whats so great about metacritic?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
Jews should embrace Christmas like most atheists/agnostics have. It's a time for family only, no religious overtones. SANTA is AWESOME regardless of circumcision status!

thanks for the helpful advice.

[DrSpike]

Re: whats so great about metacritic?

Originally posted by 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"

Metacritic is useful - yeah the reviews are wide ranging and different standards are applied, but as long as they are applied equally to each game then the average is still a meaningful indicator.

The point made later about reviews of niche games being hard to interpret is of course true - but metacritic doesn't really exacerbate this.

Personally speaking I pay more attention to specific sites that I think credibly review games than I do gamerankings or metacritic.

[lord of the mark]

evidently the President of EA-Casual thinks mainstream reviewers dont review casual games right:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=214386

[Wiglaf]

I wonder why.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
evidently the President of EA-Casual thinks mainstream reviewers dont review casual games right:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=214386

Duh?

[Asher]

Because by "casual" they mean "simple" and "stupid" with "no depth", so when reviewed as a serious game they get slammed. shocking.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
Because by "casual" they mean "simple" and "stupid" with "no depth", so when reviewed as a serious game they get slammed. shocking.

Shes not just saying they get lower scores, IIUC shes saying the variance of scores among different casual games correlates less well with the variance in sales, then it does among "hard core" games. That cant be explained by which type of game is "better" or "deeper" or "smarter" or more "morally uplifting" or whatever.

It either indicates that reviewers "get" the hard core games and their fans better than they do for casual games, or, simply that casual gamers dont follow reviewers, while hard core gamers do, enough to
influence sales.

She seems to be claiming the former, although the latter could be the real explanation.

[Asher]

It's clearly the latter. I don't know any "casual" gamers who buy **** like EA Playground that visit sites like IGN. They see the game in the store and buy it based on the premise alone.

The very definition of "casual" precludes people who are dedicated enough to keep up to date on the games by using specialty internet sites.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


It either indicates that reviewers "get" the hard core games and their fans better than they do for casual games, or, simply that casual gamers dont follow reviewers, while hard core gamers do, enough to
influence sales.

She seems to be claiming the former, although the latter could be the real explanation.

I think that both points are true - casual gamers are less likely to follow review sites (and thus scores aren't well correlated with sales).

However, it's also fair to argue that proper reviews don't review games from the eyes of a casual gamer - they review them against the same metrics they apply to proper games, and thus they score badly. If casual gamers have a different set of metrics (and they almost certainly do) then the scores wont reflect potential popularity.

Maybe casual gamers sites will spring up dedicated to exchanging views on the Sims and the latest Wii party game? Knowing the internet they may already exist.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike


I think that both points are true - casual gamers are less likely to follow review sites (and thus scores aren't well correlated with sales).

However, it's also fair to argue that proper reviews don't review games from the eyes of a casual gamer - they review them against the same metrics they apply to proper games, and thus they score badly. If casual gamers have a different set of metrics (and they almost certainly do) then the scores wont reflect potential popularity.

Maybe casual gamers sites will spring up dedicated to exchanging views on the Sims and the latest Wii party game? Knowing the internet they may already exist.

Theres a gaggle of sites related to the Sims (though mainly dedicated to exchanging user created content) and I rather suspect that they keep up pretty closely with the Sims xpacks and sequels, and would review clones as well (though of course alot of Sims buyers arent hooked up to the online community so much)

The party games, though, are another story, and Ashers assertion above may apply to them. There are Nintendo fan sites, of course, but they may draw the folks who are into games like SMG more than the party games fans.

[Heraclitus]

DrSpike is mostly right concerning the average gamer.




BTW

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Does that piss you off? It would piss me off but I'm Catholic, thanks.

Wiggy's catholic? WTF?

[El_Cid]

"whats so great about metacritic?"

well pretend it didn't exist(or anything like it). Before I found out about it I would check out sites like Gamespot+IGN and if both gave a good review on a game I would think the game was probably ok to buy. Depending on the game type I might use a few other sites as well, and game forums like the one here.

With Metacritic it just takes a lot of the leg-work out of that kind of process. It's not perfect but it has a purpose, and certainly it's become a site I use to get that wider picture about a game.

Still with the way the review sites tend to work(in that they rate too high, too often) it does make Metacritic a less useful tool. Still at the very least it does become useful when you have a game like MOO3(for example) that pretty much got busted by every review going(and quite rightly). For those times Metacritic can be helpful - you can avoid the real stinkers.

[Verto]

Re: whats so great about metacritic?

Originally posted by 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"

The page also has reviews like

"A very deep and complex game, which will appeal to the crowd that this game is made for. However, the gameplay is a bit complicated, and may alienate more casual strategy gamers. Only hardcore strategy fans need apply. "

"While casual gamers may be put off by its complex political focus, sim and history buffs will love the accuracy this game portrays of medieval politics. "

"While casual gamers will feel like they've been plunged into a maelstrom of names and dates, anyone with a love of history will appreciate the rigorous attention to detail and epic scope. "


So in a matter of seconds I was able to compare the reviews and comments of a dozen or so different sites, as well as user ratings and comments, all from one website. Yes indeed, what's so great about Metacritic...

[pg]

I use sites like metacritic/gamerankings to evaluate older games I missed. If it has a nice rating I'll dig deeper but if it's iffy I'll just move on to something else. I trust any forum discussion 100x more than reviews now.

[DrSpike]

Though that relies on having sensible posters.