|
 |
Metacritic 
Metacritic Forums Games PS3 & PS2 Games Isn't it funny how MetaCritic posts all under 10/10 LBP scores, but not all the 10/10
Metacritic Forums Games PS3 & PS2 Games Isn't it funny how MetaCritic posts all under 10/10 LBP scores, but not all the 10/10|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Slacker |
Don't forget it's also a coincidence that 1up gave Gears of War 2 a 9.7 (A out of A+) and metacritic just rounds off the game to 100/100. |
|||
|
|
Participant |
LOL seriously?They did that too?Well they do so many things , its hard to keep up with them... Now they are trying to find Fable 2 perfect reviews so they can get it back to AAA status...oh wait they already did. I predict LBP to drop to 93% , Fallout PS3 to drop below 90% , Resistance will be lucky if it gets 88% and Gears at least 95% to top MGS4 for 2008... |
|||
|
|
Upwardly Mobile Participant |
doesn't really matter...if you like the game, then you'll play it regardless of the score
|
|||
|
|
Slacker |
This means they are going to round up those 97's for LBP right? Also, If the original reviewer didn't include a score, it shouldn't be counted IMO (Variety). |
|||
|
|
Guru |
I really doubt that MC is biased in their game reviews. To answer your question, maybe MC simply uploaded the reviews for SOCOM, and then moved on, as I imagine there's a shit load of other games they need post reviews for, and I doubt they sit there re-checking every single review they post for updates. Another explination may be the number of staff in the games department of MC. Jumping straight to the idea that MC favors the 360 because SOCOM (a game I asume most don't give 2 shits about or are even aware of it's existence, bar a few) seems a little fanboyish. I mean, take GTA IV for example: Here is the XBox 360 review. Here is the PlayStation 3 review. They both scored 98. Quantum Of Solace: Here is the PS3 review - Current Meta Score: 77. Here is the 360 review - Current Meta Score: 69. What do ya know? The PS3 version scored higher.  Guitar Hero: World Tour: Here is the 360 review - Current Meta Score: 86. Here is the PS3 review - Current Meta Score: 85. There's like a 1 point difference. There are other games where the XBox version has currently scored higher than the PS3 version, but it honestly looks totally random. MC probably just gather as many reviews that are currently availavle, and then post them. Oviously, MC only use reviews from specific sources, but I'd bet that often those sources may only have a review available for one conole's version of a game, at the period when MC is uploading their reviews. This message has been edited. Last edited by: Azuzu!, CLICK! |
|||
|
|
Guru |
SEE HERE CLICK! |
|||
|
|
Slacker |
Super'Shed I'm well aware of that particular post.
My opinion still stands, If the reviewer does not have a score, it shouldn't appear on Meta Critic, or go ahead and include the review without a score. I don't care how well Mr. Doyle knows the reviewer, I don't care if the reviewer is his best friend, lover, brother, mother, roommate, alternate personality, etc.. This shit is shady, and I don't like it. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
Little Big Planet currently has a Meta Score of 95, whilst Fable 2 has scored less with a Meta Score of 90. Fallout 3 for the PS3 is 91. Yes the Xbox version is 2 points higher, it's a marginal difference generated randomly. Get over it. And Resistance 2 is 89. Very few games score above 95. I feel confident that the reviews posted on this site are credible as I generally agree with the Meta Scores, however, I don't take them too seriously; I mainly just use them to give me an indication of how good the game may be. Usually I start reading the lowest score and go up; sometimes the highest scores seem like a wank fest. At the end of the day, it's a bunch of other people's opinions that have been added up, just enjoy playing your games. CLICK! |
|||
|
|
Guru |
"In other sections of Metacritic, we regularly track publications that do not assign a score to their own reviews (LA Times, NY Times, Hollywood Reporter, Variety), and we've always estimated the scores based on the impression gleaned from the review. I've only very rarely taken this approach in the Games section of Metacritic because gamers and the games industry are so sensitive to our scoring system and process. However, I did track the New York Times game reviews for years - a site which had no scores. In that case, the lead critic from the Times, Charles Herold, emailed me his unpublished scores every time the NYT published a review and I used those numbers on Metacritic." "My argument is that if the score comes from the horse's mouth, from the critic him or herself, so that I know the critic's intent definitively, I am satisfied that I can maintain 100% accuracy." "So with respect to Variety, I've come to the same arrangement with their lead editor. Each time a game is reviewed, he sends me the link to the review along with their unpublished 0 - 100 score - a score which I post at Metacritic without alteration or personal input. I've vetted a great many reviews and scores from Variety's team before deciding to pick them up like I do with every website and magazine that I decide to track." As stated by the Games Editor, MC gets the unpublished score from the reviewer. MC has rarely come up with the score based on a game writer's review, which in some cases they probably would have had no other way of applying the review to the scoring system. Personally, I'd rather them take a stab because I don't give a shit, and I like reading the reviews. If you don't like it, then tough. I don't think it's going to change. If the Games Editor is willing to publically put his crediblity on the line by saying that the scores given to him are genuine, then I'm pretty sure he's not lying; why would he? Do you really think he'd do such a thing just to make the 360, or any console look better? This message has been edited. Last edited by: Azuzu!, CLICK! |
|||
|
|
Participant |
oh come on... please...
Is it also a coincidence that the trusted Variety reviews always give 360 exclusives almost perfect scores , and when it comes to the PS3 ones miserable? Is it a coincidence that the SUPPOSED Variety score for LBP is 8/10??? And for Resistance 2 7/10? WAAAAAAY lower than any1 else? Is it also a coincidence Variety gave Fable II such a high score compared to the rest of the reviewers and the current metacritic score of 90? Bullshit..."Variety editor trusts me..." yeah i am convinced... Seriously what kind of game is this?Does Doyle think we are retarded or something?Publishing scores from a reviewer that doesnt publish scores?What the fuck is this?Why doesnt Variety publish scores STILL?I mean ok lets believe for a moment that they do have an accord with Doyle, why arent they publishing scores?They just publish it here in metarcritic after an "email" sent to Doyle? This has to be the most pathetic and unprofessional shit i have seen when it comes to journalism. And i remind people , see how much higher than the metacritic score ,Variety (supposedly) reviews 360 games , and look at how much lower than the metacritic scores they review PS3 games.It is just APPALLING... Oh and BTW ,1UP's A/A+ for GeoW2 ,is not a perfect score (10/10) like ,you Mr.Doyle, published on your website...but i guess that's just another "coincidence"... This message has been edited. Last edited by: valkyre, |
|||
|
|
Participant |
Aah that settles it!
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/Sep07/09-19MSNVarietyPR.mspx PURE UNBIASED JOURNALISM FOR THE WIN Mr. DOYLE!!! Ι guess that explains everything perfectly concerning your "selective" reviewing methods , and publishing "unpublished" scores , and in the end which side you are favoring the most. Pathetic... |
|||
|
|
Slacker First Class |
It is 100% clear that Variety are taking it up the anus from microsoft.
|
|||
|
|
Upwardly Mobile Participant |
I think it's funny that Super'Shed has stopped all his trolling since the news was posted of the Variety/MS alliance.
And i know he doesn't have a ps3 so it makes sense he is in every 1 of these posts trying to sidetrack the point with non-sensical arguments and pre-Variety review data. Super'Shed, it's people like you that are the exact problem with sites like Variety and Metacritic, you are not being honest with yourself so your bias is automatic. You try to camoflage it but it seeps into your posts and everyone can see it but you. Just like Mr.Doyle, we can all see the problem here, but will he see it, accept his mistake, and correct it? Only time will tell, but I am sure whatever happens you will have some passive aggressive excuse waiting in case he does.... |
|||
|
|
Guru |
Haha! First off, as I said here "I wouldn't be surprised if there was some bias in review magazines/websites." I don’t really care, but I care enough to try to calm folk down about worrying over scoring, I guess I just don’t take scoring as seriously as you do, whether it’s on MC or anywhere else. Personally, it just sucks to see an up rise of people posting in the games sections of this forum, but only posting complaints about the scoring, as apposed to giving their opinions about the actual games. Second, I hardly think you're in the position to accuse me of trolling and or being biased when you've made what, 3 posts on this site, mostly complaining about the scores on MC apparently favoring the 360 and opposing the PS3, and also accusing me of being the problem with biased game reviews. Although, to be fair, out of the group of people who have had complaints, you've been pretty courteous about it. Third, you don’t know me well at all, Gamer20. I’m not biased towards the Xbox at all. I don't own an Xbox, nor have I ever owned an Xbox, and no, I do not own a PS3 either, but if I had the option of either without having to pay, I'd probably choose the PS3 simply out of an admitted sense of loyalty since the days of owning the original PS, and enjoying such classics like Tomb Raider, Tony Hawk, and my all time favorite, Final Fantasy VII. Based of what little I’ve seen posted about Variety, I agree it appears biased, but it’s like 1 out however many review sites that get posted here. After having been hanging around this site for a while, I’ve never noticed some massive over all biased towards the 360. Most of the reviews I see seem to be pretty consistent with my opinions in general, but then again, I’ve never, until now, gone to the effort of comparing 360 reviews with PS3 reviews. This message has been edited. Last edited by: Azuzu!, CLICK! |
|||
|
|
Upwardly Mobile Participant |
First, it's a given there will be some bias no matter what. That is not the issue. The issue is consistent bias. Whatever your vested interest in calming the emotions of posters here, I don't know, but it's a little strange. Forums are a place for discussion, period, so try to understand that as you play board psychologist.
Post count has no bearing on truth, or my perception of it. And yes I am trying not to attack anyone, regardless of their position, as that is my way of trying to stay un-biased. My comparison to you was an analogy of what is wrong with this site and the bigger picture, i hope you understand that.
You are right, I dont know you personally. However, it troubles me the length you go to, to have an opinion on such matters where you aren't invested in one side or the other. By not owning either console, you are stating you have no vested interest either way, yet here you are. That's like talking politics and then stating you aren't going to vote...by the way i own 3 xbox 360s and 1 ps3, in case you wondered.
Well I appreciate honesty here, and yes, it is just one site, however 1 site can attribute damaging reviews one way and positive reviews the other, resulting in double damage. It would be like stuffing the ballot box with votes for McCain while burning votes for Obama. This is why it is so important to keep things fair. And this isn't about ps3 or 360, NO SITE with a vested interest in a console manufacturer should be allowed to post reviews here. So for instance if Microsoft buys Yahoo, Yahoo reviews should not count toward Meta scores. It's a conflict of interest, period. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
I still feel these worries about the scores are minor, and that the scores may likely change, since over the time I’ve been here I’ve seen scores for games change, and reviews continuously be added over time; however, as I said, until now I’ve never gone to the effort of comparing them. If MC scores keep favoring 360 in a year’s time, then I will be convinced. I’m not attempting to play psychologist either, I’d just like to promote more discussion in these forums about the games, but it seems a new thread about the recent scoring pops up every time I log on here.
You’re right, and I don’t think you’re trolling. My point about your amount of posts was all that I could see of your contribution here so far was a distaste for the website, and an accusation towards me, when even though I’ve disagreed with a few points in this thread, I feel I’ve done so honestly, and positively, whilst also trying to give an opinion about the site I’ve been hanging around for a while now, and also forwarding the contact info for the Games Editor, and links to his posts for those who were upset.
I see your point, but my lack of ownership is not a reflection of my interest, it’s merely my current situation; I do however play many games frequently on both consoles with groups of friends who do own them. I’m not invested in anything from a scoring point of view, I have to admit, I think it’s a bit silly to get so up in arms about a couple of points here and there. I could probably go through all the scoring of every game to find out whether or not MC has been consistently fair in the past, but even if I did, that it would probably be pre Variety as well. At the end of the day, the games mentioned are still scoring pretty high.
I appreciate your over all tone in your post, and I hope to see more positive contribution here on the site, as the few of us who regularly post here would like to see things build up a bit more  My only disagreement with your final comments is that I’d guess there a many reviews that are posted on MC that would be completely biased or owned by the console company, and not just for the Xbox. I’m not a 100% sure, but I’m guessing reviews like PlayStation Official Magazine US/UK, PSX Extreme, Playstation Universe, TotalPlayStation, NintendoWorldReport, Nintendojo, Nintendo Power, Official Nintendo Magazine UK/US, Official Xbox Magazine UK/US, X360 Magazine UK, and so on. Obviously those magazines/websites won’t be writing reviews for games on their competitor consoles. A final note I’d also like to add is that Variety’s review for Metal Gear Solid 4 was a 100, which was strange given the actual review itself, but then again it comes back to the trust that MC is getting the unpublished scores straight from the horse’s mouth. One way or the other, at that score, neither MC nor Variety could be totally out to get PS3, especially considering that MG 4 is one of the few exclusives for the PS3. CLICK! |
|||
|
|
Upwardly Mobile Participant |
and
wow...so you are conceding that MC scores are currently favoring the 360 (which to you isn't a big deal) and if in a years time it hasn't stopped, you will then and only then be convinced? lol, you are the definition of bias my friend. if MC is allowing Variety scores to benefit the 360 while damaging ps3, it needs to be corrected, now. Period. End of story.
why do i need to make a contribution? i feel that there is something wrong in the way MC is handling review scores lately, and it's damaging the integrity of the site in the eyes of many people. i don't need to make a contribution to anyone or anything to voice my concern, again, over a biased review site that has partnered with MS.
and
again, your bias shows. you are minimizing the problem and justifying it because the games in question are "still scoring high". Its not about the scores, its about honesty, fairness, and integrity, and until you understand that you are going to recycle the same argument over and over.
what? again you are qualifying my input to this site as negative because i don't agree with Variety's reviews or MC including them. you want people to post about the games, then don't let the scores become the topic.
firstly, those magazines aren't the reason people are upset right now. you are again using another argument that is invalid. OXM doesn't review ps3 games, and OPM doesnt review xbox games, so your point doesn't work. Those publications can only help their own games, not hurt competitors games, which is what Variety has done. Secondly, if that was a problem, then throw out the highest and lowest scores so it will eliminate a publication trying to help/hurt either way.
funny, because the way you worded that is very interesting. you are basically saying that you interpreted a different score from the review, which is what Marc Doyle said he was doing when Variety first was accepted as a source. Secondly, this sentence "MC is getting the unpublished scores straight from the horse’s mouth" is exactly how Marc worded it in his post "The Addition of Variety's Reviews to Metacritic Games". Either you are a big fan of Marc, work for him, or you are him. Thirdly, the sentence "especially considering that MG 4 is one of the few exclusives for the PS3" is so off the mark it's almost inexcusable. The ps3 has a ton of exclusives, probably as many as the 360 or more at this point with PSN games, and only someone who doesn't like the ps3 or isn't a gamer would say a sentence like that. Personally, i don't believe Marc Doyle has the gaming knowledge to be in the position he is, and i don't believe Super'shed has the gaming knowledge to be making argument for or against this issue, in any way, shape, or form. The problem isn't the gamers, Marc. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
I’ve tried to minimize this as best as possible…
Do I think Variety is biased? Possibly; I haven’t gone to the massive effort of fact checking them and all of their reviews. Do I think MC is biased? No. Do I think MC is sloppy? Yes; reviews sometimes take a while to pop up, whether it’s from official sources, or even from public sources. I’ve put in comments on MC’s review pages that were not uploaded for months, but I’m not jumping to the conclusion that it’s because they’re biased. Am I biased regarding MC? God no; my opinion of this site is varied, and everything I’ve said is just my honest opinion based off what I’ve observed, whether you believe that or not, that is the truth. Am I biased regarding consoles? No, well maybe I favour Nintendo just a little bit, because I’ve been a fan since the NES, but it’s more of a loyalty to their games, of which I’ve certainly criticized extensively in these forums. I don't really care about the console; if there was one console that was compatible with every single game, I would choose that, because it’s the games that interest me, it’s the games that I play. Am I fan of Marc? Do I work for Marc? Am I Marc? No, No, and triple No. I’ve never met Marc, I don’t know him at all because he hardly ever posts in the forums and until this thread, I didn’t recognize him by any name other then his forum id.
I apologize for not knowing every single exclusive title for the PS3, but I wasn’t going to go to the effort of checking just to be politically correct, nor was I trying to make a point that the PS3 has less exclusives, I would I have used that same wording in regards to the 360 or the Wii. Regardless, MG 4 is definitely one of the well known, highly popular exclusives, and my point was that it received a 100/100 score from Variety, so if MC was trying to hurt PS3 titles and using Variety as their co-conspirator, then why did Variety give it the highest rating, and why did MC post the score? Perhaps there is some factors I have missed, which I am open to.
Allow me to paraphrase: If 360 games consistently continue to score higher than PS3 games, over an extended period of time, then I will be convinced that MC is biased.
How did you interpret this as qualifying your input as negative? I thought I was being pretty clear that I was saying the exact opposite, and trying to be welcoming to your input, regardless of our disagreements. CLICK! |
|||
|
|
Upwardly Mobile Participant |
I'm not gonna quote all your replies because you keep adding more nonsense to this argument.
This is very simple: Variety's reviews should not be included on this site, period. Why? 1) they are an information distributor to Microsoft 2) they aren't giving equal scores to multiplatform games, like ign, 1up, gamespot, gampro, and most other honest review sites. 3) they are recently awarding ps3 exclusive games 15-20 point lower scores than the average, while giving 360 exclusives above average scores. 4) they don't publish a review score along with their review Please show me evidence refuting the above points. Otherwise, don't post, because again, you are unable to stay on topic, about this issue, which, again, is Variety's reviews on this site. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
It doesn't seem to occur to you guys that maybe the Variety reviewer just wasn't a big fan of Little Big Planet or Resistance 2, but absolutely loved Fable 2. Multiplatform games aren't always equal between different platforms as well, in fact some games are clearly better on different platforms. For instance I played psychonauts on pc and it was a very poor port and having played it briefly on ps2, the ps2 version was clearly superior.
As Marc addressed the reviewer sends him the scores for each review, so I don't really seem the problem with that. And I'm sorry wasn't it gamespot that fired a reviewer after giving a shitty game a bad review, because they had been hyping it a bunch? |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Metacritic Metacritic Forums Games PS3 & PS2 Games Isn't it funny how MetaCritic posts all under 10/10 LBP scores, but not all the 10/10
Metacritic Forums Games PS3 & PS2 Games Isn't it funny how MetaCritic posts all under 10/10 LBP scores, but not all the 10/10©2006 CNET Networks Inc. All rights reserved.
 |
 |
 |
Home | FILM | DVD/VIDEO | MUSIC | GAMES | BOOKS | TV | About Metacritic |  |