Now I enjoy metaacritic just as much as the next person, but it has recently been brought to my attention that this site is in fact biased.

How can a site that averages scores be biased? Well perhaps there is a better definition, but when I view this site. I keep a few things in mind.

Metacritic is a site designed to average scores from all over the world for certain medias, so that I, as a consumer can view opinions expressed by reputable sites and critics. Perhaps this can weigh in on my decision to purchase or pass judgment on an item.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/ratchetan...retoolsofdestruction

Notice that "Game Revolution" on this site has a recorded score of 75%...

When you click on the site to read the full review, you find that the score is a "B." Now I am aware how Metacritic gives certain credibility to some sites than others, but every GAME REVOLUTION review is accurate on this site, except for this title.

This title is a pretty big deal for the PS3 community, and it is annoying to see errors and mistakes that Metacritic does not respond to.

Check this:

"A: Well, since you asked, sure. Some of the conversions are obvious (for example, if a critic uses a 0-10 scale, his/her grade is simply multiplied by ten). Some of the less obvious conversions are displayed below:

4-Star Scale
Their Grade Converts To
4 100
3.5 88
3 75
2.5 63
2 50
1.5 38
1 25
0.5 12
0 0
Letter Grades
Their Grade Converts To
A or A+ 100
A- 91
B+ 83
B 75
B- 67
C+ 58
C 50
C- 42
D+ 33
D 25
D- 16
F+ 8
F or F- 0

And that is found here.

I agree metacritic is extremely flawed which creates a somehwat of a bias perspective.

Like the LoZ: OoT review...almost all the 100's are from sites with the name "Nintendo" in them, and they are little insignificant sites that do not even show up in other nintendo reviews on metacritic.

Metacritic needs to use the SAME sites for ALL reviews (With the exception of maybe the more dominate "nintendo power" and "Xbox Magazine"...etc.)

But it's ridiculous to say: "Hey "BiasMariofanboys.com" can we use your 100 point review on the latest mario game? Then never use any of your reviews ever again. >_>

Also they are flawed in the number of reviews they use...some games with GREAT scores have very little reviews..while others have TONS I mean Bioshock has almost 100 reviews, while other games barely top out at 15.

I'm already starting to feel sick at the review up for Super Mario Galaxy which is getting a lot of those sites used don't even show up on the radar (using alexa.com) or in other nintendo reviews.

I won't be surprised if metacritic stops taking reviews to skew mario's score to stay at 98...

IMO it'd only be fair if they find nearly 100 sources much like they did with Bioshock.

I doubt metacritic really even cares about Mario.

I agree that reviews are greatly biased though. And it is a common "advertising" ploy to pump out several fake possitive "reviews" very early in a game/movie/album's release just so they get the word around and start biassing other reviewers thoughts. indirectly that has the possitive side effect of skewing their Metacritic score.

I don't think Metacritic themselves are really out on a power trip though.

Did anyone read the second post here? Sounds like a fine approach to me.

As far as getting scores from other sites...I think this site does a fine job of bringing me an average that I can then apply to my own previous experiences of similer items and draw my own conclusion myself....isn't that what you're supposed to do anyway? If not...then I've got some awesome beachfront property in Kansas for sale...cheap.

As far as skewed reviews go toward giving undue praise or bashing a game, surely I am not the only one that has realized game reviews are REALLY broken this gen, or am I?

quote:

Originally posted by Plan 9:
Did anyone read the second post here? Sounds like a fine approach to me.

Ha. I don't think people bother to read the "How We Calculate Our Scores" page, since we get these "Metacritic is biased" posts from time-to-time. All Metacritic does is compile reviews from other source and apply a weighted averaging system to them. They don't make any money from the products (movies, music, games, TV shows) reviewed.

I have noticed that it is much more likely to have a well-received album or game than it is a movie or TV show. Any thoughts on that?

I'll consider metacritic fair if they give SMG more reviews...

I mean only 29....while Bioshock got a whopping 75....of course mario will get an awesome rating when you only pull from 1/3 of what Bioshock got.

I want to see at least 70 reviews on SMG...cause if it cuts off on 29 or doesn't come close to 75....that's just suspicious. >_> <_<


I have no problems with the calculations...just the samples from which they are drawn...IGN, Gamespot...etc. fine....the others...sites no one has heard of with averages that don't make sense...

Deeko...(no name site)
Their score....100...yet they gave mario: 10,10,9,9.5....that doesn't average to 10? That equal 96!

Why draw a review from a no name site that can't calculate right?

Can you find 40 more reputable sources that reviewed the game? Metacritic is limited to the number of sources that actually review the product. You see that with music all the time. A more popular album might get 30-40 reviews, while a lesser known one might only get 10 reviews. I think you have to take into account, as a reader of the site, the number of sources that contributed to the score. That's why that information is published.

quote:

Originally posted by EricG75:
Can you find 40 more reputable sources that reviewed the game? Metacritic is limited to the number of sources that actually review the product. You see that with music all the time. A more popular album might get 30-40 reviews, while a lesser known one might only get 10 reviews. I think you have to take into account, as a reader of the site, the number of sources that contributed to the score. That's why that information is published.

If they can find 72 reviews for LoZ: Twighlight princess...they can find more Mario reviews.

And using your "more popular band" analogy. Mario would be a way more popular band than Bioshock (mario universally known for years..Bioshock...not really). So if Bioshock can get 75, Zelda can get 72....Mario should be at least 70.

I heard that Metacritic was behind 9/11.

quote:

Originally posted by Luigi's Mansion:
If they can find 72 reviews for LoZ: Twighlight princess...they can find more Mario reviews.

And using your "more popular band" analogy. Mario would be a way more popular band than Bioshock (mario universally known for years..Bioshock...not really). So if Bioshock can get 75, Zelda can get 72....Mario should be at least 70.

Go ahead and find them then. We are waiting.

Also, BioShock has had a longer period to get all its reviews. It didn't immediately launch with 75 different reviews. Same thing with Zelda.

Whereas Mario has been out for Four. Days.

What I'm saying is, shut the fuck up.

if you can't figure out why a zelda or mario release has many more reviews than most other game releases, bias is the least of your worries. high profile releases tend to garner more reviews than releases from smaller developers or of new IPs. hell, there's plenty of reviews for ratchet & clank, if we're sticking with the original example.

"b-b-b-b-b-but what about games with only a few review scores?"

it took me about 5 seconds to find a review for Looney Tunes: Acme Arsenal, which averaged a score of 30 with 4 reviews. i know that's a lot of numbers to deal with, so let me spell it out for you...

hypothesis: maybe a lot of gaming sites don't want to waste their time reviewing shitty games?

conclusion: none of this is metacritic's fault. they can't force these sites to review your favourite new loony tunes game. i'd rather have an average of only 4 reviews than no score at all.

Well I found another review. GamesRadar is okay right? Look, I even found a link

Oh wait, it's a 10 out of 10. I am biased now?...Am I banned?

So, anyway, What Wil4hire and Luigi were saying is that Mario, a major company big name product, actually had less reviews on MetaCritic than some of the smaller company productions. I think Eric is correct when he points out that metacritic reviews accumulate over time. And it's also important to note that reviews don't instantly appear on MC the moment someone reviews them, it takes a little time. Score change drastically from their first introduction to MC to their final score several weeks or months later.

Regardless, let's not be jerks to people that are frustrated with the system. How many of us have never been disapointed by a bad game/movie/album getting good reviews and a good one getting bad reviews. Let people voice their frustrations and learn the system without getting flamed for challenging our fragile MetaCritic ideals.

I'm not flaming. I'm genuinely trying to be helpful. That review's been up for ages now.

I think there is no perfect way to rank movies/games etc. Metacritic assigns rating #'s and then averages reviewers' rating #'s. This seems a reasonable way to rank movies etc. I only read the movie reviews and find their overall ratings to be usually accurate.

The best way to evaluate a game or movie etc. is to find a critic or critic with whom you are comfortable and whose reviews usually match your evaluations. For example, I think James Bernadelli's reviews generally correspond to my evaluations of the movie, so I read his reviews. I do not agree with his star system, because often the content of the review does not correlate with the number of stars he gives--in my opinion, his stars are usually lower than the contents of his reviews.

By the way I only read the reviews after I have seen the movie, because every review inevitably gives away some of the plot or gives information about the characters that ruin the movie experience for me.

Finally, regarding movie reviews and ratings, I feel Metacritic sometimes includes low reviews that are so off-base, poorly written, biased, not related to the actual quality of the movie, lacking meaningful critical standards, too subjecive, and self-indulgent (list of problems with low reviewers is non-exhaustive).

What happens is that the fatuous review or reviews arbitrarily and unfairly lowers the score assigned to a particular movie. If a movie has received good to excellent reviews from 90 % of the reviewers, an anomalous, very low and negative review should be scrutinized carefully by whoever compiles the rating and discarded if its content contains some of the elements listed above, e.g., self-indulgent, lacking any critical standards etc.

A good example is the review by the Chicago Reader critic of No Country For Old Men that deviates so widely from almost every other review of this movie, I question whether this review and the reviewer should be allowed space on the list of reviewers of this film and its score counted in the overall rating of the movie. For info's sake, this review is poorly written and contains the reviewers ideas about movies and does not address in any coherent way the actual movie under review. It should be discarded.

Why was the 87 on mario deleted after it got added? It was added....Mario's review dropped to 97....then all of a sudden it was removed and mario is 98 again... >_>

I know it takes time....but like I said...the deeko review averaging to 100 when the review gave it 10,10,9,and 9.5.

And now a "bad" (not really 87 is still good) gets removed for dropping Mario's average.


Just looks bad....>_> Guess should stick with gamerankings.com

Gamerankings didn't even use that review in calculating their average, dunkopft.

quote:

Originally posted by Luigi's Mansion:
Just looks bad....>_> Guess should stick with gamerankings.com

Bias bias bias bias bias ZOMG METACRITIC IS TEH BIASED I has uncovered conspiracy!!!!

look at me look at me METACRITIC IS BIASED LOOK AT ME EVERYBODY LOOK AT ME RIGHT NOW zomg why aren't you looking at me :|



lesbians

quote:

Originally posted by Shadrach:
Regardless, let's not be jerks to people that are frustrated with the system.

Errrrrm...