Support NeoGAF

[HamPster PamPster]

This is what happens when Vinny stops reviewing games

 

[darkressurection]

Giant Bomb being .5 is total bullshit. Though to be fair, I never go to Metacritic so I really shouldn't care, but still fuck that.

 

[shauntu]

So, say a multiplatform game came out on 360, PS3, and Wii U, and was rated equally for all 3 versions by all outlets -- and also rated the same on say Nintendo Power, Playstation Magazine, and the 360 one shown as Highest. Then even with such equality in reviews, the metacritic for the Wii U version would be lower?

Interesting?

 

[Sinatar]

So can people on *this forum* at least, stop referencing metacritic as some kind of accurate barometer of anything now?

Please.

With suguar on top?

 

[Mama Robotnik]

So The Telegraph newspaper is more of a definitive rating source than EDGE or Eurogamer or Giant Bomb?

This is nonsense. There is absolutely no merit to the way the data is gathered and weighted. Complete nonsense.

 

[nampad]

Guys, this is just research, so some weighs could be wrong.
Despite that, I don't think it is wrong to weigh sites differently. Especially smaller outlets are prone to overhype or overbash games for clicks.

 

[d00d3n]

Metacritic review weighting entirely based on the promotional value of the coverage confirmed?

 

[fleck0]

Wish Steam would ditch metacritic link on every store page, that thing is tacky.

 

[ScepticMatt]

lol at this list, but I think it was already known that Metacritic isn't a particulary fair system.

 

[Burt]

What the fuck?

Firing Squad?

Digital Chumps?

Extreme Gamer.ca?

These are no name sites, and they have the highest ranking. Just look at Firing Squad. The site is a fucking abomination.

Metacritic is officially no. 2 on the worthless data collection list behind Nielsen.

 

[PaulLFC]

Lol at respectable sites/mags like GiantBomb and GamesTM being ranked really low while sites nobody's ever heard of are given the highest ranking.

Play UK as well, that's the magazine that's been around since the PS1 days and is still going, used to be the best selling independent PlayStation mag, not sure if it still is. Yet it's given the lowest rating... bizarre.

Lastly, why on earth is the main Eurogamer site lower than some of its regional sites?

 

[Guevara]

It probably doesn't make that much of a difference to the end results. If I had to guess a bias, I'd say elevating "non-game" sources like the Times probably slightly inflates scores.

 

[hammster]

What is with the difference between the Official Mags here? Seems arbitrary.

 

[timetokill]

Boom.

This is the system your bonuses may be tied to, developers. Rejoice.

 

[73V3N]

Gamespot shouldn't even be there.

 

[Nibel]

To be honest I don't even know most of the higher ranked sites and feel weird about that

I thought I was a good gaming enthusiast

 

[benny_a]

Giant Bomb is probably lower because they have a 5 star scale with no half stars. That means that their ratings don't play as nicely in an average as outlets using 100, 20, or 10 point scales.

This post needs to be highlighted as it's a reasonable non-conspiracy explanation of what is occurring here.

Now someone do the hard work and figure out the scoring systems used by each outlet and if the above holds true for all other publications as well.
One would assume based on this that the closer to a 100 point scale they are, the more heavily it's weighted.

 

[Omikaru]

So The Telegraph newspaper is more of a definitive rating source than EDGE or Eurogamer or Giant Bomb?

This is nonsense. There is absolutely no merit to the way the data is gathered and weighted. Complete nonsense.

There probably is some sense to these ratings, I just assume that it's not based on the quality of the publication, or its influence/traffic.

I'd like to actually know how Metacritic decides this.

 

[sixghost]

I wonder if the weights are assigned subjectively, or based on some sort of algorithm. Something tells me those 1.5 and 1.25 sites are going to get a lot more attention from publishers in the coming months.

Does anyone have an idea why two publications name's are ******'d out? I really wanted to know what weight they give Tom Chick's reviews.

 

[Visualante2]

Broadsheets can be so hit and miss. Fascinating that they decided to give the Telegraph 1.5 over say, Edge.

 

[MoogleWizard]

Why are publications like 'Official Playstation Magazine' and 'Planet Xbox' rated as highest. Those don't sound like they'd be very objective.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Game Almighty is about to be rolling in more bribe money than they could have dreamed of.

 

[Eusis]

Seems to be heavily weighted in favor of more granular systems. Which sorta makes sense I guess, they're trying for the 100 system, and so ones that are far less granular can throw it off since 3 stars in a 5 start system is probably closer to 70+ from most critics than a 60. But then half the problem seems to be treating all in a certain scoring system the same regardless of site intent.

 

[captainnapalm]

Each score should count the exact same. Maybe you could add a bit more weight for publications that have been around longer, but that's about it.

 

[zroid]

Gamespot shouldn't even be there.

To be he honest, it's surprising GameSpot isn't 1.5. Metacritic is its sister site. (Both CBSi properties)

 

[rrs]

This can't end well

 

[baphomet]

As if anyone really needed more confirmation that metacritic is fucking trash.

 

[Curufinwe]

Everyone switch to gamerankings.

 

[Dahbomb]

Shocking to see review sites that give high reviews to AAA games (IGN, Gameinformer) are in the highest tier.

Actually I am not shocked at all. This is clearly pressure placed by publishers to change MC's policy because they are tired of "less influential" sites/magazines ruining their games MC score.

 

[UberTag]

Why are publications like 'Official Playstation Magazine' and 'Planet Xbox' rated as highest. Those don't sound like they'd be very objective.

That's the point.

All of the press that can be easily moneyhatted and bought have their scores weighted 3 times as much as those who can't.
It takes three objective Giant Bomb reviews to counteract a single purchased Game Informer score.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

What the fuck?

Firing Squad?

Digital Chumps?

Extreme Gamer.ca?

These are no name sites, and they have the highest ranking. Just look at Firing Squad. The site is a fucking abomination.

Metacritic is officially no. 2 on the worthless data collection list behind Nielsen.

Firing Squad has been around for a very long time. Though I didn't know it was even still going.

 

[Mama Robotnik]

IGN (1.5) and GameInformer (1.5) are officially worth more than EDGE (1.25), Eurogamer (1.0) and Giant Bomb (0.5) combined.

This is a joke, and that the industry uses this random site to decide how to pay its employees, is the punchline.

 

[IHaveIce]

What is with the difference between the Official Mags here? Seems arbitrary.

yeah how is the Official PS3 magazine 1.5 and the official xbox 360 magazine 1.0?

 

[orznge]

hahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Prophet Steve]

Is there any other, more accurate, score aggregator?

$ = Marketingbudget per ten million dollar (max value of 8.5)

score = $ + rand()*1.4

 

[CrashPrime]

dat Giant Bomb weight

 

[BrokenEchelon]

Quick, someone go recalculate every MC score w/ all publications weighted at 1.00.

 

[Orayn]

Metacritic is a complete joke and a scourge on the industry. I hope there's blowback from this, though I know there won't be.

 

[Other]

Welp, now publishers know which outlets to lean on the most.

What's more interesting to me now is not what the weightings are, but how certain publications go about having more weightings than others. Who decides that, and on what criteria?

What makes you think they didn't already know?

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Well that's certainly bass-ackwards for a lot of sites.

I don't mind MetaCritic in theory, but the damage its done to a lot of game business is undeniable. Ideally they shouldn't have a weighting system, they should just collect and display raw data.

 

[Doc Evils]

Now that this is out, isn't it now up for abuse for higher rated sites? (MOAR DUFFEL BAGS)

 

[Brashnir]

Machinima have the highest ranking? Aren't they the site that EA paid 50 grand to promote NFSMW?

 

[Frolow]

Just look at Firing Squad. The site is a fucking abomination.

You weren't kidding.

 

[A Sentient Keyboard]

Is there any other, more accurate, score aggregator?

gamerankings.com is metacritic without the weightings.

 

[Tunavi]

soooooooooo biased

 

[Dahbomb]

So the sites that continue to get money hats will continue to get more money hats as it's now worth more to money hat a few sites than money hat a bunch of sites.

WAR HAS CHANG-- I mean.... REVIEWS HAVE CHANGED!

 

[DGRE]

Uhh... did anyone notice that several PS publications are in the highest category? Bias confirmed? That doesn't even seem fair.

 

[Miles X]

Highest (1.5) -- PlayStation Official Magazine UK

Medium (1.0) -- Official Nintendo Magazine UK
Medium (1.0) -- Official Xbox 360 Magazine UK

Why?

 

[Hung_real]

Lower (0.5) -- RPGamer
Lower (0.5) -- GaintBomb

'Kay

and holy shit at Firing Squad

 

[electroplankton]

High (1.25) -- RPG Fan
Lower (0.5) -- RPGamer

lol