Support NeoGAF

[AlphaSnake]

It doesn't matter the slightest what metacritic thinks.

I read that with The Rock as the voice in my head. :lol

 

[PistolGrip]

Much better I think. 1-10 leaves some guys following the whole scale and others going perfect score happy. This applies better.

 

[Kintaro]

Yep, people are completely acclimated to grade inflation. At any level, an institution where C is the true average is very rare.

Actually, it's not even that. Letter grades related more personally to people. You could have people who didn't mind Cs and won't mind picking up a C game. You could have people who wanted nothing but As, and they have a lower opinion of C. This system is pretty relative to your opinion of the grades really. Much more so than the previous number based stuff.

Personally, my parents would be up my ass if I didn't bring up straight As. However, I didn't mind the occasional B. Since I'm now a couple of years from 30 and how I'm paying cash money for games, I think I'll adopt a similar system. I think the majority of people will as well. So, "C" is going to be the kiss of death for games on 1up.

 

[Stoney Mason]

There is nothing wrong with Metacritic or Gamerankings. They are simply collection sites for reviews. I personally find both of them to be wonderful tools and if there is any problem it's due to dumb publishing companies. Not with Metacritic or Gamerankings.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

Does it really make a difference whether PS3 and Wii games get 7.0s or Cs?

 

[Stoney Mason]

Much better I think. 1-10 leaves some guys following the whole scale and others going perfect score happy. This applies better.

Well honestly it will depend on how they actually use the scale but I think most people (Americans) understand a C being average a lot better than 5 out of 10 which most 10 point review scales completely botched.

 

[AstroLad]

Why the hell are you arguing for Metacritic here?

Metacritic is bad for everyone in the industry and likely worse for people looking for a quick "average" score hit. More fool anyone who uses this for any kind of gauging of quality.

It's up there with vgfartz for utter redundancy.

I guess the question I would throw back to you is--why would they ignore such a powerful entity? It's one thing to be "different" but it's another to be oblivious. Perhaps they are making things more confusing (on a comparison basis) in an attempt to avoid accountability or scrutiny? Not saying that's the case, but reasonable minds could infer.

Also I think the dismissal of metacritic is a bit overblown on here. Just cue up their top or bottom games and I think most who have played them will agree that metacritic can provide useful information. Especially to those who don't have the time to read multiple reviews or really narrow down which sites they deem trustworthy for certain genres, platforms, etc. It's a great normalizer of all the drama and bias that non-gaffers just don't have the time to parse out.

Reminds me of when Garnet flipped out on 1UY when Dyack was just trying to say look at some of the top games on metacritic, some don't sell well. As if citing metacritic for this simple purpose is some heinous offense.

Personally, my parents would be up my ass if I didn't bring up straight As. However, I didn't mind the occasional B. Since I'm now a couple of years from 30 and how I'm paying cash money for games, I think I'll adopt a similar system. I think the majority of people will as well. So, "C" is going to be the kiss of death for games on 1up.

As applies to this though, the salient point is not individual experience but just the fact that there are very few schools where 'C' is average. You (well not you, Kintaro) might be the only idiot your school to get Cs regularly, but hopefully you're at least perceptive enough to realize that's not average.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Not everyone likes big ass titties though.:lol

exactly, anything over a C cup is too much for regular usage.

 

[t4ng0]

nothing changes... people are still going to think B- or lower absolutely blows

still waiting on binary ratings

 

[SaggyMonkey]

I don't see this affecting anything, and think the review scale debate is a red herring. The real change will come when the magazines, in general, realize a good portion of the gaming audience has outgrown the books, but not gaming.

 

[AlphaSnake]

exactly, anything over a C cup is too much for regular usage.

You're fucking crazy. A pair of 34Ds, or even DDs is the most amazing thing you'll ever hold in your hands.

 

[Stoney Mason]

nothing changes... people are still going to think B- or lower absolutely blows

I think a rating system for honesty is as much for the people doing it as the people going by the reviews. If they use an honest and fair scale and actually use the whole thing, then if somebody thinks anything below a B- blows then that's their business.

 

[Livin_Lovin]

I hope they conform to the new standard of American grading where there is no A+. That'd fuck with the metacritic scoring, no doubt.

Honestly, I agree with the four-five star system. No half stars either like gamespy does.

 

[I AM JOHN!]

You're right that they went downhill in '02 or so, but they've always had three-man reviews. In fact, it's always been their ONE saving grace. Three people's opinions is three times better than one.

It's a fact.

What, you mean when they changed their layout from being outdated and shitty to being not?

 

[Dr_Cogent]

At first I thought, "Oh God, that's awful..."

Then I realized that this is actually a great move. Most gamers just seem to take their letter grades from school ("7.5!? You mean that game got a D!?").

75% is a D? Since when?

 

[sprocket]

Ehh I think it will be better but it doesn't matter. A grade is all relative to what is out at the time.

If (insert major game) comes out on console A and scores a 9 .. and then (insert major game) scores a 8 on console B .. Then 8 == bomb to the console A fanboys.

But

If (insert major game) comes out on console A and scores a 8 .. and then (insert major game) scores a 8 on console B .. Then 8 == good to both console fanboys.

 

[Ermac]

I hate how EGM's are so freaking paper thin these days. Back around '02, every one would be at least a hundred pages, with plenty of reviews. Nowadays each issue has only around 10 reviews or so. It's really only high profile games too. It's a shame, since some of my favorite (and lesser known) games back in the day were ones I heard about through EGM

 

[TheRagnCajun]

I think this has less to do with readers and more to do with sponsors. I'd be interested to see if metacritic tries to tag a number to their scores anyways.

 

[Odysseus]

75% is a D? Since when?

crushed has yet to move beyond high school.

either that, or crushed is implying the average gaffer hasn't moved beyond high school.

either way works.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Ehh I think it will be better but it doesn't matter. A grade is all relative to what is out at the time.

If (insert major game) comes out on console A and scores a 9 .. and then (insert major game) scores a 8 on console B .. Then 8 == bomb to the console A fanboys.

But

If (insert major game) comes out on console A and scores a 8 .. and then (insert major game) scores a 8 on console B .. Then 8 == good to both console fanboys.

I think it helps because I think certain Triple AAA titles simply should get A's or A+. And the argument about which is better lessens when top games receive the same score. When Roger Ebert gives a movie 4 stars or a thumbs up he isn't trying to quantify which is better on that scale. He is simply saying they are exceptional experiences. Game review scales should steer closer to this imo and let the text say what it says about breaking it down instead of having all these elaborate 8.1 to 8.9 breakdowns that are so highly subjective. That is what helps fuel fanboy wars although they'll exist to some degree no matter what.

 

[fin]

I've always like a 5 point scale.

1 - Terrible. Not worth the plastic it's printed on.
2 - Bad. Wish I had played something else.
3 - Average. Some good, some bad.
4 - Good. Glad I played it.
5 - Great. A model for other games to follow.

A=5
B=4
C=3
D=2
F=1

Letter grades is the same as any type of 5 point scale, be it stars, numbers or thumbs.

 

[Kolgar]

EGM's subliminal message: Stay in school, kids.

I applaud this move; it's easier for the reader to understand.

 

[Livin_Lovin]

I think it helps because I think certain Triple AAA titles simply should get A's or A+. And the argument about which is better lessens when top games receive the same score. When Roger Ebert gives a movie 4 stars or a thumbs up he isn't trying to quantify which is better on that scale. He is simply saying they are exceptional experiences. Game review scales should steer closer to this imo and let the text say what it says about breaking it down instead of having all these elaborate 8.1 to 8.9 breakdowns that are so highly subjective. That is what helps fuel fanboy wars although they'll exist to some degree no matter what.

I highly agree with this. It shows why the IGN scale is so incredibly flawed and why the 7.8 Kingdom Hearts 2 got was such a big deal.

 

[JayDubya]

*reads the short quote*

the real question is will people accept C as average just because they do IRL, or will they translate the letter grades to anything less than a B sucks?

I don't know, I pretty much have a standard of anything less than an 8 / 10, 4/5, "B" is not worth my limited gaming time. That doesn't mean that the Cs and 7s of the gaming world are BAD games, per se, it just means I won't be playing them. Of course, there is something to be said for looking at the big picture for critical consensus, and the fact that some gems get mistreated because of gameplay "flaws" that I would regard as merits.

 

[Mojovonio]

Anything rated F is not worth playing.

Thats all you need to know.

 

[FirstInHell]

It amuses me that the people at EGM, 1up, and pretentious self-indulgant "journalists" like N'Gai Coral try to speak philosophically about the pros and cons of review site aggregators like Gamerankings and Metacritic. They always approach the subject as if they have some sense of idealism and integrity when discussing these things. However, their true disdain for such entities is based solely on the fact that these sites undermine their respective livelihoods. Sites that compile all of this information in one easy to use score renders their individual contributions to the entire medium of "game journalism" pointless to say the least. It means that these individuals with clear biases can no longer influence the market the way they have in the past. Why would someone want to read about how Shane loved "PS3 exclusive Henti Tentacle Fantasy XXIV" due to his pretentious bias towards anything related to Sony and Japan? Why would anyone want to read that Crispin did not like Assassin's Creed because he is unqualified to play, let alone review games? Biases like the ones above (and many others) wash out when viewed as a whole.

furthermore, sites like Metacritic and Gamerankings must really be damaging to their egos. There is no high level philosophical debate that needs to take place (although one will take place for 110 minutes on the next 1up Yours podcast with N'Gai droning while impressing himself at his depth of knowledge). Just look at their motivations.

 

[Kweh]

Here's hoping for a : B, A, D

 

[Haint]

I take it this being done to pacify publishers who blacklist them over poor reviews. I guess Ubisoft will be less offended by a C for Ass Creed rather than a 5.0 or whatever.

 

[Raistlin]

Well ... there number grades have pretty much worked like letter grades anyway ... so guess it makes sense.

 

[I AM JOHN!]

Dumb shit that makes it sound like all "games journalists" are self-absorbed, egotistical, biassed pricks.

Wow.

 

[D.Lo]

You see, in the past, we insisted on using the entire 0-10 range, with 5 being in the middle, rather than an "8-10 is good, everything below that is bad" scale most other outlets seem to use.

According to Gamerankings, the average score given to a game by 1up is 68.4%. For IGN its 69.4% and for Gamespot its 67.5%.

Do they really believe they are 'above' everyone else on this issue?

 

[DenogginizerOS]

I give this decision an 8.5.

 

[Stoney Mason]

It amuses me that the people at EGM, 1up, and pretentious self-indulgant "journalists" like N'Gai Coral try to speak philosophically about the pros and cons of review site aggregators like Gamerankings and Metacritic. They always approach the subject as if they have some sense of idealism and integrity when discussing these things. However, their true disdain for such entities is based solely on the fact that these sites undermine their respective livelihoods. Sites that compile all of this information in one easy to use score renders their individual contributions to the entire medium of "game journalism" pointless to say the least. It means that these individuals with clear biases can no longer influence the market the way they have in the past. Why would someone want to read about how Shane loved "PS3 exclusive Henti Tentacle Fantasy XXIV" due to his pretentious bias towards anything related to Sony and Japan? Why would anyone want to read that Crispin did not like Assassin's Creed because he is unqualified to play, let alone review games? Biases like the ones above (and many others) wash out when viewed as a whole.

furthermore, sites like Metacritic and Gamerankings must really be damaging to their egos. There is no high level philosophical debate that needs to take place (although one will take place for 110 minutes on the next 1up Yours podcast with N'Gai droning while impressing himself at his depth of knowledge). Just look at their motivations.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here(Not all). The misdirected anger at Metacritic and Gamerankings at some reviewers and on this site t times occasionally strikes me as absurd. The worst criticism you could levy at them is that they take the already broken scales of most review sites and store them all in one place. That being said, my first act when I buy a game is to go look at the gamerankings score and then check out the individual review sites on there that I respect and see what they gave the game. I think nearly all the people who are sophisticated enough to use a site like that do the same thing. As far as publishers tying royalties or money incentives into high scores on those sites, that's a separate issue, and I can see pros and cons to that also but once again it's the publishers who are creating the problem. Not the aggregate sites.

 

[FirstInHell]

According to Gamerankings, the average score given to a game by 1up is 68.4%. For IGN it's 69.4% and for Gamespot it's 67.5%.

Do they really believe they are 'above' everyone else on this issue?

1up and EGM have clearly shown that they feel as if their website and publications are 'above' everyone else in the "games journalism" industry. Just listen to their podcasts.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here(Not all). The misdirected anger at Metacritic and Gamerankings at some reviewers and on this site t times occasionally strikes me as absurd. The worst criticism you could levy at them is that they take the already broken scales of most review sites and store them all in one place. That being said, my first act when I buy a game is to go look at the gamerankings score and then check out the individual review sites on there that I respect and see what they gave the game. I think nearly all the people who are sophisticated enough to use a site like that do the same thing. As far as publishers tying royalties or money incentives into high scores on those sites, that's a separate issue, and I can see pros and cons to that also but once again it's the publishers who are creating the problem. Not the aggregate sites.

If this is the case, then why does the whole cast of characters at Ziff Davis have such a strong dislike from these sites? Do they feel as though their readers are not intelligent enough to do this on their own?

 

[I AM JOHN!]

According to Gamerankings, the average score given to a game by 1up is 68.4%. For IGN its 69.4% and for Gamespot its 67.5%.

Do they really believe they are 'above' everyone else on this issue?

What the fuck are you even talking about?

 

[Flavius]

It amuses me that the people at EGM, 1up, and pretentious self-indulgant "journalists" like N'Gai Coral try to speak philosophically about the pros and cons of review site aggregators like Gamerankings and Metacritic. They always approach the subject as if they have some sense of idealism and integrity when discussing these things. However, their true disdain for such entities is based solely on the fact that these sites undermine their respective livelihoods. Sites that compile all of this information in one easy to use score renders their individual contributions to the entire medium of "game journalism" pointless to say the least. It means that these individuals with clear biases can no longer influence the market the way they have in the past. Why would someone want to read about how Shane loved "PS3 exclusive Henti Tentacle Fantasy XXIV" due to his pretentious bias towards anything related to Sony and Japan? Why would anyone want to read that Crispin did not like Assassin's Creed because he is unqualified to play, let alone review games? Biases like the ones above (and many others) wash out when viewed as a whole.

furthermore, sites like Metacritic and Gamerankings must really be damaging to their egos. There is no high level philosophical debate that needs to take place (although one will take place for 110 minutes on the next 1up Yours podcast with N'Gai droning while impressing himself at his depth of knowledge). Just look at their motivations.

Wow, you are so right.

I am absolutely certain it has nothing to do with the fact that it makes their job exponentially more difficult in terms of dealing with the publishers and obtaining coverage/maintaining relationships, and dealing with consumers who are so quick to reduce their score to a worthless number.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Supposedly, according to 1UP and their stalwart defenders, "5 is an average score".

Since their real average is significantly higher, either the industry's output as a whole is above average, or their real average score is not 5.

 

[Yoshichan]

If I'd choose, it would be like this:

F
E
D
C
B
A
S
SS
TRIPPLE S BABY! YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

[tokkun]

If this is the case, then why does the whole cast of characters at Ziff Davis have such a strong dislike from these sites? Do they feel as though their readers are not intelligent enough to do this on their own?

They've said a few times that they get hassled by publishers when their score is the lowest on Metacritic. They want to be able to have their own scale without being taken to task based on how other reviewers chose to score a game.

 

[I AM JOHN!]

Supposedly, according to 1UP and their stalwart defenders, "5 is an average score".

Since their real average is significantly higher, either the industry's output as a whole is above average, or their real average score is not 5.

Oh for fuck's sake.

For the last time people: WHEN A REVIEWER IS TALKING ABOUT THEIR SITE'S AVERAGE SCORE, THEY DON'T MEAN THE MATHEMATICAL AVERAGE OF ALL THEIR SCORES! THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SCORE THEY WOULD GIVE AN "AVERAGE" GAME, ONE THAT IS NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD. THIS IS FUCKING OBVIOUS, YOU DOLTS!!!

 

[Darkpen]

hrm, so is this a way to have their cake and eat it too?

School:
A = 90-100
B = 80-89
C = 70-79
D = 60-69
F = 0-59

Score Aggregate Sites:
A = 100
B = 80
C = 60
D = 40
F = 20

if you read the article, C and 5/10 is average

 

[Xisiqomelir]

Oh for fuck's sake.

For the last time people: WHEN A REVIEWER IS TALKING ABOUT THEIR SITE'S AVERAGE SCORE, THEY DON'T MEAN THE MATHEMATICAL AVERAGE OF ALL THEIR SCORES! THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SCORE THEY WOULD GIVE AN "AVERAGE" GAME, ONE THAT IS NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD. THIS IS FUCKING OBVIOUS, YOU DOLTS!!!

Okay, so you believe option 1.

 

[I AM JOHN!]

Okay, so you believe option 1.

Yes, because THAT'S WHAT IT IS. THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION.

 

[OnPoint]

I don't know if I can be OK with this. But I'll try it. Mostly because they're going to send them to my house still. So long as they don't take away the three reviewer format.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

Why put a letter? Why not just right a review and let the reader make a decision as to how the written review translates as far as a score? A letter grade is really no different than a numerical score and it will still spurn the same type of debates about whether game "X" was an A- while game "Y" was a B+ and all the conspiracy theories as to why included.

 

[Flavius]

Oh for fuck's sake.

For the last time people: WHEN A REVIEWER IS TALKING ABOUT THEIR SITE'S AVERAGE SCORE, THEY DON'T MEAN THE MATHEMATICAL AVERAGE OF ALL THEIR SCORES! THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SCORE THEY WOULD GIVE AN "AVERAGE" GAME, ONE THAT IS NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD. THIS IS FUCKING OBVIOUS, YOU DOLTS!!!

Precisely.

Meaning, the majority of games are better than average...which makes a fuckton of sense when you think about it.

 

[gandm]

We switched to letter grades because we felt that it'd be more universally understood than our previous numeric scale

Well maybe for Americans. I've got no idea how your letter grade system works and which grade is still sufficient, since we use a scale of 1 to 6.

 

[blame space]

I give this idea a

.

 

[D.Lo]

Oh for fuck's sake.

For the last time people: WHEN A REVIEWER IS TALKING ABOUT THEIR SITE'S AVERAGE SCORE, THEY DON'T MEAN THE MATHEMATICAL AVERAGE OF ALL THEIR SCORES! THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SCORE THEY WOULD GIVE AN "AVERAGE" GAME, ONE THAT IS NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD. THIS IS FUCKING OBVIOUS, YOU DOLTS!!!

I think you better look up the definition of 'average'...

And the point is they were having a go at their competition for doing exactly the same thing they do themselves.

I give this idea a

.

Mr Face never wrong.

 

[AstroLad]

1up and EGM have clearly shown that they feel as if their website and publications are 'above' everyone else in the "games journalism" industry. Just listen to their podcasts.



If this is the case, then why does the whole cast of characters at Ziff Davis have such a strong dislike from these sites? Do they feel as though their readers are not intelligent enough to do this on their own?

The question here really is: Does gaming really need all these intellectuals like Shane and Garnet pontificating about these "issues" from their ivory towers? Apparently the entire elitist Ziff Davis family thinks that the answer is "yes," but I for one do not appreciate being lectured to. If I want to go to a high-level philosophy class, I'll go back to college.