Every other site's review scores were posted minutes after release. They never forget to put low scores, just like what happened with LBP and MGS4.
PlayMagazine's 10/10 Infamous review score has been up for days and, surprise surprise, Metacritic is not putting it up, even though this reviewer is pretty much always listed (check the top rated game for Xbox360, Play Magazine is in almost all of them).
This message has been edited. Last edited by: rosebowl23,
No. Metacritic isn't sabotaging anybody. They get the sites' reviews up when they can. They are keeping track of hundreds of other games and movies. Infamous got more early reviews than almost every other game on the opening list. Stop complaining. Whining about one 10/10 when it has an average in the high 80s--honestly.
I was actually coming here to find out how I could inform someone that the play magazine review of infamous wasn't in the metacritic scores, but I also found that play magazine gives scores much MUCH higher than they deserve, bionic commando got a 95 and heavenly sword a 100 as well. And I think sabotage is far too harsh especially since the majority of the scores are extremely high.
There are sites which score games terribly lower than average as well, but the issue is Metacritic's inconsistency. They are picking and choosing which scores should be factored this or that game. This is essentially manipulation of the aggregate score. There should be no picking and choosing. If a publication is used on Metacritic, it should be published for all future games.
The score, however, is not an average. The MC score for Infamous is very high. If you dont like the MC score for a game, I dont think they care that much. Individual scores dont make much of a difference to the MC scoring system.
You've just gotta love the title of this thread, don't you? The passion! The love! Play Magazine dropped its scores a couple of years back, and we subsequently dropped them from our surveys. Over the last few months, they've experimented with scoring on their online reviews only, using the 0 - 10 system, a 0 - 5 star system, and an A - F system for their reviews, based on what the individual critic preferred. They asked if we'd like to carry them again. I told them (1) standardize you scoring system and (2) score every review you publish and (3) publish every review from you magazine online. Once that happens, which I'm told should be soon, they'll be in our wheelhouse, though I still want to read a bunch of their recent reviews because I haven't done so since we stopped tracking them. I know most of their critics from the day, but it's part of my vetting.
So no, we're not "sabotaging" "another" game. (I love the self-created drama!)
Have a great long weekend, my friends!
Marc
Death to Videodrome... long live the new flesh! Twitter.com/metacritic
Posts: 412 | Location: Santa Monica | Registered: 12 May 2004
Play TM's review just came out and it's already factored in. Times Online releases 100/100 score at the same time as Play TM yet it's not factored in.
Remember when Variety, a no name publication brought out its low LittleBigPlanet review? It didn't even have a score yet it was instantly published on Metacritic. Metacritic Games Editor has a problem with Play Magazine because of its scoring system yet Variety didn't have one at all and they went out of their way to put a score up for it anyway. Times Online is bigger than Variety ever will be and it's score isn't going to be factored in.
Originally posted by Metacritic Games Editor: You've just gotta love the title of this thread, don't you? The passion! The love! Play Magazine dropped its scores a couple of years back, and we subsequently dropped them from our surveys. Over the last few months, they've experimented with scoring on their online reviews only, using the 0 - 10 system, a 0 - 5 star system, and an A - F system for their reviews, based on what the individual critic preferred. They asked if we'd like to carry them again. I told them (1) standardize you scoring system and (2) score every review you publish and (3) publish every review from you magazine online. Once that happens, which I'm told should be soon, they'll be in our wheelhouse, though I still want to read a bunch of their recent reviews because I haven't done so since we stopped tracking them. I know most of their critics from the day, but it's part of my vetting.
So no, we're not "sabotaging" "another" game. (I love the self-created drama!)
Have a great long weekend, my friends!
Marc
This is quite fascinating to me. I've always wondered to what professional extent publications interact with Metacritic, and vice versa.
------ Fhresh, Monopig
Posts: 36 | Location: England | Registered: 17 July 2008
This is actually quite interesting...while I think the original poster might be seeing conspiracy where there is none....it does raise an interesting question.
In reading this forum post I decided to look at Metacritic's page on how they calculate scores (of which I previously had no knowledge) located at http://www.metacritic.com/about/scoring.shtml
It says very clearly in the 'Scoring Calculation Questions' section that reviews are weighted with the most prominent and highly regarded reviewers/sites given more weight.
Yet, despite the fact that six(6) of the most prominent gaming sites/magazine in the gaming industry (IGN, 1UP, GameSpot, GameTrailers, GiantBomb, and GameInformer) gave this game a 90 or above, if you add up all of the scores and divide that number by the number of reviews (this is a straight average - without weighting) you get 86.91 (or rounded up - 87).
Additionally, there are 19 reviews over 87 (the score the game currently has) and only 13 below 87, with 16 of the reviews (which is half of the number of reviews posted) sitting at 90 or above. With all due respect to all of the reviewers, certainly the 16 reviews that are at 90 or above carry far more weight and prestige in the gaming industry than the half that are below 90. I would think that if this were truly weighted, as stated in the above methodology, that it would, at the very least, raise the regularly averaged score by 1 point....if not more.
This does give the appearance that there is, in fact, no weighting here at all. Why is this??
Again...I am not proposing there is foul play afoot. I am just curious.
And thank you Metacritic Games Editor for participating in this forum...it is truly what makes the internet great!
This message has been edited. Last edited by: huckleberry,
I honestly don't understand why this is a big deal. The scores are just added together and divided by the the many review scores calculated. It's not like they're purposely sabotaging a PS3 game. Honestly, PS3 fanboys(not calling you one, just speaking in general terms) need to get off the high horse thinking everyone is out to get them. Play the games you want to play. Scores don't mean anything at the end of the day. Some of the games that get's overlooked which are hidden gems is ones that don't get huge scores. I played Heavenly Sword, I personally thought is was a 10 due to how everything melded together. That doesn't mean everyone else feels the same. Reviews and scores are personal opinions and bias at the end of the day. Meta just averages the total scores of reviews out there.
Also, just because some games get's rated high 8's or 9' doesn't mean it's any good. Different tastes, different opinions, different strokes for different folks. Just remember.
Infamous like I said is a good game, not a AAA but not bad either. I'd say it's a 85 or 86 game and the score right now is that(give or take a point). Back in the day 7.9's or 8.0 scores was a quality game worth to purchase yet now, people are spoiled kids. I'm 22 years old, i've been playing since my NES/SNES/Genesis days when I was 6 years old, right now games are so good, even 7.8/7.9 games are fantastic to me.
You make some very good points CFB! It certainly is true that the scores only indicate a particular persons feeling about something and don't necessarily mean you will or will not like it.
I don't know if the score for inFamous will feel accurate to me or not, as I have not played the game yet. Nor do I really care. I just thought that this was an interesting score based on what I read regarding their scoring procedures.
Surely, for a game such as this, there is enough press and media materiel for one to decide whether or not they want to play this game regardless of the Metacritic score. And...you are right....87 is a very good score I have played many games in the 70's (the score - not the decade!) that I loved (Wolverine is a great example - scored 74).
So I am not saying, in any way, that this score bothers me....I was just curious based on what I had read.
huckleberry I wasn't directing it to you, I just feel fans these days are spoiled with the 8's and 9's games that they forget what truly makes a game great. I've played many games throughout my time since I was 6, I cannot begin to tell you the games that was rated poorly by the critics and etc which ended up fun for me. Let's not forget, games are a hobby, past time, something TO GIVE YOU FUN. Granted this generation has sparked a higher pedestal or expectation of games with the power of Playstation 3 and 360, no doubt, but just because one game gets a high rating it doesn't mean it's a great game to the masses. Another example is Halo 3, I've played all the halos and quite honestly, Halo 1 is the truly the best one out of the 3. The third one was actually quite a disappointment to me. Granted 2 and 3 you play for the multiplayer I just felt Bungie and MS ruined a great offline campaign and replaced it with a online mode.
Another example is Grand Theft Auto 4, many of the fans has rated the game low 8's and mid 7's where as I loved the game and felt it deserved the 10, not because it was perfect, cause 10s doesn't mean perfection, nothing does(IGN rated MGS4 11/10, so is that beyond perfect?). 10s means it couldn't have improved any better with the time of it's release. Does that mean it'll be outdated the following year and 2? Absolutely, but for it's time of release it was great.
But people take the score and the reviews far too seriously. Kane and Lynch which caused a huge debacle december(07) with the reviewing rated it 6 or lower, I felt the game was actually a 7.8. And that's a good score for any game, but people want nothing bu high 8's and 9's which is a shame. They then forget what truly makes a game. YOUR OPINIONS AND VIEWS. Reviews like the bible are GUIDELINES, not something to take literal and say this is fact. Bias also plays a huge factor. I just wish people understood this, but mainly the fanboys who's really 14 and lower of age who's balls hasn't dropped yet are the ones calling the reviews gospel and putting them on a high pedestal then what they need to be. But that's the issue with games nowadays and the generation. High expectations from the consoles.
Hi CFB. I understand where you are coming from however that is not what this topic is about. Scores do matter, scores influence sales whether we like it or not. And a site that claims to have the average of every site's scores is very powerful and influential. That is why what happens here must be observed and, if necessary, criticized.
No one is arguing whether this game deserves this or that, whether this game is good or bad, or anything of that nature. What is being argued is the methodology used by Metacritic to achieve its average. If you take a close look, sometimes they include [X] reviewer, sometimes they don't. Sometimes [X] review counts more than [Y] review, and sometimes it doesn't. Consistency (i.e. every game being judged by the same scale, the same rules, the same sources) is the fundamental basis for an "average." At the very least, Metacritic seems to have some inconsistencies and this should not be ignored.
Scores do matter, scores influence sales whether we like it or not.
I disagree entirely. What influences sales isn't the score, but rather the marketing. Sony has plenty of good games rated 88's and 90's but the problem with them lies with the horrible marketing skills compared to what MS has, which is why Sony's games don't nearly get the sales it does. More scores does not by any means say this game is better or add to the amount of sales. GTA4 is a good example of this. GTA4 only got the sales it did through hype of the success of what San Andreas did and Pre-orders.
quote:
At the very least, Metacritic seems to have some inconsistencies and this should not be ignored.
I'm already aware of that based off their response, but it has nothing to do with being inconsistent from Meta, but more so on the site and how they review games. As they said, they(PlayMagazine's) keep changing the way they rate games where it gets to a point that Metacritic can't used them and averages them in the total. Also, let me say even if they did, the scores doesn't change dramatically higher or lower. Only from a point or two if that. Hardly matters in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure Metacritic are professionals and know what they're doing.
My posts just speaks in general and how people think higher tier games means it's better, which it doesn't. Marketing plays a huge roll in sales whether you want to admit it or not. It does and reason why Sony hasn't had the success it has in the past.
Metacritic Forums 
