Hi GB community-- I'm talking with a friend about Metacritic and how messed up it all is. I remember Metacritic used to assign scores to reviews that often didn't even have a score. They would base their score on ... you know, words. Is that the case anymore? It looks like Kotaku isn't on metacritic anymore, right? They used to be, didn't they? Help me out here if you can think of a score Metacritic has assigned to a review that didn't originally have a score.
Sidenote - can you think of any publications that do absolutely no scores for games reviews? Kotaku is the closest I can think of, but even they have the Yes or No verdict on their reviews now.
Metacritic making scores for scoreless reviews
Yeah, they do. I remember it being a little more transparent than it is now, as I had to do a bit of digging to find it. The gist is that they base that number off the general tone of the review
@YoungFrey said:
Here is the FAQ quote:
For those critics who do not provide a score, we'll assign a score from 0-100 based on the general impression given by the reviewAlso of interest, they give some publications more weight (and for movie and TV, critic) when they make the weighted average.
Example(s)?
(EDIT: Nevermind, seems they specifically note in that FAQ that they do not and will not expose this information)
I was under the impression that they would get publications who don't use review scores to discreetly send a number that would only be for metacritic. Interesting that they do it themselves though.
@ProfessorEss said:
@YoungFrey said:
Here is the FAQ quote:
For those critics who do not provide a score, we'll assign a score from 0-100 based on the general impression given by the reviewAlso of interest, they give some publications more weight (and for movie and TV, critic) when they make the weighted average.
Example(s)?
(EDIT: Nevermind, seems they specifically note in that FAQ that they do not and will not expose this information)
I've thought about the work needed to derive the weights used, but the rounding inherent in the metascore makes that hard to do. If you recorded every average they publish as scores get added, you could probably start to get some idea. But sites that often publish late (like GB) are usually going to be seen with at least a dozen others. So any weight given to them will be very hard to discern.
@Nate I always get a little bothered when sites talk about MC, because they either gloss over the details or don't actually know them. While not the people being rated, they do have a vested interest in how MC presents them.
@Nate said:
Sidenote - can you think of any publications that do absolutely no scores for games reviews? Kotaku is the closest I can think of, but even they have the Yes or No verdict on their reviews now.
http://killscreendaily.com/
@HisDudeness said:
@Nate said:
Sidenote - can you think of any publications that do absolutely no scores for games reviews? Kotaku is the closest I can think of, but even they have the Yes or No verdict on their reviews now.http://killscreendaily.com/
And they don't appear to be in Metacritic.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment