Jump to content

50% isn't average, then?

yaroze

By yaroze,
in Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

yaroze

yaroze

Posted
Posted

http://www.metacritic.com/about/scoring.shtml#game

The reason for this special treatment for games has to do with the games publications themselves. Virtually all of the publications we use as sources for game reviews (a) assign scores on a 0-100 scale (or equivalent) to their reviews, and (B) are very explicit about what those scores mean. And these publications are almost unanimous in indicating that scores below 50 indicate a negative review, while it usually takes a score in the upper 70s or higher to indicate that the game is unequivocally good. This is markedly different from film or music, where a score of, say, 3 stars out of 5 (which translates to a 60 out of 100 on our site) can still indicate that a movie is worth seeing or a CD is worth buying. Thus, we had to adjust our color-coding for games to account for the different meaning of games scores compared to scores for music and film

We all know that sometimes "70 is average" - but to be this common place Metacritic gives games special treatment? Surely the balance should have been addressed by now, or are the "Official" magazines too bias? A site like Metacritic must have based this rating system on the majority of publications... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yaroze

yaroze

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Anyone remember one of the old PSX mags changing the score of the 98% rated Tomb Raider 2, because Tomb Raider 3 was "better, but not worth 99%"? Digitiser had it right many moons ago, 5 star ratings where there's no bullshit, thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Polmon

Polmon

Posted
Posted

http://www.metacritic.com/about/scoring.shtml#game

We all know that sometimes "70 is average" - but to be this common place Metacritic gives games special treatment? Surely the balance should have been addressed by now, or are the "Official" magazines too bias? A site like Metacritic must have based this rating system on the majority of publications... :)

Thing is, most of the problems in games are the equivelent of the film production crew straying into the frame during a film, or the singer coughing in the middle of a song. I'm not sure where I was going with this, but I did originally have a point, just forgot it while I was typing it out :S

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Asura

Asura

Posted
Posted

I think the "out of five" system is really the best, as it basically says whether a game is poor on perhaps a technical level, then not-so-good, then ok, then worth a purchase and then amongst the best games of recent times.

I remember when CVG changed to this system back then they were still good, and the next month the review page was a chorus of wales and cries from all the readers asking how to know which out of two 4 star games were the best. Ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap

TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap

Posted
Posted

I think that this is yet another indication that we should just give up tagging on scores altogether. As one person's definition of 70% is different to anothers!

Scoreless reviews allow feelings to be summed up in a couple of stances without having that forced number there!

That's what's so good about Metacritic. Instead of one review+score you get about twenty. So you will almost always get a balanced view on the game: the main criticisms of those who hate it, and the main appraisal of those who like it. Makes it quite easy to make up your own mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sprite Machine

Sprite Machine

Posted
Posted

It's quite annoying when sites like this use the status quo as justification. The "below 8 = bad" stance is one I steer well clear of in my reviews (there's a whole scale of numbers there; might as well use them all). I have a few positive reviews listed on RottenTomatoes, but because they haven't been given an "8 or higher", they're listed as 'rotten'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
reef

reef

Posted
Posted

I've given this some thought and developed the perfect system, every game is marked out of 3:

3 - it's a classic and only given to the best of the genres etc, like an Edge 10 I s'pose

1 - it's rubbish and not worth playing at all, even if it's free

2 - everything that isn't a 3 or a 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rudderless

Rudderless

Posted
Posted

Three - right in the middle of a five-point scale.

You can tell if it's a 'high three' or a 'low three' then by the text. For example, I've seen some albums that got three stars in Q with a metacritic score of 60 percent, and more positive three star reviews get a 70 percent score on the site.

The main problem with Metacritic is that sometimes the Metascore is unfair. For example, you might get a niche import game that only 5 sites/publications review, and one excessively high or low score would adversely affect the Metascore, whereas your blockbuster games would have 30 to 40-odd reviews, and have a more 'accurate' score.

The best way to counter that, though, is to just read the scores and the summaries for each game and ignore the reviews of the publications or websites you tend to disagree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
furq

furq

Posted
Posted

Three - right in the middle of a five-point scale.

But marking out of five can be considered a SIX-point scale (0-6), so 3/6 is above average.

Marking out of 5 also means that all games which are 'excellent', 'must-buy', 'all-time classics' and 'genius' get the same score. Which is pants.

Loads of games get 4/5, which doesn't help anyone.

And franchises will get the same score every year - shifting by one would be a big political move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popo

Popo

Posted
Posted

But marking out of five can be considered a SIX-point scale (0-6), so 3/6 is above average.

Marking out of 5 also means that all games which are 'excellent', 'must-buy', 'all-time classics' and 'genius' get the same score. Which is pants.

Loads of games get 4/5, which doesn't help anyone.

And franchises will get the same score every year - shifting by one would be a big political move.

It works like this:

1 - very bad

2 - bad

3 - average

4 - good

5 - very good

That's all there is. There is no more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
furq

furq

Posted
Posted

It works like this:

1 - very bad

2 - bad

3 - average

4 - good

5 - very good

That's all there is. There is no more.

It. Doesn't. Work.

10 games a month would get 5/5 (in OXM anyway), and loads and loads would get 4/5 which doesn't help the punter.

What do, say, PES6 and FIFA 07 get (PS2 versions)?

What did Fight Night 1, 2 and 3 get?

Mario 64 and GoldenEye gets the same score as, say, LEGO Star Wars II and Tiger Woods 07? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dapple

Dapple

Posted
Posted

But marking out of five can be considered a SIX-point scale (0-6), so 3/6 is above average.

On a six-point scale, 3 would be below average...

Re: 5-point scale - what Popo said. No need for 0 out of five. The text can make it clear if it's really that bad.

Anyway, I like 10-point scales...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept