure Halo reach will flop cause Gb gave it 4 stars, bungie will be desolved and they will all die of hunger. "
and activision will make them make a console RTS based on Call Of Duty
Posted by Gearhead

Fuck Metacritic.

Posted by Pie

You al seem to be missing what he's saying...

  • 145 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3