Has anybody seen metacritic do this before. It seems really odd to me, since it's not a proper review.

Oh, that's just terrible. I know it doesn't affect the score or anything, but still.

LOL

I think this had been done before. Can't recall whether it was a GB QL though.

As long as they are not marked as actual reviews I don't see the problem with tying unscored impressions to a game.

How do they do that!? Is some poor person watching all these videos for pull quotes?

Metacritic is a cbsi property, so it's not that surprising.

@mikemcn: Yeah this is my question. It's unscored so doesn't matter much but who pulled it?

So ... when the review lands will that overwrite this quote?

Hot takes aren't reviews and a quick looks fall more in the former category than the latter.

They're super useful for filtering 'interesting' (merits further attention) from 'uninteresting' (does not merit further attention), but they aren't a long-form critical appraisal.

Metacritic might be adding these kinds of things as a counter to the decline in the plurality of games journalism (i.e, in order to bulk up their total review numbers) but they shouldn't compare apples with oranges if they want to remain useful to their users.

Pfffft. That's real dumb. They didn't even pick a very good quote. Should have used Jeff's:

"This feels like a direct to video sequel to Mass Effect"

@extintor: They're always looking for new outlets to cover more stuff so it's a possibility. They really struggle with indie reviews, though. I can only assume this is a blanket thing to cover games that get a quick look but no formal review on the site.

I want Jeff to walk over to their office and laugh.

Eh, I like the idea. Just a way of getting different kinds of games coverage on their and that's not a bad thing. Some sites like Giant Bomb will never have a full review of some games so why not have something from them on there? Anyway, it's sorted separately from reviews so it doesn't matter that they are a different format.

What do you mean poor person? Getting paid to watch QLs? Sign me up.

Also this is weird because of how casual QLs are, but I don't think it's inappropriate. If the objective is to gather opinions pre-release, then, yeah, that's one way do it.

Ideally they would include stuff like Quick Look's under a header like "non-review coverage" rather than the "in-progress" review header, but featuring stuff like that on the metacritic in some way isn't a bad thing. Reviews and scores are becoming less and less relevant, Metacritic need to move forward and highlight more modern coverage that people want to discover.

I've still never seen a Metacritic score nor gone to that website, and anytime someone parades a score from there around to praise/bash a game, It usually means I can dismiss their opinion. Maybe in some lights a website that compiles all scores is useful, somehow, data usually is. However, the people that attach to a particular score, especially in our hobby, are scary, scary folk, and I'll continue to ignore it as long as they continue to want to wage war over a stupid number on that site.

@takayamasama: I agree that some individuals take it way too seriously. However, it is legitimately useful for gauging the feeling towards a game at launch. It also takes all reviews and puts them in a very easy to find place, which makes it good for websites too. There's nothing even wrong with wanting a game you like to do well on there because it does affect the industry, people will take that as an estimate of how people liked a game or an idea along with word of mouth, and that will affect things like sequels. Also just so you know Andromeda currently has a 75, just on the edge of mixed and positive, you have now seen a Metacritic score.

@apdls: Ok I should clarify. I have never seen a score on the website. I have seen people say something is a score, but I haven't checked, nor will I. So that 75 could be true, could be false, the main point being I don't really care. I think review scores all around are kinda pointless, I'd rather read a review full of impressions and text explaining why. I was on board when Giant Bomb was thinking about just doing away with the 5 Star system.

@mikemcn: Can I get that job?

That's... disturbing in many levels.

Game reviews in 2017.

More quotes > Less quotes. The coverage problem's always going to be there. Especially if you've got a smaller site that maybe doesn't have the PR connections, social media presence or just the sheer bloody-mindedness to grab what they can for review purposes. And for those that do have the presence and connections, they're more likely to aim for bigger fish for the sake of traffic.

If metacritic can't find those quotes from traditional means, pulling them from this is the only compromise available to them.

@takayamasama: You get that in reviews with scores as well. There is nothing wrong with having scores. They are a useful shorthand and many reviewers like using them. I also appreciate reviews without scores, they shouldn't be mandatory. But a review isn't worse if there's a number on the end of it. I can't say I understand the vehemently anti-score outlook unless it's coming from a reviewer who doesn't want to use them.

As for Giant Bomb, they have a nice sweetspot as they have said several times. Jeff actually once said that they have in some ways the perfect score system for Metacritic - two scores for bad, one neutral, and two scores for good. I like what they have as a reader and can't imagine any reason to change it from that standpoint. Also regarding Metacritic, it has unscored reviews as well. Maybe you should check it out!

In retrospect, that does sound pretty awesome, I was more thinking of someone who knows nothing about videogames having to watch these things.

i will now read every metacritic pull quote in brad's voice.

@lawgamer: ah, that's where it came from, no wonder everyone is bandwagoning on that description. (sorry hadn't watched the whole quick look)

This. Although I saw the QL so I knew exactly the line they were grabbing from. This is still rather weird though. Not them grabbing opinions from Quick Looks, but I think it's tough with certain games. Some games the entire opinion could change when they finish it, and granted a review score could go up and change that. But isn't the damage done? Super conflicted on this all ways. Because even if the damage is done, is it done rightfully so? Assume a game gets criticized for not looking like it's coming together through the first 10+ hours gets quoted for that and then they love it. It's easy to look at the "game doesn't come together first 10 hours" as legit criticism for anyone who doesn't want to wade through hours and hours of game to get to the good stuff. But that said it's easy for this stuff to continue to fuel the awful group think without any legit analysis and just use these quick look quotes as matter of statements for X is good or X is bad.

Interesting stuff to say the least.

What a weird job to have. Watch this QL, discern how these gents feel, grab a quote that reflects their opinion, and post to site.

I wonder if Giant Bomb submitted this to them, or if Metacritic took their own initiative to obtain this.

Either way...I dunno about this

I volunteer as tribute!

... I'll see my way out.

Jeff sort of addressed this back when No Man's Sky came out:

This is fine with me in theory, so long as it's separated from proper reviews - the problem I can see is that, without a conclusive "verdict number" informing their choice, the impression given by the quote is going to be pretty much at the sole discretion of whoever is compiling the list.

"A direct to video version of Mass Effect" sounds much harsher than "I really like the enhanced mobility," for example... but which of those quotes gets used ends up being a pretty broad judgement call.

I'm all, "who chooses the quote-choosers," and so on