Support NeoGAF

[Heisenberg007]

I've been noticing this for some time now, but 2 recent examples back-to-back made me rethink this and create this thread.

Look at the disparity in review scores.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre also has similar results, but this time Xbox scoring the highest.

Why do you think the same game would rate so differently on different platforms?

So far it seems like PC and PS5 are more similar in results, but Xbox is being the outlier on 2 recent games. Any thoughts?

 

[dreamstation]

Poorer performance or some other issue not present on the other platforms?
Different outlets reviewing different platforms and giving different scores?

 

[Guilty_AI]

Outlets reviewing the game on a specific platform? Its just another example on why these reviews don't mean much on a decimal case level.

 

[makaveli60]

The metascore is an averege. Check how many reviews are there for each. Also, performance, visual, etc. differences can play a role in it.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Poorer performance or some other issue not present on the other platforms?
Different outlets reviewing different platforms and giving different scores?

That would be the case but both PS5 and Xbox offer a very similar gameplay experience. A difference of up to 8 points doesn't make sense to me.

 

[prinz_valium]

Poorer performance or some other issue not present on the other platforms?
Different outlets reviewing different platforms and giving different scores?

This

 

[SmokedMeat]

Different review sites. All three platforms have platform specific review sites, so scores will be different.

 

[AV]

This is why you need to bin off Metacritic and use Opencritic. One entry per game for all platforms.

 

[Heisenberg007]

This is why you need to bin off Metacritic and use Opencritic. One entry per game for all platforms.

I do like that system more, to be honest.

The only downside of OC is that it masks if a game is busted on one platform.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Different outlets, different people reviewing the game. Reviews are subjective.

 

[dreamstation]

The only downside of OC is that it masks if a game is busted on one platform.

Which does seem to happen a lot, especially with games on PC.

 

[Tsaki]

This is why you need to bin off Metacritic and use Opencritic. One entry per game for all platforms.

Well no. If the PC version is an unoptimized mess, then that gets piled with the console reviewers who might not have such issues. Why take into account how the PC is doing when you were going to play on console anyway?
Edit: The same can be said the other way around. See Cyberpunk

 

[yazenov]

Because very few reviewers review games on the Xbox, their average score will differ. They have the smallest user base so it doest not represent the majority of the users' experience.

The default reviews are where most of the audience are on the PS5, then PC. So they are the most important ones that people should take into consideration.

 

[mrmustard]

Just another reason why Metacritic is pointless.

 

[AV]

Well no. If the PC version is an unoptimized mess, then that gets piled with the console reviewers who might not have such issues. Why take into account how the PC is doing when you were going to play on console anyway?
Edit: The same can be said the other way around. See Cyberpunk

It's still way better than the alternative. The Cuphead DLC last year had a 6 point differential between PS4 and Xbox One with no technical issues reported, it's just that the outlets were different.

A person can still make sure their chosen platform doesn't have inherent issues with a 3 second Google search, but for an aggregated score, Opencritic is better. If one version of the game performs poorly it can and will drag the overall score down.

 

[Astral Dog]

The way i read it i only check out the platform with the highest numbers of reviews,thats the 'real' one

Sometimes there is a specific problem with a port ,for example on Switch that makes it lower on average, or a poor PC version.

 

[acm2000]

you mean different reviewers on different platforms have different opinions?

 

[Hudo]

Can have multiple reasons. It could be because on that particular platform, the game doesn't run as well and gets rated down as a result. Or that some platform-exclusive magazines/reviewers just have different opinions.

 

[Tsaki]

It's still way better than the alternative. The Cuphead DLC last year had a 6 point differential between PS4 and Xbox One with no technical issues reported, it's just that the outlets were different.

A person can still make sure their chosen platform doesn't have inherent issues with a 3 second Google search, but for an aggregated score, Opencritic is better. If one version of the game performs poorly it can and will drag the overall score down.

I disagree for the same reason I said before. Cyberpunk was not a 76 (an average to good game, maybe) for PC players, the majority of players. Meaning Opencritic was completely worthless to them. If I have to go then and read reviews to weed out if my particular case is applicable, then that defeats the purpose of an aggregate.

 

[Banjo64]

4 reviews on the Xbox platform. And one of them is a suspect albatross around the neck.

Redfall | DayOne

Redfall is an open-world, single player and co-op FPS from Arkane Austin, the award-winning team behind Prey and Dishonored. Continuing Arkane’s legacy of carefully crafted worlds and immersive sims, Redfall brings the studio’s signature gameplay to this story-driven action shooter. Play on Game...

dayone.xboxera.com

Review | Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon

FROM SOFTWARE is heading back to its mecha roots with Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon. It’s fast, frenetic, poorly balanced, and dull. For a title

xboxera.com

When Xbox Era give a game like Redfall 8.5 and Armoured Core a 6.5, I simply can’t rule out that Xbox themselves are directly mandating this in order to manipulate scores in favour of their own games. Especially with Starfield on the horizon, they wouldn’t want another 85-90 game launching alongside it. We know that Xbox’s strategies are pretty pathetic and low level, so sadly I can’t even rule this out.

 

[AV]

I disagree for the same reason I said before. Cyberpunk was not a 76 (an average to good game, maybe) for PC players, the majority of players. Meaning Opencritic was completely worthless to them. If I have to go then and read reviews to weed out if my particular case is applicable, then that defeats the purpose of an aggregate.

Luckily Opencritic already thought of that.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Which does seem to happen a lot, especially with games on PC.

That’s why Steam reviews and Youtubers that cover PC matter more to me, than any gaming site.

 

[Heisenberg007]

The way i read it i only check out the platform with the highest numbers of reviews,thats the 'real' one

Sometimes there is a specific problem with a port ,for example on Switch that makes it lower on average, or a poor PC version.

Yeah, that's a good tactic to circumvent this problem. But people, at least casuals, would tend to gravitate towards checking reviews on the platform they'd play on.

 

[Tsaki]

Luckily Opencritic already thought of that.

Do they do this for every game, or is it only for CP because of how big it was? It wouldn't be that difficult to automate now that I think about it.

 

[Heisenberg007]

That’s why Steam reviews and Youtubers that cover PC matter more to me, than any gaming site.

I really like Steam's user reviews because it also tells how many hours a user has played the game.

 

[crackajack]

Poorer performance or some other issue not present on the other platforms?
Different outlets reviewing different platforms and giving different scores?

these reasons seem simple enough, but when i checked the Plus games to make a list of games I might want to play, many PS4 games were rated lower than their xbox sibling, I think not even once the other way round, or at least not often. unless it's a newer one x enhanced game any ps 4 game should have better performance. and a collective of different outlets should average out some clickbait scores, but seemingly did not. Iirc it was never much but still odd with the gen were the better plattform was kinda clear. Reviewers seemed to try to help the underdog without any justifiable reason.

 

[AV]

Do they do this for every game, or is it only for CP because of how big it was? It wouldn't be that difficult to automate now that I think about it.

Not every game, we were just talking about an extraordinary circumstance game and that one got the disclaimer. Jedi Survivor for instance doesn't have a warning; there's poor platform optimisation and then there's Sony pulling the product from its store.

That said, at the end of the day, any aggregate is only ever good for a general idea anyway. There was an outlet that gave Cyberpunk on PS4 a 9/10 "despite its huge technical flaws" i.e. it was borderline unplayable and got delisted. Luckily most other reviewers on PS4 weren't batshit insane so the score was still low, but that 9/10 still propped its score up higher than it should have been.

 

[skit_data]

A difference of ÷-10 isn't really that much, it comes off like a bigger difference than it really is.
Some review outlets using a 5 point scale instead of a 10 point scale probably affects the overall Metacritic/Opencritic score way more than that tbh.

 

[Roufianos]

This is why you need to bin off Metacritic and use Opencritic. One entry per game for all platforms.

That's an awful idea.

And OP, as others have said, it's different people reviewing the game across different platforms. For Series X and PS5, you're better off just going by the platform with the most reviews.

 

[Same ol G]

FANBOYSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!

 

[AV]

That's an awful idea.

And OP, as others have said, it's different people reviewing the game across different platforms. For Series X and PS5, you're better off just going by the platform with the most reviews.

As per my Cuphead DLC example, both PS4 and Xbox one have 9 reviews each, but the Xbox version scores 6 points higher because there's no tech issues, and reviews are all subjective. So if the PS4 version had one more review, people should inherently refer to that? A 92 vs. an 86 can be the difference between an immediate buy and wait for a sale for some people.

There is no perfect system and everyone's going to prefer one to the other. For me Opencritic makes much more sense for an idea of the quality of a product, i.e. Cuphead DLC scored an overall 88 because it's aggregating 76 reviews, not 16, 9, 9 and 38 separately.

 

[Three]

I still remember Polygon giving Call of Duty Ghosts a 6.5 on PS4 and a 7 on Xbox one "due to performance difference" which they apparently just perceived during console launch. Then when the PS4 was shown to outperform the xbox one consistently they never gave the xbox one lower scores in their reviews. It was so obvious what they were doing.

 

[Horseganador]

It depends on the number of analyzes and Xbox also has a multitude of pages to adulterate the notes, if it is a game of yours first or it comes out on day one in gamepass, pages like windowscentral, generacionxbox, somosxbox, xboxaddict, stevivor, xboxtavern, mondoxbox, Xbox Achievements, purexbox, xboxhub, xboxera, etc... to give it great scores and raise the average... or for the opposite if the game is from the competition.

 

[RoboFu]

just going to each page shows you why. 50 reviews vs 8 and different review sites.

 

[ReBurn]

Because different reviews from different outlets are being aggregated for each version. Is this a serious question?

 

[Moses85]