CVG: 7/10 and the problem of inflated reviews

[Tagaziel]

CVG has an interesting article tackling the issue of review score bloat and the fallacy of using MEtacritic score as an argument (which, sadly, has surfaced around here):

Forming an opinion on a game based on Metacritic alone is like asking a bus full of strangers for personal advice: Regardless of how solid the information you get back is, there's no guarantee that any of it will be right for you.

Getting specifically annoyed at reviews being posted on sites you don't read is the equivalent of getting pissed off at not being able to hear the kind of music you like on every radio station. Media outlets don't choose review scores just so they can be added to a giant gaming spreadsheet: The reviews they write are directly aimed to provide feedback that best fits the requirements and preferences of their readers.

Merge this knowledge with the frighteningly-obvious fact that most outlets use the 10 point scoring scale in a variety of different ways, and suddenly this logically mechanical system is exposed to be as accurate as a toddler with a machine gun.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/326413/features710-the-review-problem/

 

[ríomhaire]

We need to burn every single game review score that's been set down and start over.

 

[Tagaziel]

I heard you want to burn stuff and start things over.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

The overuse of said Metacritic around here [in arguments] just might have something with the Steam store using said service to evaluate games.

 

[Tagaziel]

Which doesn't make it any more valid as an argument.

 

[Raziaar]

Does metacritic not provide links to the actual reviews themselves?

It's an aggregate review site FFS, just like rottentomatoes, that completely separates user reviews(people like you and me) from actual reviewers.

How about you do what you should do when perusing an aggregate review site, and research the individual reviews themselves to get a better feel for yourself.

 

[Tagaziel]

Problem is, people don't do that. People usually post inane bullshit like "[x] game has an [y] Metacritic score, so it's TEH BEST GAEM EVAR". I can't count the times I've heard the argument "Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 1 because of a higher Metacritic score".

 

[Raziaar]

Problem is, people don't do that. People usually post inane bullshit like "[x] game has an [y] Metacritic score, so it's TEH BEST GAEM EVAR". I can't count the times I've heard the argument "Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 1 because of a higher Metacritic score".

Yeah well, people are idiots. That's not the fault of an aggregate review site.

 

[Tagaziel]

No, it's not. The article specifically states that this kind of argument is rubbish, not that the idea of an aggregate site is bad.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I'd argue that if a game fairs drastically low numbers or exceptionally high numbers on Metacritic things are somewhat indicative. Where the system fails is anything in between. So, yeah - I essentially agree with you Tazgiel. And it goes without saying that Steam using the system doesn't justify folks using it as a way of arguing the merits of any given piece of media.