whats so great about metacritic?

[lord of the mark]

It takes in lots of reviews of a game, some of which may be insightful, but many of which are sheer garbage.

I checked the Metacritic for Crusader Kings, a game I know, and found it had only 73. Some were much higher of course, some were so-so, and some low ones.

Heres a line from the lowest score review

"With no objectives, if the gamer has no passing interest in history, the game is sure to fall flat. "

If the gamers has no passing interest interest in history, than a game that is completely designed around modeling a historical strategic situation, often putting historical flavor and accuracy over "gameplay" will fall flat. Wow, I mean just wow. Did this guy write "if the gamer has no interest in flying planes, MS Flight Sim X is sure to fall flat"? "If the gamer has no interest in running around and shooting things, (Insert appropriate FPS here) is sure to fall flat"

[Asher]

What's so great about seeing in one place the big picture of what all review sites are saying? Gee, I don't know. Let me think on that.

Let me get this straight: your beef with metacritic is you found some bad reviews through the site? Really?

What's so great about getting a second medical opinion?

[Kuciwalker]

I checked the Metacritic for Crusader Kings, a game I know, and found it had only 73. Some were much higher of course, some were so-so, and some low ones.

Heres a line from the lowest score review

"With no objectives, if the gamer has no passing interest in history, the game is sure to fall flat. "

Duh? These games have an extremely narrow audience. That should be reflected in review score; most gamers aren't going to want to play it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
What's so great about seeing in one place the big picture of what all review sites are saying? Gee, I don't know. Let me think on that.

Let me get this straight: your beef with metacritic is you found some bad reviews through the site? Really?

What's so great about getting a second medical opinion?

having all the reviews linked is just fine. Its citing the average review as an indicator of quality that Im questioning. It certainly is misleading for Crusader Kings.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I checked the Metacritic for Crusader Kings, a game I know, and found it had only 73. Some were much higher of course, some were so-so, and some low ones.

Heres a line from the lowest score review

"With no objectives, if the gamer has no passing interest in history, the game is sure to fall flat. "

Duh? These games have an extremely narrow audience. That should be reflected in review score; most gamers aren't going to want to play it.

So these scores are only useful for someone who shares the tastes of the Standard Average Gamer, whoever that is(like is it the hardcore gamers, does it include the casuals who play the Sims, etc?)

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


So these scores are only useful for someone who shares the tastes of the Standard Average Gamer, whoever that is(like is it the hardcore gamers, does it include the casuals who play the Sims, etc?)

The scores reflect the opinion of the reviewer. I'd probably rate the game you refer to as 0, as I've zero interest in it.

I don't see the problem with sites like metacritic, which give reviews from all sites precisely so you can ignore the ones you don't think apply to you.

[Kuciwalker]

So these scores are only useful for someone who shares the tastes of the Standard Average Gamer, whoever that is(like is it the hardcore gamers, does it include the casuals who play the Sims, etc?)

Again: duh? Given that metacritic is an average of scores from different reviewers...

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


having all the reviews linked is just fine. Its citing the average review as an indicator of quality that Im questioning. It certainly is misleading for Crusader Kings.

I think it overrates the game, so you do have a point there.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

So these scores are only useful for someone who shares the tastes of the Standard Average Gamer, whoever that is(like is it the hardcore gamers, does it include the casuals who play the Sims, etc?)

Again: duh? Given that metacritic is an average of scores from different reviewers...

Id think a good critic would rate a game based on what that individual game, even a niche game, is trying to do, and the averaging is to reflect different views of quality.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd rather critics rate games based on fun, personally.

[Asher]

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'd rather critics rate games based on fun, personally.

1. Niche games ARE fun, for their audiences, who may not share the Standard Average Gamers idea of fun.

2. If some gamers value, say, a deeply moving story, over "fun", would you say that critics should ignore that?

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. Niche games ARE fun, for their audiences, who may not share the Standard Average Gamers idea of fun.

If it's a niche game, then I suggest you know enough to look at niche review sites, and not mainstream ones. Just a thought.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

If it's a niche game, then I suggest you know enough to look at niche review sites, and not mainstream ones. Just a thought.

Fine as far as it goes. To me it brings into question whether this site works even for comparing more mainstream games, if it includes reviews that are that flat out stupid. But I confess, my example was nichey enough that it one could argue it doesnt serve as evidence.

So is Metacritic really good only for mainstream, AAA titles?

[Asher]

Metacritic is only good for mainstream titles. As should be obvious from the fundamental concept behind it.