-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Metacritic VS Gamerankings
- Thread starter mr stroke
- Start date
Square Triangle
Member
I don't have a preference but I seem to have Gamerankings bookmarked- so my lazyness just clicks that.
Peronthious
Member
mr stroke said:
Of course, it makes sense in entertainment reviews. Small, little known blogs who find themselves counted by metacritic may give inflated or lower than average scores to gain views.
"Bigger" sites of course do that as well, but we can't all be perfect.
elrechazado
Banned
gamerankings is the ugliest site ever. I can't look at it, it's terribly put together and visually unappealing. Until recently it looked like a website from 1999 that someone made in their basement. Recently it's been upgraded to 2001.
VibratingDonkey
Member
I tend to use Metacritic because it looks nicer. Also there's movies n stuff there.
As has been pointed out though, Gamerankings is infinitely better at older games as Metacritic has none of that.
The only real problem I have with Metacritic though is the crappy search function. For instance; search for "Demons Souls" and you get everything except that.
As has been pointed out though, Gamerankings is infinitely better at older games as Metacritic has none of that.
The only real problem I have with Metacritic though is the crappy search function. For instance; search for "Demons Souls" and you get everything except that.
Haunted
Member
Metacritic's arbitrary undisclosed weighting procedure invalidates anything they could have to offer. Gamerankings is so fucking ugly to look at I don't want to go there anymore even though I used to all the time.
We can count ourselves lucky that game reviews are a fucking joke in the first place, so these sites don't hold any meaning anyway.
We can count ourselves lucky that game reviews are a fucking joke in the first place, so these sites don't hold any meaning anyway.
Red Scarlet
Member
Neither.
No_Style said:
Why? Unless game critics start using the entire scale like movie critics, a RT equivalent would be useless. Every game would sit between 85-100%
I don't know why people put any stock in RT anyway. The score has nothing to do with HOW good people think a film is. It's just the percentage of people that have a positive opinion about it.
Yes, there is generally a correlation between how good a film is and the number of positive opinions it generates, but it doesn't give you anything Metacritic or Gamerankings doesn't.
elrechazado
Banned
Haunted said:
If you're using it to find an arbitrary composite score, you're doing it wrong. The only useful way to use it is as a clearinghouse of links to reviews for a game you're thinking of buying. They're all right there.
seattle6418
Member
I was thinking about this yesterday. Gamerankings was always my choice, but i kept hearing metacritic in every forum or podcast that i stumbled upon.
I never get why they were the standard since they had way less reviews then gamerankings.
I guess this change of perception helped ruin gamerankings, since nowdays their updates are slow, and they don't have as much coverage as they used to, which is a shame.
Metacritic still sucks, it doesn't have all the reviews you need.
I just wish gamerankings went on another redesign, to revert back to awesome state. I found many great websites through gamerankings.
I never get why they were the standard since they had way less reviews then gamerankings.
I guess this change of perception helped ruin gamerankings, since nowdays their updates are slow, and they don't have as much coverage as they used to, which is a shame.
Metacritic still sucks, it doesn't have all the reviews you need.
I just wish gamerankings went on another redesign, to revert back to awesome state. I found many great websites through gamerankings.
PantherAttacks
Member
Asmodai said:
Seems a bit backwards. A review from a small site is more likely to be a genuine opinion than from someone like IGN or GS who are funded by advertising the games they're meant to be evaluating (and we know those ads affect scores).
PantherAttacks said:
If we're going to take the "t3hre all moneyhatted" approach, reviews shouldn't mean anything, should they?
Not that I'm doubting the Kane and Lynch debacle or anything like that, but small, fantard run sites shouldn't have their opinions considered anymore than the same opinion written on a forum, ie, not at all. Just reading their horribly written reviews is cringe-inducing. At least the big sites hold themselves to slightly higher standards of literacy.
lordoftherink
Member
Neither.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
Gamerankings. Don't care about the design, just the numbers and aggregated review links. Very useful site.
Zoso
It's been a long time, been a long time, been a long lonely lonely lonely lonely lonely time.
I use gamerankings, but I'd hardly call it an accurate ranking of the best videogames or whatever. A lot of times I'm late to the party on consoles and want to check what some of the better reviewed games are for the system. Or I like to see if I'm missing any games that I forgot existed. It's an easy way to check all the games for a system.
I've never checked metacritic but I assume it's the same shit.
I've never checked metacritic but I assume it's the same shit.
SmashBrosAwesome
Member
Fourth vote for neither.
Stabby McSter
Member
i don't use either
which is weird, because i check rottentomatoes constantly
which is weird, because i check rottentomatoes constantly
TitaniumGroceries
Banned
Metacritic. GameRankings will take a review from "I-Love-OOT.com" giving Ocarina of Time a 10/10 so that OoT stays the #1 game every time an actual good game comes out and makes the top 10 list. It's ridiculous. Who the hell are these no-name-ass sites?
NewGamePlus
Member
thisStabby McSter said:
Dr Bad Dude PHD
Banned
It's my dream for someone to start a gamerankings/metacritic type site that's gives you the mean score from a set maybe dozen or so well known and trusted websites and publications. Also when it comes to user ratings, it shouldn't let you rate the game unless you have trophies or achievements for that game.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
Personally, gamerankings is just better for games... but jeeze, its like every deck i get from a pub these days is metacritic this and metacritic that! sooo, I suppose MC gets the more "serious" attention
CamHostage
Member
igotnewsuper8 systemWRONG! said:
GameRankings used to have some display options that helped zero in on the score you trusted, but you're right that no site is out there offering you ratings the way you'd probably like to read them. It's the sad thing about these aggregate sites, they have to focus so much on just that one score because that's all anybody gives a damned about (developers must just want to go into a dick-kicking rage whenever they're asked, "what was your last MetaCritic score") and so they never seem to give you options. I'd personally like a site that gave me a better breakdown of the scores, because there's info like median and differential between highest and lowest scores that interest me more than just the average.
Your idea for a player accomplishment level would be nice, although I'd say that the hate-tards and the fapping fanboys tend to balance themselves out between their 0s and 10s.
TitaniumGroceries said:
But if you are an informed reader who likes looking at the site for what it offers, not just to scan the one metric and move on, why would you not want all the info available? Does the 0.2 differential that a goofy review spread across 50 or so reviews really make a difference in your life? GameRankings used to be better in how it sorted and qualified sites, but I still like that it has as many scores as it can get. Fuck the meter rubberneckers, I'm interested in seeing how many fansites are following a game and what the Christian Right websites think and whether the family-oriented websites recommend the game on its quality over its content.
Zoso said:
Right, it's just a handy way to get a glance of what professional reviewers think of a game. It's no mathematical bible of quality.
seattle6418 said:
Who the hell knows. MetaCritic just got a huge push from CNET since it covered all media while I think GameRankings lost ground since they own both and could only choose one. (GameRankings was also more a pro-am site run by a few specific guys, it got folded into GameSpot but I think something happened with the guys running it? And then when it crashed, new parent CBS barely cared since they now had mondo Meta.) It is a little sad, I like the layout of MetaCritic since I can ignore the score and just get the quotes, but I don't like the site's final score and I for sure don't like how publishers put royalties on their Meta score. (That also happened with GameRankings, it's just the nature of the beast.) It makes sense, but it still surprises me whenever I hear people now talk about a game's "MetaCritic Score", I at least knew people who visited GameRankings back in the day and people still read RottenTomatoes but I've never seen a browser pointed to MetaCritic.
seattle6418 said:
You point out what I liked about the old GameRankings and other aggregates like it but don't get the same feeling from MetaCritic: GR seemed to be about the other websites archived, and then also about you getting into all the stats that these other sites generated when massed together. (I too found lots of sites I've bookmarked by finding a surprising GameRanking score in the batch.) MetaCritic, at least to me, feels like it's about just that site.
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
ctrl+f = "whoever wins, we lose"
GAF fails again
GAF fails again
I used gamerankings totally exclusively before they remade the site in GameFAQs' image. Now I use Metacritic 95% of the time but still hit up Gamerankings occasionally.
::edit::
::edit::
This shit is why I always preferred Gamerankings before. After the redesign I realized I care more about Metacritic's quick little blurbs from each review more than I care about the actual consolidated score that either site provides.Reikon said: