Uhh... did anyone notice that several PS publications are in the highest category? Bias confirmed? That doesn't even seem fair.
And your resume!Boom.
This is the system your bonuses may be tied to, developers. Rejoice.
High (1.25) -- EuroGamer Italy
High (1.25) -- EuroGamer Spain
Medium (1.0) -- Eurogamer
Highest (1.5) -- PlayStation Official Magazine UK
Medium (1.0) -- Official Nintendo Magazine UK
Medium (1.0) -- Official Xbox 360 Magazine UK
Why?
What makes you think they didn't already know?
Quick, someone go recalculate every MC score w/ all publications weighted at 1.00.
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.
Metacritic said:Metascore is a weighted average in that we assign more importance, or weight, to some critics and publications than others, based on their quality and overall stature. In addition, for music and movies, we also normalize the resulting scores (akin to "grading on a curve" in college), which prevents scores from clumping together.
http://www.metacritic.com/about-metascores
Metacritic said:Can you tell me how each of the different critics are weighted in your formula?
Absolutely not.
EXACTLY.
All Future publications, all official mags. I DON'T GET IT.
I vote for Metacritic to be a banned site on this board.
So the highest Nintendo-centric publication is only a 1.0? No wonder Nintendo games consistently score lower than PS360 games.
Ridiculous.
Seriously, looking at those rankings this is a borderline scandal, what the hell possessed Metacritic to give these weightings??
I second the motion.I vote for Metacritic to be a banned site on this board.
Highest (1.5) -- PlayStation Official Magazine UK
Medium (1.0) -- Official Nintendo Magazine UK
Medium (1.0) -- Official Xbox 360 Magazine UK
Why?
Highest (1.5) -- IGN
Highest (1.5) -- IGN AU
Highest (1.5) -- IGN UK
Not quite... otherwise you'd see some games scoring above 100%.Those exclusive IGN reviews must really pay off.
Does mean that a Bioshock's 9.4 counts as a 14.1?
Who cares?
Ctrl+F Polygon
"No results found"
Amazing
LOL (0.0) -- Polygon
Gaming industry discussion on a gaming forum, what gives?Who cares?
Not quite... otherwise you'd see some games scoring above 100%.
What it means is that their 9.4 carries the weight of 1.5 reviews in the average.
Whereas the Giant Bomb 5 out of 5 only carries the weight of 0.5 reviews in the average.
This was revealed by Adams Greenwood-Ericksen of Full Sail University at a talk titled 'A Scientific Assessment of the Validity and Value of Metacritic' delivered at the Game Developer's Conference in San Fransisco this afternoon.
Gaming industry discussion on a gaming forum, what gives?
Seriously, this data is a fascinating insight into just how truly nonsensical and undeserved the power of MetaCritic is.
Wow O_O I write for DarkZero, which is a volunteer based site (we all have other jobs or are students, etc.)
I have no idea how we are fixed into the highest category. O_O I'm shocked. We don't get paid or anything, we're just a group of guys who like gaming. O_O
we're just a group of guys who like gaming. O_O
Who cares?
No, it is based on quality. If this list is correct, it represents Metacritic's beliefs as to what the best review sites are.
Which explains this: http://www.metacritic.com/faq#item23
Having the list out in the open exposes the whole thing as a nonsensical farce.