wow. another poster ignoring the facts.

1) these scores from Variety aren't from the same reviewer.

2)multiplatform games are almost always equal these days, but thats not the problem. the problem is Variety gave a 97 to fallout 3 for 360, but no score at all for ps3. They gave deadspace a 70 for ps3 but no score for 360.

3) the reviewed should post its own score on its own site along with the review. period. posting a review with no score and telling people that the score was emailed privately is plain shady, and doesnt look proffesional.

4) your point about gamespot has nothing to do with anything.

can anyone do some research around here or is everyone just ignorant to the facts and details of this issue? i mean, this isn't rocket science. whats with these posters not addressing the issue at hand? are you proffesional trolls?

As for Variety scores for PS3 exclusives, check the following link to check whether Variety is truly impartial or not: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/Sep07/09-19MSNVarietyPR.mspx

quote:

I'm not gonna quote all your replies because you keep adding more nonsense to this argument.

In my previous post, I wasn't argueing, I mostly corrected your assumptions of me.

quote:

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.

I totally agree that these are all valid reasons to be suspicious of Variety. I searched the top 20 for PS2 and 360 games, and these are all the Variety scores I’ve found:

PlayStation 2

Metal Gear Solid 4 – 100, Little Big Planet – 80, Dead Space – 70, Resistance 2 – 70

Xbox 360

Fable 2 - 98, Fallout 3 – 97, Gears of War – 85, Rock Band – 85

Xbox is higher on average, so far, but there are only 4 reviews for each console (that I could find on MC), and Metal Gear Solid 4 is still the highest scoring game via Variety.

quote:

I didn’t add anything else new to the argument? I mostly corrected your assumptions of me.

i think you might want to fact check your statement..now onto the rest of your post:

quote:

I totally agree that these are all valid reasons to be suspicious of Variety. I searched the top 20 for PS2 and 360 games, and these are all the Variety scores I’ve found:

PlayStation 2

Metal Gear Solid – 100, Little Big Planet – 80, Dead Space – 70 andResistance 2 – 70

Xbox 360

Fable 2 - 98, Fallout 3 – 97, Gears of War – 85, Rock Band – 85

Xbox is higher on average, so far, but there are only 4 reviews for each console (that I could find on MC), and Metal Gear Solid is still the highest scoring game via Variety.

now we are getting somewhere, although you stated ps2 twice, and i know you meant ps3. anyhow....here is the problem:

If you look at Variety review for Fallout 3, it is reviewed for both ps3 and 360. you can see it for yourself here . However, this great score only appears on Metacritic under the 360 version of the game. So the ps3 version doesn't benefit from the 97 given, even though the review is for both. Whoever adds the scores under the 360 and ps3 versions for MC simply forgot to add this for ps3? Perhaps, perhaps not. Let us continue.

This same scenario applies to Deadspace. Variety reviewed the game for ps3 and 360. However, this low score of 70 only appears under the ps3 version of the game, and not the 360. Again, since there is only 1 person, Marc Doyle, responsible for selecting what review goes under what game, Marc remembered to add this low score to the ps3 version, but not the xbox 360 version. Quite opposite, but quite the same as the previous scenario. Shall we go on?

So now we have 2 ps3 exclusives, resistance 2 and little big planet. Variety gives both of these games their lowest review scores on the internet. So low, in fact, that they are 19 and 15 points lower than the average, respectively.

Marc's inclusion of Variety's 70 of resistance 2 takes it under 90, making sure that sony still has no AAA First or Third person shooter, at least on Metacritic, for the ps3. Meanwhile, there are several outstanding reviews for r2 all at or above 90 that aren't added to the site, from places like playTM(90) ,NZGamer(92), GamesRadar(90), Gamezone(90),Wired(90),GamingHeaven(97),Yahoo(100) . There are also many outstanding 100's for LittlebigPlanet, however those haven't found a way through Marc to appear on the site either.

Fable 2 and MSG4 could very well be honest review scores, however if MGS4 were to come out today instead of June, i doubt the same 100 would apply.

I think the problem here is 2 fold: Variety has a conflict of interest being affiliated with MS, and it just doesn't sit well with alot of gamers that they are now handing out very low scores for ps3 exclusives and higher scores for 360 exclusives.

The other side of this problem is how the review scores appear on the site. I do not agree with 1 version of a multiplat game getting the benefit or reduction from a score while the other version does not. It would be very hard to justify the above examples with Fallout and Deadspace, in my mind.

The difference between a ps3 shooter being an 89 or a 90 on this site rests with Marc Doyle alone. There also seems to be no real system with the way review sites are added or not from 1 game to the next. And since there is only 1 person controlling this aspect of MC, there is no controlling body or oversight, except for us, the gamers, and it's obvious we have no impact on this situation.

Marc should do the right thing, however in doing the right thing, who could be sure he did anything at all?

^^ respect for everything you just said man... any1 who doesnt see the obvious bias going on here , is either naive or retarded...

quote:

Originally posted by Gamer20:The other side of this problem is how the review scores appear on the site. I do not agree with 1 version of a multiplat game getting the benefit or reduction from a score while the other version does not. It would be very hard to justify the above examples with Fallout and Deadspace, in my mind.

You're right, both versions of the game should benefit from the score. Are those reviews specific to the console? Even if they are, I can't see how either version would be any different from the other, unless there's an online aspect, or the controls on one version suck.

Kudos to Gamer20 for having the most convincing argument for MC bias. Also, kudos to Super'Shed for some good points. Overall, though, I think Super'Shed's got it wrong. Gamer20 seems to have taken the time and trouble to piece together a lot of observations and string them into a logical pattern, and this pattern does does seem to form a troubling picture of bias or a lack of ethics (on Variety's part for seemingly obvious reasons, and on Marc Doyle's part for apparent cherry-picking of reviews which will show PS3 games in a competitively worse light.

Thanks Thinker. Cherry Picking is exactly the term that should be synonymous with Metacritic. That and bias.

What is the best way for a company like Microsoft to control how the general consumer sees their products? Why, control the search, of course. So if i search for "worlds best operating system" or "AAA video games", the MS products will come up with rave reviews from places like Metacritic. Microsoft is hell bent on buying search engine companies and search tech with their best interests in mind.

They have the money, and obviously the connections in the media and journalism to make those things happen. They are spending a ton of money defending Vista from Apple; it wouldn't surprise me if a fraction of that couldn't buy out a nobody games editor or review writer from various websites that will go unnamed.

No, i don't have direct proof, but if you read my posts on this site, and have a mind that wants the truth, with no personal bias to interfere, you will see a pattern here that has no explanation other than it benefits one side more than the other where it matters...not on games like midnight club or spiderman, but on the big exclusives and mutliplats.

You may have the internet fooled, Mr. Doyle, but fate has a way of circling back on an unjust man in this world. I may never know how it happens, but I know in my heart that it will. Your bias, and meticulous crafting of how the review scores are presented on this site will manifest itself somehow in your life, someday, and when it does, i hope you can reflect back on this moment, and ask yourself if it was all worth it, to present a slanted picture to all for a quick buck.

If it's only for money, whatever, we can live with that. But if you are blindly supporting a billion dollar company because you believe that somehow your loyalty to them dignifies your point of view, then you Mr. Doyle, have more problems that just your little section of Metacritic.

Yes, even professionals are fanboys lol.

What are you going on about? Metacritic getting paid to make XBOX 360 scores higher? Really?

Granted, Xbox games in general probably have a point or so average on PS3 games, but do you really think Microsoft is going to pay MC for THAT? Don't you think critics may just like 360 a tad bit more?

Did you finally get bored of Loose Change or something?

quote:

Originally posted by grabblegarrr:
What are you going on about? Metacritic getting paid to make XBOX 360 scores higher? Really?

Granted, Xbox games in general probably have a point or so average on PS3 games, but do you really think Microsoft is going to pay MC for THAT? Don't you think critics may just like 360 a tad bit more?

Did you finally get bored of Loose Change or something?

If you took some time and effort , to read and comprehend the arguments presented in this thread , you would have to be a total moron , not to realize that there is something "fishy" going on here at least.

Or you actually believe that A/A+ actually translates to a perfect score for geow2 and B+/A+ results in a 83/100 ...

Again , go read some of the previous posts...and use your brain a bit more this time.

Microsoft paid Metacritic's parent company CBS/Viacom $500 million at the end of 2007 for a long term content distribution deal.

microsoft-and-viacom-announce-strategic-alliance-for-distribution

If you follow the money and use your brain, it's not hard to figure this out.

Yes, I understand all the petty little details. However, you are letting them get in the way of the bigger picture. Bottom line is, if anyone from MC were actually getting paid by Microsoft, the overall scores would reflect that. As of now, they are virtually the same as PS3.

quote:

Originally posted by TKurata:
Please post up the scores and links to the missing reviews, would like to see them!

Thanks!

LittleBigPlanet
http://www.gamestats.com/objects/856/856680/articles.html



Giant Bomb 5/5 10.0
GamePro 5/5 10.0
GameZone 9.7/10 9.7
UnderGroundOnline A/A+ 9.5
GameSpy.com 4.5/5 9.0
Gaming Age A+/A 10.0
1UP.com A+/A+ 10.0
TotalPlayStation 9.5/10 9.5
GameTrailers 9.4/10 9.4
Kombo 10/10 10.0
G4 / Tech TV 5/5 10.0
CheatCC 4.6/5 9.2
GameSpot 9.0/10 9.0
GamesRadar [US] 10/10 10.0
IGN.com [UK] 9.7/10 9.7
Gameplayer[Aus] 10/10 10.0
GameDaily 9/10 9.0
Total Video Games 10/10 10.0
Computer & Video Games.com 9.6/10 9.6
IGN.com [Australia] 9.2/10 9.2
IGN.com 9.5/10 9.5
Power Unlimited 100/100 10.0
Kikizo Games 9 /10 9.0
play.tm 93 /100 9.3
Eurogamer 9 /10 9.0
Official PS Magazine [UK]10/10 10.0

quote:

Yes, I understand all the petty little details. However, you are letting them get in the way of the bigger picture. Bottom line is, if anyone from MC were actually getting paid by Microsoft, the overall scores would reflect that. As of now, they are virtually the same as PS3.

What's funny is I have documented proof of a deal between the companies and you call it a "petty detail"...lol. The overall scores do reflect the fact that Microsoft has paid CBS/Viacom to keep its interests in mind on sites like CNET, Gamespot, and Metacritic, and most recently Variety. Variety also has deal with Microsoft and it must be just coincidence Variety's reviews are now appearing on this site with very low ps3 game scores.

If you want to ignore the "petty details" then you will never see a bigger picture, especially if you are biased already. Do you think Metacritic is going to put a disclaimer on their games page stating "review scores for xbox 360 may be higher due to a content distribution deal with Microsoft" ?....i don't think so.

Oh, by the way, they aren't required to put a disclaimer out, based on CBS affiliate policy for disclosure:

quote:

CBS Interactive editors disclose business relationships whenever relevant, specifically in any editorial content where a CBS Interactive partner or investor is a primary subject. Ordinary advertising relationships, content distribution agreements , and service contracts do not require disclosure.

CBS Editorial disclosure policy

So yeah, keep living in your dream world where everyone is perfectly neutral and not motivated by money.

I call it all petty detail because it is one website out of around 35 which are featured on most games. I also call it petty because in the end, it's an entirely unimportant score on Metacritic. Seriously, what the fuck does it matter? Your self-importance is beyond pathetic, although quite amusing.

Oh, and your still forgetting that PS3 games and XBOX 360 games have nearly identical scores. Maybe not from certain websites, but they do even out end the end. That is the bigger picture you have been left out of my friend.

Quote from FragileKid :

"The Metacritic forums have no say in what reviews are used, how they are used, tabulated, etc. or the basis for them. This is a place to discuss games and other great things.

If you have a discrepancy with one of the scores, feel some sites are biased, or have anything related to the actual main Metacritic site; please use this form to contact the correct person. Fill it out and add as many details as possible to make sure it gets routed to the ideal individual.

Let's try to keep the forums in order and on subject. Thank you."

I am sorry i am using your quote here in this thread , but since you closed almost every single thread that had to do with the subject of metacritics actions lately , this is the only place i could still post about it (probably you forgot to close this too).

With all due respect , didn't you notice that a good enough number of people are complaining about the way metacritic is working lately?
Dont you think all these people deserve an answer AT LEAST?

You closed around 15 threads.I agree that most of them needed closing , because they pretty much recycled the same things.

But at the same time they express people's disappointment and skepticism concerning the way metacritic's games division is being handled.

I think we deserve to know why GeoW2 is published here with a 10/10 ,from 1UP , when in fact 1UP score was A/A+.

This mistake is running for 2 weeks now almost.

Same thing with Resistance 2's B+/A+ which translated to 83.

Why are a lot of multiplat reviews listed for 360 but not for PS3?

What is the real deal with Variety and how objective is their judgment when they are a subsidiary of Microsoft , and when they start almost every PS3 review by stating how cool 360 games are?Most of their reviews look like promotion for 360 games , rather than the actual PS3 game they are reviewing.

People here have made some pretty strong arguments , and all you chose to do is ignore them and close them?

Why should we fill a form to address these matters?This is a forum.And when people realize , or have doubts about its integrity , then they should speak their minds in public!

The least you could do is give us an answer to all these arguments and doubts we have.Not shut our mouths and give ban threats!!

I am sorry , but with this kind of tactic you are using , you seem to actually admit that all these doubts we have about the integrity of metacritic , are simply true.

I really hope you(or whoever is in charge and it may concern) consider this and give us a proper answer.

Thank you , and i'm looking forward to hearing from you.

quote:

I am sorry , but with this kind of tactic you are using , you seem to actually admit that all these doubts we have about the integrity of metacritic , are simply true.

absolutely correct Valkyre. they had a team meeting and decided all these threads and complaints have to disappear, to stem the tide of awareness that has recently struck the forums here.

this shows knowledge on Metacritics part, of the bias that has taken place, and rather than be up front about it, this is a way of squashing it. this 'get in line or get out' attitude just makes Mr. Doyle look worse, due to the fact that he reads these forums and has chosen to ignore us and 'make us go away'.

i welcome the ban.

Not that you deserve an explanation but there was no meeting of any kind. I am a moderator and I need to keep these forums as clean as possible. If you read the policies and guidelines, multiple threads based around redundant subjects break those rules. And that is why I closed them all. I also want to steer you to this point in the forum guidelines and policies: If you receive a warning from Metacritic about a violation, please take it seriously and follow the guidelines in the future. If you repeatedly fail to follow the guidelines, you can be banned from the Forums.


I completely understand yours all concern if you feel something is not being done correctly or properly. However, the forums are not the place to complain about them. The only way something could ever change is if you use this form to contact the correct people. I, nor do any of the moderators, have any say as to what sites are used, what reviews are used, how they are scored or anything similar to that on the actual Metacritic site. In other words, I can do things here in the forums but I have no, and I mean no, say as to what happens on the actual site.

I hope that clears up any concerns you all have.

Fragile,

Thank you very much for your professional tone. I understand that you have a job to do here and i also hope you understand that these multiple threads were not opened by 1 person. They were opened by a multitude of people all saying the same thing.

I also understand the use of a complaint form as opposed to posting on the forums. However sometimes it is nice to discuss an issue before filing a complaint, because as we know some people get upset without reason and file complaints just because. I think to this point, everyone on all sides of this have handled themselves very well: it has been nice going back and forth and getting different points of view, as i don't feel the same about this issue as i did a couple of days ago.

What i have learned is that in this day, you cannot rely on the independent "journalist" to favor your particular product. The only way to guarantee that your product or service is seen in a decent light is to make arrangements with media outlets, especially if you are new to a particular medium. I understand that Microsoft, Viacom, Variety, Epic, CNET, Metacritic, and the like all have a business to run. Therefore, i do not disagree with content distribution deals or higher review scores for affiliates and business partners.

What i do not agree with is lowering the scores of your opponents. It should be enough that the playing field is leveled by buying that point of view, but going the other way and making your opponent look worse that they are is inexcusable.

I know that you stated nothing will change because these are the forums, but i will not fill out a form. At least in the forums there are those who understand my small point of view. Also, because business is business and what i have to say will fall on deaf ears. I know Mr. Doyle reads the forums, and filling out a form, other than making me feel powerless, isn't going to change what's already been said or read.

So in the end i have said all i have to say. Thanks for keeping this thread open long enough, for me anyway, to close out this issue in my mind. I will add however, that this will never end, and this is only the beginning of this problem. As the ps3 comes down in price and more people look for game reviews, this issue will become more apparent to a lot more people, so if you think i have been a pain over the last week, i don't think you have seen anything just yet.

Mr. Self Importance

I've now created this thread for people with similar concerns.

I hope that I have made myself clear on what is intended to be done. Again, I understand people being concerned on an issue but it doesn't need to be overstated in dozens of threads all over. Either way, I will keep a closer watch on these forums and I still encourage you all to share your opinion—just make sure it is being done with the best interest of the forum.