If people (and publishers) started using the unweighted Metacritic score as the basis for their purchasing decisions or crazy bonus schemes, then there's nothing to stop them using another site with identical unweighted scores.
Are people seriously outraged by this? Publications with a higher reputation probably should get a higher weighting.
One more reason why it should be unweighted in the first place.
Are people seriously outraged by this? Publications with a higher reputation probably should get a higher weighting.
I like the guys at GiantBomb too, but comparatively, ya, they don't have as high of a reputation. The average gamer has never heard of them. Reputation level is vital in every industry, even if it occasionally results in scandel.
This is not a golden defence of sites like IGN and GT, but they built themselves over years and have achieved mass appeal for good reasons. They do carry more weight with or without metacritic's scheme. As the smaller guys get more hits and a big following, they will escalate.
Why should it be unweighted if certain review sites generally are better than others?
Its like the Nate Silver election aggregate. Some polls are better than others so they have more weight.
Why should it be unweighted if certain review sites generally are better than others?
Its like the Nate Silver election aggregate. Some polls are better than others so they have more weight.
Compared websites like IGN very few care or even know about giant bomb
I myself don't care for their pseudo elitism. They way some people on GAF seem to worship these guys is also shocking
Thanks?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.
Compared websites like IGN very few care or even know about giant bomb
I myself don't care for their pseudo elitism. The way some people on GAF seem to worship these guys is also shocking
They don't talk about WiiU enough.Do you have any examples of Giant Bomb's pseudo elitism?
Do you have any examples of Giant Bomb's pseudo elitism?
Until Metacritic goes public, then I say let's kick up a massive fuss and act like it's legit.
I say let's kick up a massive fuss and act like it's legit until Metacritic goes public. Transparency is for the best.
You seemed to miss my point. With that, I was not saying they need to outright scratch that system. They should simply offer a SECOND one that is unbiased for their users to choose. What publishers to with that is out of our hands, but it would be infinitely better for the customer.
Although, in a perfect world, this wouldnt need to be "weighed" in the first place.
The general idea of Metacritic is actually quite good. By averaging lots of subjective ratings you can approach something objective. It's kind of like the wisdom of crowds.
The problem is that Metacritic invalidates their own system by applying this extra layer of (closely guarded) subjectivity. In the end a Metacritic score is hardly any less subjective than any single review. Publishers using Metacritic scores as an absolute indicator of quality is absolute madness.
The general idea of Metacritic is actually quite good. By averaging lots of subjective ratings you can approach something objective. It's kind of like the wisdom of crowds.
The problem is that Metacritic invalidates their own system by applying this extra layer of (closely guarded) subjectivity. In the end a Metacritic score is hardly any less subjective than any single review. Publishers using Metacritic scores as an absolute indicator of quality is absolute madness.
I understood your point, although I probably could have been clearer in my reply. My point was that if they give people the option between Metascore and unweighted average, and people start using unweighted average, then those people (and publishers) could drift away to other sites that also offer identical unweighted averages.
Strained analogy time: It'd be like Microsoft releasing a version of Linux. It'd be great, but they aren't going to torpedo their own product like that.
Especially since they just said they change the weighing from time to time. That means for the release of game A you weigh Website XYZ more, but if it comes to the release of game B, website XYZ might be rating worse and then its also rated worse and has less impact?
Thats just all kinds of fucked up for a gaming score aggregate website.
Do you have any examples of Giant Bomb's pseudo elitism?
Fair enough, though Metacritic are seriously fucking their reputation through this. Ultimately a website without MC's secret sauce is BETTER. If anything, I get the impression that people who get to know about it will use different websites (I am a fan of Gamerankings myself).
The general idea of Metacritic is actually quite good. By averaging lots of subjective ratings you can approach something objective. It's kind of like the wisdom of crowds.
The problem is that Metacritic invalidates their own system by applying this extra layer of (closely guarded) subjectivity. In the end a Metacritic score is hardly any less subjective than any single review. Publishers using Metacritic scores as an absolute indicator of quality is absolute madness.
I pretty much just avoid review aggregation sites completely. They're useful as a collection of links to actual reviews, but even then I simply go with my gut or with GAF's recommendations most of the time (I've actually bought three or four games based on threads you've made, as it happens).
I suppose if they included standard deviation as well as mean they might trigger a bit of statistical curiosity on my part, but that's pretty much it.
That entire list ranking is a joke. GiantBomb being low? No Rockpapershotgun? COME ON SON.
I use these sites for different things. I am not basing my buying decisions on Gamerankings, but I use it to get a general overview of the reception of a game. Not sure whether I articulate properly what I mean by that.
"That list is totally inaccurate, but we won't release actual data, so take us at our word."
"That list is totally inaccurate, but we won't release actual data, so take us at our word."
I wonder how big of a deal this is in practical terms for the people who are ranked low. I mean does a low weighting somehow translate to monetary damages for the reviewer in question?
lolwutHighest (1.5) -- Machinima
Probably not, but it destroys the integrity of the website for the user. Why would a website rating a game 9 be weighted more than another one weighting it a 7? What if I agree with the website that rates it 7, but MC still decides that its better for me to trust the other website more?
Integrity of Metacritic or the review site?
If you mean of the review site, then if it hadn't been for this megaton, nobody would have ever known what the weights were, so there would have been no effect on anyone's integrity. Maybe this changes things? Or maybe people only a few in-the-know people, such as GAFfers and people in the industry, will know about the weightings and not care. The average person still won't know