Despite Fanboy Accusations, Metacritic Does Not Exclude In-Network Review Scores

Nostradavis - 421 days 23 hours ago

Umm...did anyone actually give LBP a 4 out of 10?

Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report

Lucreto - 421 days 22 hours ago

No I just used it as an example.

Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report

Nostradavis - 421 days 21 hours ago

Alright. You scared me for a minute there. That would just be a poor reflection on the site that did it. I guess the bottom line is that each site posts a review that represents one writers opinion as well as the site's in a way since they allowed that person to review it.

Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report

PoSTedUP - 421 days 18 hours ago

what MICROcritic should do is stop corrupting the ******* gaming industry ok.

Agree(7) | Disagree(0) | Report

FCC - 421 days 17 hours ago

You know, because Metacritic is now owned by Microsoft because LittleBigPlanet didn't get high scores? WTF? I can say Metacritic is owned by Sony because Gears of War 2 didn't get high scores...

Nevermind.

Agree(1) | Disagree(5) | Report

BWS1982 - 421 days 14 hours ago

It's quite odd how N4G has so many more aggregate reviews compiled from what I see, for games that I check here, I don't use metacritic, and the author at Ripten didn't really answer the claims, he simply reiterated what Metacritic claims in the first place, that they get reviews from sites x, y, and z, and not blogs. Nobody that I saw was whinning about blogs not making metacritic, they were saying that they choose some really funky sites that nobody had heard of, then use different sites on other averages. They seemed to pick and choose, like they would use sites a, c, and f for one game, but then use sites b, d, and e for the next game, that, if it's true, is NOT accurate. Use all sites, all the time, and from what I have seen here, in the aggregating on N4G's review average, that's what happens, and it makes for a better outlook than the 15 to 25 that Metacritic has. I see literally nearly a hundred reviews posted for games here, and every time I used to go to Metacritic, they'd have about a dozen or two. I've lost a lot of use for reviews, and will only read them to find out what THEY complained about, if it's nothing that'd bother me, I ignore it.

Personally, I rarely trust most reviews to echo how *I* would feel, because most times I read them, they b***h about things that don't bother me. They complain about a story that doesn't make sense for a game that I just want to blow sh*t up in, or that a game has laggy online multiplayer when I'd buy it for the single player or local MP, etc...

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

The Matrix - 421 days 17 hours ago

Yeah Metacritic needs to moderate their site a lot better and be more consistent. I think it's a good site they just need a little work to make it great.

Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report

FrankDaTank - 421 days 19 hours ago

(waits for the world to change while drinking a beer)

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

The Matrix - 421 days 17 hours ago

Or God of War 3. Hopefully it will be released this March like it's supposed to.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

HighDefinition - 421 days 17 hours ago

Is scheduled for Nov-Dec 2009.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

FrankDaTank - 421 days 18 hours ago

awesome picture

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

OnslaughtX - 421 days 17 hours ago

Actually Mitch... I 100% agree with everything you said. It's a pity that gamers let other's opinions influence them so heavily.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Shadow Man - 421 days 17 hours ago

http://www.vgchartz.com/awe...

Agree(0) | Disagree(5) | Report

Power_of_Black - 421 days 15 hours ago

Ho wait no you didn't even play it ... how could you ? You don't own a Ps3.

So how would you know anything about LBP .. Ho wait let me guess .. you've read about it on the internet..

It's people like you that are killing the industry right now not Metacritic.
People like you who won't play a game that didnt't get a 80%+ because you wouldn't want your x360troll Boyfriend thinking your different. Lets all play the same Generic FPS because everyone else is playing it and because a reviewer told you so.

Do everyone a favor find a friend that has money and brain and go play LPB and get an opinion for yourself.

Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report

Monty_The_Great - 421 days 14 hours ago

@7 - LBP is just an enjoyable game. I am a "hardcore" gamer, I like shooters, stealth action games, games that are generally geared towards older people, but playing LBP just brings a smile to face everytime. Its super easy, yet very difficult if you try to get everything. The controls are good. If anyone thinks that any game is the second coming of anything besides a sequel, is just a dumb fanboy.
@7.2 - please don't try to associate gamers or "the industry" with metacritics. Not that many people base whether or not they get a game on a review score. All be it that there are a few that do, but most of the time its either word of mouth or really good advertising.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

OnslaughtX - 421 days 17 hours ago

Since you posted a great post above, I'll respond with more than a simple yes or no.

I think game reviewing, at its very core, is beyond stupid. Not only in how its done, but in how people react to it. People use the scores, as you said, in pissing matches that mean nothing. They treat these scores as facts, not opinions. It's sad. What's more, sites now take their reviews as "gospel truth." No one ever seems to take the time to note that most places are reviewing pre-release code, or are under SOME manner of special condition or incentive (review exclusives, swag bags, trips, etc).

The ONLY site I like for reviews is Kotaku. While I despise their snarky demeanor, they are on to something with how they review games, and its that method I appreciate. They list what they like and dislike, and list how much they actually played of the final game.

I'm sick of reviews glossing over certain matters, and being inconsistent. I'm sick of one game being bashed for a poor story (R2) and another getting a pass on it (Gears2). I think it's silly that certain aspects are totally MIA in reviews, like Gears2's matchmaking lag, or R2's disconnects, or LBP's server down time.

At the same time, I think reviews need to evolve as games do. Now we have patches, updates, DLC, fixes, etc. The Warhawk that was reviewed is NOT the Warhawk people play today. LBPs server issues are gone. Gears 2 and Fable 2 will be patched accordingly. Shouldn't reviews be updated to reflect these changes? Isn't the reader/consumer deserving of that? Oh no, because of their precious, arbitrary, BS scores that reviewers HAVE to put out. Lame.

I think LBP's server issues WERE an issue. Just like Gears 2 matchmaking will be an issue of the past. I think that the jumping mechanic could certainly be tightened up, and little things like that were glossed over for the reviews. Hell, read Shoe's originl Gears 1 review. He spends most of the time bashing it, then gives it a perfect score. It's beyond stupid, because its inconsistent, and its a slight to the many hard working people who bust their asses over 80 - 100 hours a week to bring YOU people entertainment. And all fanboys can do is turn their noses? No thanks.

How's that? Lot to read I know.

Agree(6) | Disagree(1) | Report

Monty_The_Great - 421 days 14 hours ago

very funny

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Figboy - 421 days 12 hours ago

i pretty much agree with everything you said (except for liking kotaku's reviews; i can't STAND that site in any way, shape, or fashion. they lost so much respect from me over the past two years, and their one-sided "journalism;" it's funny how they wave that "journalism," flag when it suits them, however, like the Sony Blackballing kotaku "scandal," any other time, they're a gaming "blog," but when they want to sh*t in the PS3's cereal, it's all "we're just bringing the news to gamers like the journalists we are!").

the review system is broken, but it's not beyond repair. it's a really simple solution too:

1) Stop letting obviously biased people review games. To clarify, Heavenly Sword was reviewed by a guy who HATED combo based action games. WHY?? he even admits that he doesn't like combo based action games. that would be like me reviewing Madden, and i DESPISE sports games. or an RPG hater reviewing FFXIII. i know it's nice to see someone who's "not a fan," of said game to chime in and state what they think, but that shouldn't be the only review then. if anything, they should do like Game Informer, and have a "non-fan" opinion next to the "normal" review. i don't like GI, but i do like their "second opinion" thing they do with their reviews. if you have a site that is counted on by quite a few thousand readers; readers that respect your opinion, and base their purchases off of said opinion, you need to take some responsibility for your reviews.

you can't just let Captain Bias review the game, and have it stand as the SOLE representation of your site's views on that game. if a Halo 3 hater reviewed Halo 3, chances are it wouldn't be a glowing review. knowing the quality of Halo 3, would that be fair to the game, or the reader who wants to know if the game is for him, because they have a marginal interest in the subject matter?

2) Get rid of the score system. i know that's a big one, and it's not going to happen, but i really feel that tagging on a score to a game does more harm and good in that many people don't even bother to read the body of the review, and instead jump to the score. you gave an excellent example with Shoe's Gears of War review, but i'll give you another one, the one i feel was the most undeserved of last year;

if you read ign's review of Heavenly Sword, you will see that the review said the graphics were amazing, the controls were fluid, the story and characters were well portrayed and acted, and the combat was fun; even saying that the combat was it's biggest strength. well, that's a relief, considering that it's an ACTION GAME. if the combat sucked, the game would fall apart. Ninja Gaiden isn't judged on it's story, believe me, but it's combat. Heavenly Sword has a great combat engine, and he enjoyed it.

he complained about the "arena based" game design, but other games in the same genre, from DMC, to God of War, to Ninja Gaiden follow the same trend (ie, enter a room, room gets closed off, kill all enemies, room opens. it's a standard convention of the genre; WHY was it suddenly unacceptable for Heavenly Sword to follow that well established, workable formula?), but got huge praise. he also complained about the repetitive enemies (and the many Minotaurs and Cyclops' you battle in God of War, or the seemingly endless horde of Ninja minions in Ninja Gaiden were so varied? again, WHY is this suddenly a problem with Heavenly Sword, when many like-genre games have the same "problem?"). he also complained about the length of the game. if the game was so god awful, WHY would you want MORE of it? obviously, he was having a good time, and wanted it to go on. he scored the game a 7/10.

personally, i'd give Heavenly Sword an 8.8/10, if i HAD to attach a score to it. not quite a 9, but it most certainly skirts the line, and has EXCELLENT production values. it DOES have it's weak moments, but the game itself is so well executed, and combat is so fun, with engaging characters and a personal story, that i recommend it as a must own for PS3 owners that love action games, this is most certainly a worthy addition.

if people were to actually READ the body of the review, they'd see if their opinion and the reviewer's opinion vibe.

back when i used to get the Official Playstation magazine during the PS1 and PS2 era, i trusted that mags reviews. not all of them, but there were a few people on the review staff who had very similar tastes in games as me. i discovered that by READING THE ENTIRE REVIEW, instead of just looking at the score.

i learned what things they liked about a game, and what things they didn't.

lately, however, me and reviewers REALLY seem to be at odds. games that i LOVE, they seem to hate (i love Folklore and Heavenly Sword; both games were critically panned. i don't like Gears of War 1 OR 2;both games are critically praised EVERYWHERE).

reviews are just a matter of opinion, and should not be taken as gospel truth. just because someone is in the industry doesn't make them any more of a human being. it's their job to report the news, and yes, they get paid to say what they think about games, but their opinion of the game is no more right or wrong than yours or mine.

people are suddenly hating on GTAIV now, when before, it was all praise. i think GTAIV is a great accomplishment, especially for a multi-platform game being developed for two VERY different consoles (there's simply no contest; DVD and Blu Ray are too different, and either way you cut it, concessions will have to be made either way. one console has a build in HDD in every unit, one doesn't; these things are going to effect game development for some developers. it's simply true).

the only opinion that matters to me is my own, and maybe a few trusted people who i know and have similar tastes with.

hell, i actually enjoy the original Killzone, even though it's not perfect, and was too much for the PS2 to handle. i love the original Fable, even though many people hated on it for falling so far short of the hype surrounding it.

as an aside; oddly enough, i'm disappointed in Fable 2, because of how "safe" it is. i LIKE it, don't get me wrong, and it's an enjoyable game, and improves upon the original in quite a few ways, and me and my fiance sunk quite a few co-op hours into it until Fallout 3 came out, but it's SO CLOSE to the original in terms of visuals, art design, and atmosphere, it could have almost been titled "Fable HD," and Lionhead could have saved the "true" Fable 2 for a later date. Fable 2 is supposed to take place 400+ years after the original, but it honestly feels like it's the same era. nothing seems to have really changed except characters use guns now instead of just bows and arrows.

anyway, back to improving reviews:

3) USE CONSISTENT CRITERIA ACROSS GAMES IN LIKE GENRES.

i know i all caps'd that one, but i think it's important.

games like Resistance 2 and Gears of War 2 SHOULD NOT be compared to one another. one is an FPS, one is a 3PS. and even though they both feature characters that use weapons and shoot at their enemies, the gameplay for both is SO different because of the necessities of their design, that they just shouldn't be compared.

Gears of War 2 and Resistance 2 should both score in the high 9s. they are testaments to their respected genres. Gears should be compared to how well it stacks up to games in the 3PS genre, and Resistance 2 should be compared to how well it stacks up to games in the FPS genre. especially any games released within it's release that may be of note (so sorry, no comparing it to the original, and seminal Half Life). comparing Resistance 2 to Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, and other FPS titles like Haze, Blacksite, Turok, The Darkness, and more is fair. comparing Gears of War 2 to MGS4, Uncharted, Dark Sector, and others is fair also.

Resistance 2 vs Gears 2 just doesn't make any sense to me. i understand their significance in the context of the "console wars," but the console wars has no place in what is supposed to be someones opinion of the GAME, not the system the game is on.

3b) there also needs to be set standards for games that are in LIKE genres.

for example, Eurogamer gave Dark Sector an 8.5. they gave Metal Gear Solid 4 an 8. i know it's just my opinion, but to me, that is simply WRONG. unlike Eurogamer, i'll actually explain why i feel MGS4 is far superior to Dark Sector:

A: Story. I've played both full versions of Dark Sector and MGS4. I think MGS4 has a deeper, more complex plot, with compelling characters, plot twists, and most certainly fan service. the story is also emotionally gripping, fan of MGS4 or not. you feel for Old Snake and his inevitable doom. i know MGS4 is a legacy series compared to the new IP Dark Sector, but i think that also exposes the quality of the writing in that they were able to "logically" wrap up 20 years of gaming history in a tight package, with very little loose ends.

B: Gameplay. From the Octo-camo, Drebin points, "Emotion ammunition," Weapon Customization, HUGE maps with many paths to take to reach your destination, and support items like the Solid Eye and Metal Gear Mk. II, i think MGS4 trumps Dark Sector in the gameplay department. to me, MGS4 is more fun, and i also think the controls are tighter and more responsive. the option to play through the entire game in third person, first person, and Resident Evil 4/Gears of War over the shoulder perspective means gamers of most play types can play the game. speaking of play types, while the game is Metal Gear, and stealth is the order of the day, the game is designed to support both stealth, AND run and gun, Commando style gameplay. the choice is up to the player.

C: Graphics. MGS4 wins. hands down. no comparisons. i'm not trying to be mean, but here:

Dark Sector
http://www.ps2vicio.com/ima...
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn...
http://xbox360media.ign.com...

MGS4
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3...
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3...
http://ps3.ign.com/dor/obje...

again, it's my opinion, but i think MGS4 blows Dark Sector away, especially having seen both of them in motion on my HDTV.

Eurogamer's reviews of MGS4 and Dark Sector aren't the only examples of games in like genre's getting reviewed on different standards.

i think that the review break down should be more like this:

Genre: What genre does the game fall into? Sports? RPGs? Action/Adventure? Survival Horror? etc

Graphics: reviewers should take into account the genre and genre standards. for example, GTAIV, a sandbox game, and Spider-Man 3, a sandbox game:

http://xbox360media.ign.com...
http://xbox360media.ign.com...

http://xbox360media.ign.com...
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3...

the Spider-Man game falls FAR below what should be the standards of a sandbox game. this is unacceptable. at the least, it should reach the bar set by like games. not all developers are expected to go above and beyond that bar (ie, Kojima Productions and MGS4), but at least try and REACH IT.

the point is that a game should be judged according to the graphics standards in it's genre. Resistance 2 shouldn't have to compete with Gran Turismo 5 for example. two different genres. GT5 may be the best in it's genre, like MGS4 might be the best in it's genre, although it's pretty much agreed that they showcase phenomenal, 10/10 visuals.

Regardless of how many "gameplay over graphics" banners get waved, the graphics are the first impression we have of ANY game. remember the first screens of games like Gears? remember the first screens of games like Resistance? people were already making proclamations to the positive and negative based off the screens.

after graphics, the games should be reviewed on the standard criteria of gameplay:

Controls: Are the controls responsive? Are you fighting the controls more than the enemies/objectives in the game? if a game has poor controls, it's completely fair to mark it down points. if you can't control the character, that's a fundamental FAIL within the game. Kane and Lynch had poor, sluggish controls with terrible aim handling and sensitivity. on the other hand, other 3PS titles like Gears of War, Uncharted, and Metal Gear Solid 4 have tight, responsive controls.

Overall Gameplay: Compared to it's contemporaries, how does the gameplay stack up? not compared to games in other genres, but LIKE GENRE games, so no, comparing Resistance 2's gameplay to Gear 2's gameplay is a "No zone." how does Resistance 2's gameplay hold up to games like COD4, or better yet, Halo 3, as they are in a similar style (fast paced, man vs aliens combat, instead of gritty realistic, tactical combat). are the levels designed well? does the game flow at a good pace (Uncharted is a great example of a game with excellent pacing; Bioshock is another). does the game innovate? if it does, that's great, and note it, even mark it up a notch based on the level of innovation (for example, Forge in Halo 3 is a great idea. the editing/creation tools in LBP are similarly fresh and innovative).

if the game DOESN'T innovate, DON"T MARK OFF POINTS! not all games need to be new, fresh, innovative, and revolutionary. God of War and Ninja Gaiden didn't reinvent the Action game wheel, and neither did Heavenly Sword, but they were fun to PLAY. there is so much unrealistic expectations placed on game developers these days to make EVERY GAME revolutionary it's unfair.

not every developer can be a Shigeru Miyamoto, Hideo Kojima, Will Wright, or Naughty Dog, Bungie, or Insomniac. some developers are simply good at making FUN GAMES, and some are gifted with the ability to change an industry. it's completely unfair for us gamers to place such unrealistic expectation on every game designer. if Mirror's Edge is a fun game, so what if it doesn't revolutionize? if Heavenly Sword doesn't alter the way we see or play action games, why does that stop it from being a good time? why should it be demerited for reasons that DON'T affect gameplay (for example, game length. it's perfectly fine for Gears of War to have a short campaign, but not Heavenly Sword? multi-player or not, the double standards need to drop).

speaking of Multi-player; DON'T demerit games points for not having multi-player. and if you DO, be CONSISTENT in that thought process.

Bioshock didn't have multi-player, but was an excellent single player experience. it was praised regardless of that lack of MP.

Uncharted ALSO didn't have MP, but many critics complained about it and some even marked off points, despite the excellent single player experience they praised.

the DOUBLE STANDARDS NEED TO STOP.

you change those four things, and i think the review system can right itself, and you won't have so many people thinking an 8/10 score is a "flop."

Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report

Monty_The_Great - 421 days 14 hours ago

that if it is online, then it has to be truth?

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Nostradavis - 421 days 21 hours ago

I think they are upset with fanboys in general. They call out those who downgraded LittleBigPlanet in the user comment debacle as well. Please don't try to make it about the site.

The fact of the matter is that fanboys in general need to inform themselves before jumping to conclusions. A simple look at the Metacritic policy would have cleared any confusion the LBP supporters had.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

FrankDaTank - 421 days 19 hours ago

Sounds like more beer is needed to help unite gamers in the name of good games. Beer can change the world people. One chug at a time.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

jack who - 421 days 18 hours ago

lbp aaa?

Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report

ReTarDedFisHy - 421 days 18 hours ago

Can't you read? He said AAAA*

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Shadow Man - 421 days 18 hours ago

No many are buying it. Look at numbers sold. Gears2 has sold 2 million in 1 week.

Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report

jack who - 421 days 17 hours ago

oh AAAA am soooo sry

Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report

Shaka2K6 - 421 days 17 hours ago

.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

Wiimaniac - 421 days 16 hours ago

@Shadow Man and your point is? sales make a game less or more good? because there are a lot of crappy casual games on the Wii that are selling millions, that means all those games are better than GeoW2?

come on, tell me. ;-)

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

jack who - 421 days 17 hours ago

hahaha flopstance 2 is now 88%...according to PS3FANBOYS it's official a FLOP

Agree(2) | Disagree(5) | Report

Wii Fanboy - 421 days 16 hours ago

I found you guys

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

Snukadaman_ - 421 days 15 hours ago

Who cares at this point what you like....

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

SaberEdge - 421 days 15 hours ago

Actually, most people agree that Gears 2 is a lot better than the first one.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report