@you_died: Subhuman garbage right there.

That entire list was actually debunked, and they specifically said that their format is far less weighted than the article suggests. Also there are good reasons why they give less value to certain scores, a 5 point scale doesn't translate very well to a 100 point scale for example.

@hunter5024: I had heard that Metacritic denied the accuracy of the list, but they refused to release any data regarding their system. They admitted to a weighted system for sites but wouldn't comment on the disparity range.

I don't want to spread misinformation, but thus far the only accurate information is piled together with it within that article. And no matter what their actual system, a bullet to their servers would be beneficial for consumers, developers, and journalists.

@mlarrabee: Well the disclaimer at the top links to a post where they specifically call out what's inaccurate about it and sheds a little light on the subject, but you're right, they haven't been particularly forthright about their system, or they at least haven't revealed hard numbers. As for whether or not it should exist, that's a perfectly reasonable stance to have, but I think the site gets a little unfairly demonized because of the way some people use it, which isn't really the sites fault.

@hunter5024: Oh, I agree. In theory, Metacritic is brilliant. I don't think anyone there intended publishers to use it as a system for judging the quality of developers, or even the quality of developers' work. But I think it's changed from a place for consumers to get a general idea of reviewers' opinions, to a place that can get journalists fired or media creators dropped from distributers. And once again, that's not Metacritic's fault, per se. I think they haven't done much work to combat people's use and view of their system, but they aren't directly to blame for most of the creative stifling that occurs because of it.

hate for just the score, or hate because he wrote something stupid in the actual review?

Here's a great roundup of Tom McShea & co. being told by Ryan Davis

McShea claims the Vita doesn't need a price drop partly because it has at least 10-15 that are really worth playing. Ryan Davis asks him to name just 5.

He can only name 1 and it's hot shot's golf.

Steambox: It's not a fucking PC.

McShea predicts console gaming is dead and the future of gaming is tablets. Specifically a $600 Microsoft Surface Pro.

Copy, apply directly to any internet forum.

People are stupid and reactionary, that's why.

Most people do not read the review but just look at the score which is of course wrong. But if the same guys reviews games that are with no doubt inferior. Like Polygon rated State of Decay for example which they gave a 8.5 you just can not give Last of Us a 7.5. No matter if these are different reviewers or not.

Watching Ryan dismantle their arguments never gets old.

ALL REVIEWERS ARE BOUGHT, GIVE HIGH SCORES TO EA GAMES BECAUSE MONEY. GAME JOURNALIZM LOL DORITOS

Then it's one of their darling games and anything below a 9 is a huge deal equally fitting for scorn. So tiring.

Will it make you not enjoy the game as much? Will this game not being the very best reviewed game of the gen really keep you up at night?

No, that's perfectly fine. No individual reviewer or outlet has to like a game, and the nature of the business doesn't allow for concepts like "no doubt inferior".

ALL GAMES ARE INDIE

ALL GAMES ARE 10/10

ALL GAMES ARE THE CITIZEN KANE OF GAMING.

Tom McShea has weird tastes, even weirder than Jeff's.

I remember that episode. Ryan ripped those guys apart.

@Gnubberen: see the DMC and Lost Planet 2 reviews as a counterpoint.

Of course they are...

Bad execution great potential. State of Decay is really rough and this should go into the score no matter how much you like a game. Reviews are supposed to be as objective as possible with an integrated own opinion. And If you do not like a kind of game do not review it in the first place. You still have to consider quality of gameplay, qquality of sound, quality of graphics and so on.

I remeber the IGN Yakuza 4 review which end up with a 6.5 which is just ridiculous.

I see what you're saying, and it comes down to different review philosophies. Some people weigh the personal experience more, while others try to be objective about most of it and factor in the personal experience to a lesser degree.

But as a reader you should either accept that different people review differently, or find people that review the way you want and only pay attention to them.

I posted in here already but, just another quick thing, it's amazing to me how many people pay so much attention to media figures they don't like. The stupidity of it. You're giving them, and the companies these dudes work for, what they want. Dudes. Good Lord.

As much as I find Tom to be comically unprofessional and poor at his job (that Medal of Honor "debate" is still etched in my memory), to rake him over the coals for this review is silly.

But they will influence so much. As I said. Developer get paid compared to the metacritic score. Customer trust reviews and hype gets build through great reviews as well. If it were just a videogame blogger no one would care but if you are on popular site like Polygon or Gamespot you should be objective.

PERFECT

@darji: Their responsibility is only to be honest, whichever review philosophy they abide by. Reviewers don't have any obligation to build hype or perpetuate the terrible practise of giving bonuses based on Metacritic scores.

And it's because customers trust reviews that the reviewers should be completely honest about their experience.

I fucking hate the internet.

I watched all of those and they were brilliant watching Ryan SLAUGHTER Fucking SLAUGHTER those poor fools.

But how do you know if there are honest or not just paid? Why is this game honest while every other review is a 9 or 10? Polygon for example is slatted to be a Microsoft site because they were founded partially by it. How do we know they are not trying to make a game look bad? Stuff like this happens in this Industry. Jeff was fired because he was honest people were fired because they were bribed.

If there is such a huge difference in the score they are either biased or in for the clicks and least that is my opinion. If a game is controversial and gets scores all over the place sure but not with a game like the Last of Us which is everywhere else acclaimed to be even the best game of this generation.

Oh, do tell. Please, deliver us some hard truth, Mr. Hyperbole.

@demoskinos: Well in the way that im not going to think this game will be the second coming just because its getting 10s than sure. It may just be me but when a game floats around a common score it gives a basis to work from. I dont mind reviews being different but the continued low balling of some game scores vs others on polygon raises an eyebrow for me. Maybe i am bringing an overall polygon issue into this but it just seems odd is all. If we see more 7s pop up it wont seem so targeted.

So do you know going to stalk me because you do not like my opinion?

Here a small hint. If you google yourself you can find the news very easily.

@darji: No, you're just posting comically negative comments in every thread you can, making them very easy to come across.

Reminds me of when Jeff gave Catherine 2/5 Stars and the reaction was this:

"GOD LOOK AT THE HIGH METACRITIC SCORE YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY STUPID AND WRONG"

But then when the latest Call of Duty comes out and gets high scores...

"GOD LOOK AT THE HIGH METACRITIC SCORE ALL REVIEWERS ARE OBVIOUSLY STUPID AND WRONG"

Don't care about his Last of Us review.

He gave Dust: An Elysian Tail a 7.0 and Prototype 2 a 7.5

Whatiswrongwiththisman.

@zornack said:

It sounds like this isn't a case of a bad reviewer so much as it is about someone with awful taste.

Jesus , that's sad .

It's one thing to have actual evidence that someone is a corporate goon and another thing entirely to suggest they are because of a review score.The former is a hot scoop, the latter is childish dribble.

Hey guys did you hear about the lizard-men who are running all the world's nations but are actually doing us a huge favor because if they didn't do it the mole-men under the Earth would attack us and us regular humans wouldn't know but it is super scary right? Guys?

I never said it is the case but it is one of the reasons many people are hating on this score. Look how giant bomb gets backlash for having so much doublefine stuff on the site. For example never talk about Kickstarter but if Doublefine does one they do. These sites have reputations and people are basing their opinion on these reputations. And if these cases are not one time events but happen constantly you will get suspicious if you want to or not.

@darji: Hating on the Polygon score or the Gamespot one?

But do you think if someone came out and said Double Fine is paying Giant Bomb for all this coverage using only the coverage itself as justification they'd be on to something? Because there's a significant leap that has to happen to go from one to the other, especially when the crew has been pretty straight-forward and open about their relationships with developers.

That's different man. Cause you see the lizards are in control you know? The ebb and flow of information bro. And anything that would give em away they snatch up. But the lizards can't stop the feelings you know? And the feelings give away the truth bro.

Fuckin mole-men people is some bullshit though, made up by the lizard-bros to make them look good you know. It makes sense when you feel about it. Don't think, cause they control that too.

I am "hating" or better do not understand the Polygon review score.

As for Giantbomb and Doublefine. Giantbomb is different than sites like IGN and Polygon. They are way more open and they actually don't make a secret out of their friendships. So Personally I think it is totally fine to post stuff about friends doing something. But people can get the wrong idea because of this stuff.

dude if i was a reviewer i would be really tense about reviewing a big game or one in a big franchise because the amount of internet rage that can come from a score even slightly below the average can last a long ass time. people still remember 8.8 and all that.

how incredibly dumb.

Have you guys heard that South Korea has a UFO that they're using to build secret, advanced weapons which is why North Korea is trying to attack them but the US wants part of that secret shit so they're backing South Korea because eventually they'll end up selling the secret shit to China so that the US can get out of debt? Follow the money.

I thought the game wasn't out yet.

Well that's important to note, because if the review score isn't supported by the review itself, then there's obviously a disconnect somewhere.

Which brings me back to my original question, are people hating because of the number attached to the review, or because of something written in the actual review? If you don't understand the score, then there should be some part of the text that doesn't support the score or is itself flawed.

But if the score and the text are on par, then the problem probably isn't the review or the reviewer.

My mind is fucking blown. Less than 24 hours after Tom's review was posted there are (right now) 10,505 comments on the video, and even if my mind wouldn't have the energy to read them all I would bet my left leg that the majority are extremely negative. Hell, GameSpot even made a show where they make fun of the most idiotic comments that get posted. Yes, drama can be fun, but especially these last few weeks of hyperbole following Xbox One's reveal have made it almost unbearable to browse around video game forums.

And hey, in the 2 minutes it took me to write this shitty post, the comments are now at 10,550.

For a fun drinking game, listen to an episode of Gamespot Gameplay and take a shot every time he mentions his dislike for an established, popular franchise or calls a game "mediocre".

It isn't for a couple more weeks, but the review embargo is up, and so everyone is posting their reviews now.

Right... how how do they know he is wrong?

For me the review is just not understandable. For example: He complains that the game is too hard that there are one hit kills and that these things that should represent a HUGE thread to this world are to fast . This is way they should be in the first place. They should be a threat this is no shooter. and While I can totally agree with the AI claims for example I can not understand how a game like state of decay with a very clunk battle system and a very rough overall feel and also terrible AI can get a 8.5 and the Last of Us not even a 8.0

I usually read a lot of reviews and try to compare these reviews and try to understand their point and where they are coming from but this all fails with me and the Polygon review.

As for the gamestop one: I see there at least why he is getting this score even I do not really cant say anything else until I play it for myself.

They know because how dare anyone see the game as less than absolute perfection.

Which is great because...well, I'll let Reddit say it for me since it's where I found/realized it

Also I feel like I should bookmark this thread. WHOLE lotta users on here seem to forget the absolute SHITSHOW that kicked up over the DmC/MGR: Revengeance reviews. And those were just the most recent, but the mad, frothing "YOU DIDN'T SCORE THIS GAME HIGH ENOUGH/LOW ENOUGH" is in NO WAY confined to Gamespot's review comments.