I thought only reputable video game reviewers were allowed on this site. Are you aware Teletext has only reviewed one game and it's Killzone 2?

Why is Teletext's 70 review of Killzone 2 being allowed on this site?

I cannot think of a single rational reason why someone who has nothing to do with the commercial video game business would be allowed to have their review within 100 miles of this web site, especially one who has never reviewed a game before.

Are your standards on metacritic really slipping this far?

Even the most biased person could not possibly think allowing Teletext reviews to show up here fits within Metacritic's founder's own guidelines for review scores. That single review dropped Killzone's metascore by 1 point. A single review from a source that has never reviewed a video game before Killzone 2.

Really? Think about that one.

I agree, this is absolute BS.
They have NO review history, how in the hell did they get approved with 1 game?
Isf this is not fixed Metacritic is going to lose it's cred.

Ok seriously what the hell is this???

Marc i respect the work you are doing , but this is pushing it really hard...

EAs the guys said above... why??Only reputable video game reviewers has nothing to do with teletext gamers ffs...

it appears Marc is trying desperately to get the Metascore below 90 in time for the Feb. 27th release of Killzone 2. The last 6-8 reviews added have all been low, with several outstanding 90+ reviews from better, more gaming oriented sources than teletext.

Maybe i was right afterall Marc.

Gamerblorge A+/A+
futuregamez 91/100
PS3blog 10/10
IncGamers 8.8/10
LA Times 5/5
VirginMedia 5/5
Sidney Morning Herald 4.5/5

Teletext gave Gears 2 8/10, so whatever, just add the other good scores and there will be no question of bias/unfairness.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gamer20,

In response to Gamer20, if that's the case Marc should be ashamed of himself. I've noticed too that plenty of other sites giving Killzone 2 higher grades are not shown in the metascore. It's sad.

The simple fact is if someone has an agenda and his cherry picking reviews to harm a game's metascore, that is a problem.

I have just signed up to say...

THIS IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!

If you are gonna add dodgey review sites that have not ever been featured on metacritic before, at least add the good reviews as well!

quote:

Originally posted by Onlineatron:
I have just signed up to say...

THIS IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!

If you are gonna add dodgey review sites that have not ever been featured on metacritic before, at least add the good reviews as well!

uh is it still there? i havn't noticed it.

Edit: nvm i see it now. anybody know how to view their list of approved sites?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: oh! enoch.,

quote:

Originally posted by Gamer20:
it appears Marc is trying desperately to get the Metascore below 90 in time for the Feb. 27th release of Killzone 2. The last 6-8 reviews added have all been low, with several outstanding 90+ reviews from better, more gaming oriented sources than teletext.

Maybe i was right afterall Marc.

Gamerblorge A+/A+
futuregamez 91/100
PS3blog 10/10
IncGamers 8.8/10
LA Times 5/5
VirginMedia 5/5
Sidney Morning Herald 4.5/5

Teletext gave Gears 2 8/10, so whatever, just add the other good scores and there will be no question of bias/unfairness.

I agree with this post. As some of the posters here have been citing, and myself with my own observations, many of the newly included scores for the Killzone 2 metacritic score have been conspicuously low, due in part of the occlusion of some good scores as cited in the quote above.

As some have already reiterated, there are review with relatively low credibility and popularity, being counted for the metacritic score that aren't generally counted at all in metacritic.com. And if that weren't enough, good scores from websites with similar popularity ARE NOT being counted to the metacritic score.

Please, metacritic, fix this...

I agree 100% with the other viewers, not only did they only give us a very brief 1 page review but they gave a score that drifts far away from the average, on top of that this is there first review for a video game.

This review is totally unexceptionable from a very little known site for gaming.

Seriously guy's get a grip, GameCentral reviews games everyday, it has done for over 10 years, the reviews are on the net if you want to find them.
The writers of GameCentral, have and do write for some of the most respected publications.
Just because you've never heard of them before, and that's because it's a UK site, it does not mean that their opinion, which I might add i don't agree with, is any less valid.
Move along there's no conspiracy here!

I don't want to sound like a Xenophobe but does anyone know if there's an all US or global aggregate site? It just seems to me like most of the places giving Killzone a low score are outside the US and perhaps gamers tastes are just different.

For example, Japan has a VERY different gaming culture. Tastes would be different. When you look at the lowest scores for Killzone 2 almost every single one (and all the 70s) are from foreign sites (if you live in America).

So does anyone know if there is an aggregate site that is wholly in the United States and thus caters strictly to North American gamer tastes?

quote:

Originally posted by HoofHearted:
I don't want to sound like a Xenophobe but does anyone know if there's an all US or global aggregate site? It just seems to me like most of the places giving Killzone a low score are outside the US and perhaps gamers tastes are just different.

For example, Japan has a VERY different gaming culture. Tastes would be different. When you look at the lowest scores for Killzone 2 almost every single one (and all the 70s) are from foreign sites (if you live in America).

So does anyone know if there is an aggregate site that is wholly in the United States and thus caters strictly to North American gamer tastes?

unfortunately that's a little too specific.

quote:

Originally posted by Gamer20:
just add the other good scores and there will be no question of bias/unfairness.

I agree. And I think it's ridiculous that they would add a review from an unknown site like that.

I mean seriously, LOOK at the review. It has BS written all over it. I find it dumb and incredibly biased that they would add a review like that, but ignore reviews from sites like Playstation Lifestyle to name a few.

It's really simple: Edge didn't want to be alone with their 7/10, so they got a UK buddy to help them out with another 7/10, and the Absolute Games 7/10 who knows what is up with that site.

In a way, they are stupid because they are helping each other with 7/10's instead of the original mission, to tank the Killzone 2 metascore, so in a way, it's a victory for us ps3 lovers, because we all know they want to give this game a 5/10 or 6/10...

Seriously though, there are some well respected gaming publications that Marc is not allowing right now...I had a feeling that the closer we get to the release date, the metascore for KZ2 is gonna drop, and I was right.

Marc is strangely fickle at his job, and it just seems like ps3 games suffer for it, just like they do when Edge reviews ps3 games and gives them lower scores than 360 games on average.

Out of 41 games, Edge has not given any ps3 game above an 8, with the exception of LBP, and Marc has a hard on for "well respected" UK publications, yet the LA Times isn't on Metacritic. Who wants to take bets on when Killzone 2 will be an 89 on here? You know it's coming....I don't think I've ever seen a game go from 94 to a 91 with only 8 more reviews added...makes me sick inside.

quote:

Originally posted by Gamer20:
It's really simple: Edge didn't want to be alone with their 7/10, so they got a UK buddy to help them out with another 7/10

It's funny you mentioned that because Teletext editor "David Jenkins" has also contributed to Edge. Coincidence or Conspiracy?! LOL

I have to defend Gamecentral. It's one of the most credible site/source on metacritic.

To the OP.

Gamecentral is a section on UK teletext that's been going since 1993. It started life as Digitizer. It's updated daily and used by millions of UK gamers over the decades and regarded highly. It's critical, controversial and written by experienced gaming journalists but doesn't give in to the hype like so many BS inexperienced sites that exist on metacritic which should be removed.

They've reviewed more games than most noob sites on the net put together but the new website features only the daily page and no record. It's a teletext section which started before the internet that I've enjoyed since it started.

So please, put "digitizer teletext" and gamecentral in google.

I don't blame any one outside the UK for not knowing who or what this is. Even if you're a younger gamer thats never heard of teletext. But this site/teletext section is easily the most warranted and correct inclusion to metacritic thats been doing this daily before the internet existed and probably most of you were born or near to.

Also, gamecentral gave Halo 3 an 8 whilst the very dubious EDGE gave it an unwarranted 10 whilst giving K2 a 7, Resistance a 6.

I think edge's 10 is way off from a critical standpoint that gamecentral give to all games and Edge give to most games.

Edge's critical view disappears when reviewing a certain bunch of high profile 360 exclusives. Look how much higher they score than metacritics average. Whilst every other game on edge gets a correct critical score. Gamecentral are critical of all games that deserve it.

Honestly, Gamecentral is the most credible on here and doesn't pander to no-one unlike EDGE or at least Edge seem strangely inconsistent and halo gets a free pass their critical eye. And yes I know some others from edge have written on gamecentral.

@losultima22xx. You are absolutely spot on with your comments. It renews my faith that there are still intelligent, and thoughtful people out there that post on forums.

Even if Teletext is popular and respected, much like the perception of Edge, once again they are in the minority on this game.

Killzone 2 is getting rave reviews all over the internet, with 20-30 9's and 10's from good sites that aren't posted here, but are posted over at Gamestats.com.

I think we all understand that this is just another opinion, but it's clear that there is bias present when a reviewer goes out of his way to overstate that Killzone 2 doesn't wash dishes or clean your house.

When double standards are applied to game reviews and subsequent scores, it is widely becoming known to just ignore that publication, as they are no longer giving you an honest review, rather they are telling you what they wanted from the game that "isn't there", rather than grading on what is there and whether you should purchase the game or not.

Also, the fact that the single player aspect of Killzone 2 is under much scrutiny, yet other first and third person shooters are given a pass as long as the multiplayer is good. Again, more double standards.

There are quite a few double standards with Metacritic's Games Editor as well....

by the way , comparing this list from gamestats , one realises that the selection of reviewers is much more "reputable" than the ones featured in metacritic...not to mention that there are 80 reviews there...

Also one thing that bugs me the most , is the extreme difference in metascore.Gamestats with 80 reviews is awarding a 94 metascore , and metacritic is at 91??

I mean ok there are always differences but never such huge ones.

Hey thanks Valkyre!

That's actually a great site! I'm surprised I've never heard of it.

I like how they have a critic average, gamer average and then a Gamerscore that takes into account BOTH Critic average and gamer average. I like the way the site is set up too with a list of ALL the newest reviews from the last two days for all games.