GrandHarrier
Member
Assuming this is true (doesn't show up for me) it's a great change!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Amazon now displays Metacritic Score
- Thread starter jbug617
- Start date
Saint Gregory
Member
Um... OK this is actually a good point. I usually have to search to find that on Steam though whereas Amazon has it front and center.
Strange thing is I just visited there myself and I'm not seeing MC scores on any game. This better not be April Fools
Yes, I agree that they have the potential to be useful in their own ways. I'm more worried that they will be taken at face value because I know many people who would take it at face value. I think Metascores carry a lot of power and it can be problematic sometimes. Personally, I don't think the reviewer being professional really matters. Either way, it is some person's opinion. One person is just paid to do it but they'll have their own bias and problems with certain games. I think Metacritic is terrible for games compared to Gamerankings. I have problems with both systems.
I would say Amazon verified SHIPPED reviews only.
I have no problem with this considering the bullshit lengths fanboys will go to to leave bad reviews. Most recently: see Titalfall.
This lessens that somewhat.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
You didn't really explain anything.
Everyone who has engaged in this debate already knows there's a margin of error. How big is it and does it undermine the entire enterprise? That's what you need to explain.
Who are these reviewers that score too low, and is that actually a problem? Logic dictates that there are also reviewers who score too high. The whole point of the metascore is to wash out the extremes.
I expect some great Metacritic sales: 60-70 games drop in price much faster than 90+ games etc., great future ahead
who
who
I do, and I don't see what is wrong with it. Sure, the way the industry utilises Metacritic is disgusting, but it's still a good way to quickly see the general reception of a game (or movie) and use that as an indication as to whether it's worth its price as a consumer. I also like reading summary quotes from reviews without having to skip through a few of them individually. Of course I don't ignore reading reviews for every game, but I don't want to read multiple reviews just to know if that one indie-game for a few bucks is worth the Steam-sale price or not.
Do you use Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB to see if a movie sucks or not? Well, you're doing the same thing, with the exception Hollywood doesn't give a shit about scores.
The industry needs to change, maybe the reviewers and their weird way of rating games too, not Metacritic. People are targeting their hate in the wrong direction.
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
Now there's even more pressure on devs to hit a certain metacritic score. This means less polarizing games. Better have a game that has 2 75 reviews than 1 100 and 1 50, right?
you going to boycott?
Colonel Nasty
Member
That's cool. I don't mind metacritic. It's usually pretty accurate.
As if the 20-40 male dilettante critic is able to determine that. You'll just end up with a bunch of same-old same-old AAA games, without challenge, innovation, or difficulty. Oh wait.
styl3s
Member
Considering the fact butthurt salty nerds already give games and movies (IE Star Wars blu-ray) a 1/5 just because they don't want it i don't see how this could make anymore of a real difference.
Star Wars and the theatrical set of LOTR both sit at a 3/5 yet top the charts every sale. The mass consumer wants what the mass consumer wants. People who don't buy a product from amazon because it's X/5 star count are in the minority, there are more Shenmue fans out there which is about 35.
Star Wars and the theatrical set of LOTR both sit at a 3/5 yet top the charts every sale. The mass consumer wants what the mass consumer wants. People who don't buy a product from amazon because it's X/5 star count are in the minority, there are more Shenmue fans out there which is about 35.
I guess Rotten Tomatoes is dumb in the exact same way then. It's not like they are using some radically unfair algorithm to make a 2/5 act like a 90% or something. It's not complicated in most cases.
Again I ask what is inherently wrong with Metacritic as a review aggregate and not actually just something wrong with scummy publishers being scummy.
And I'm not sure how people think this is going to affect sales or something in any meaningful way, that the (often absurd) user rating or people simply reading reviews of their own volition weren't already doing.
Oops, I wrote the wrong thing. You're right. I agree with you. I prefer the idea that people actually bought the game and played it. People go through a lot of trouble to tank scores.
Extra Sauce
Member
Rating works of art on a numeric scale can be fun and even useful, but it is inherently silly and I'm not sure it should hold that much power in the marketplace.
HoodWinked
Member
the color coding makes it way too prominent. was better when it was next to the amazon reviews.
MetroidPrimeRib
Banned
You figured it out huh
More than made up for by the increased sales at the top end of the scale. The rich get richer...
Triggerhappytel
Member
I find a well-written 3* Amazon review is often more honest and useful than most professional reviews. Even if it's a game I love, a 3* review often gives a fair critique of the game's strengths and weaknesses.
Arya Stark
Neo Member
Um... OK this is actually a good point. I usually have to search to find that on Steam though whereas Amazon has it front and center.
Strange thing is I just visited there myself and I'm not seeing MC scores on any game. This better not be April Fools
You don't have to search, it's on every game's main page on Steam
Did we see any outrage towards Steam when they implemented this? I doubt it
So what's the alternative? Not having them on the site in hopes that no who would be swayed by them sees them? That's not cool. Anyone who would choose whether or not to buy a game based on reviews should have the reviews be easily accessible before dropping their hard earned cash. Sorry your favorite game didn't get the metascore you wanted it to get and now people won't buy it.
And metacritic scores are usually a good indicator of quality. Any game that gets in the high 80's/90's is usually a great game. And games that are 70 and below generally aren't worth your time unless your a fan of the franchise. And if that's the case, you'll buy the game anyway.
And metacritic scores are usually a good indicator of quality. Any game that gets in the high 80's/90's is usually a great game. And games that are 70 and below generally aren't worth your time unless your a fan of the franchise. And if that's the case, you'll buy the game anyway.
The fact that individual reviews are not reliable is the whole point of why metacritic is valuable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd
Does steam have its own rating system (stars/numerical score) also implemented? Not trying to be a smart-ass, I genuinely don't know. All I remember is that you could write reviews...last time I checked.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Agree on all counts. I get it why you check it, but yeah it's a problem that needs change.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
I do sometimes wonder how many people who rail against MC on the regular have any idea what the core purpose of the site is.
But Yoshi's New Island has a 64%. The game isn't perfect, but it also shouldn't be passed up. I liked it a lot. Let's bring the notch down to 60%.
More power in the hands of reviewers, left unchecked to distribute numbers as they please. Buttered up and pampered to impact scores that are displayed directly at the point-of-purchase. No more need to search out the aggregator of subjective thoughts packaged into objective indicator of value, as if to lend said number review definitiveness.
Outlets weighted higher deserve more PR attention than those with less impact on a number completely removed from the context of the review. Most are happy to do this, because readers will take the time to consume and think about the text of the review.
This is not the case. If anything, allowing your numbers and stars to be completely removed from the context of the written text is devaluing your words. By allowing your thoughts on a game to be condensed to a paragraph and a number, a number that will be compiled with other numbers, you are conceding the worth of the text.
It may makes sense to do so from a business perspective, but I don't understand how these numbers removed from their text accurately reflect the opinions and thoughts of the reviewer.
It may help you get access, but reviewers serving to people a completely meaningless number for the sake of its popularity is just puzzling, when it appears that much thought goes into the text itself.
Outlets weighted higher deserve more PR attention than those with less impact on a number completely removed from the context of the review. Most are happy to do this, because readers will take the time to consume and think about the text of the review.
This is not the case. If anything, allowing your numbers and stars to be completely removed from the context of the written text is devaluing your words. By allowing your thoughts on a game to be condensed to a paragraph and a number, a number that will be compiled with other numbers, you are conceding the worth of the text.
It may makes sense to do so from a business perspective, but I don't understand how these numbers removed from their text accurately reflect the opinions and thoughts of the reviewer.
It may help you get access, but reviewers serving to people a completely meaningless number for the sake of its popularity is just puzzling, when it appears that much thought goes into the text itself.
Petrae
Member
Easier way for consumers to get more viewpoints/opinions on a certain game before buying? I'm okay with it, since there isn't a gaming equivalent of Consumer Reports to otherwise look to for definitive reviews or opinions.
It's a service to the customer, giving him/her more information to work from in order to make appropriate buying decisions.
It's a service to the customer, giving him/her more information to work from in order to make appropriate buying decisions.
Doesn't necessarily apply in all cases. A lot of reviewers played Battlefield 4 in a controlled environment completely free of the bugs that people encountered at home, so the scores aren't based on anything remotely resembling what people are actually preparing to buy.
Shitty things are now no longer shitty if someone else has done it before?
Steam is an ant compared to the 200 ton whale that Amazon is.
And amazon is an ant compared to the 400 ton whale Walmart is. What's your point?
teruterubozu
Member
Amazon has displayed IMDB scores for movies & TV for awhile now. Metacritc scores for games were just a matter of time.
When you see something as a bad practice, it's a bigger deal when it get implemented in a way that allows it to reach more people.
KillerDark
Member
Seems like a good idea to me
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
But wouldn't that be true whether there's a Metascore calculated or not? The individual scores would be unrepresentative garbage, but that's not MC's fault. You can blame MC for "legitimizing" the aggregate of those garbage scores, but the root cause of the problem is certainly elsewhere.
That comparing Steam to Amazon is stupid?
n00bsauce87
Member
Not a good idea at all.
Amazon has displayed IMDB scores for movies & TV for awhile now. Metacritc scores for games were just a matter of time.
Well it makes sense that they would do that since they own IMDb.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
Amazon has displayed IMDB scores for movies & TV for awhile now. Metacritc scores for games were just a matter of time.
8.6 on imdb is to high for 24...CMON!!!!
<puts on flame suit>