Deskalkulos Ildigan
CrimeWave Syndicate
125
   |
Posted - 2013.05.26 10:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
Allah's Snackbar wrote:wripple wrote:Is it just me or does it seem like uplinks and nanohives are suffering from a weird bug where they expire and go away before they become active. Is this caused by deploying it in a bad location or is this just a bug? It's not 59 on metacritic for nothing mate.
Metacritic's by far the worst way to get infos on a game. It outright refuses to change the scores of reviews after release, even if the game got patched up to a state that is far better than the initial release or even if they made factual errors in the first review that influenced the game's final score negatively. Not taking patching / constant evolution of a game or even the possibility of a reviewer screwing up into consideration, is just harmful to the games long term standing, as it gets promoted with scores that are in no way representative to the product after a certain amount of time. Not to mention that the way they weigh things is in no way transparent, so even the scoring shortly after release is highly controversive as no one knows how they ended up with that number. Then the tendency that they convert all reviews to a 0-100 scale, even those which don't give a rating in a numerical value at all, which in turn distorts or outright destroys the original meaning of a review that hasn't been gauged in the 100 point system.
For example in Dust 514's place, if the reviews were treated equally it would have gotten 63 instead of 59 points (it may not seem like much but people are more likely to play a game that has a 6 up front than a 5) - meaning that metacritic weighs the revies of either Eurogamer or Gametrailers, or even both reviewers higher than some or even all the other reviewers. The user score (though more favorable for the game) is even more obstrusive.
So it is safe to say, that metacritic is questionable to say the least. Yet they hold an enormous amount of power in the industry to the point where people actively lose money / their job due to scores, because for some reason a lot of people value metacritic highly. |
Deskalkulos Ildigan
CrimeWave Syndicate
127
|
Posted - 2013.05.26 12:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
S0LlD SNAKE wrote:sorry but dust 514 is 5/10 material and that because its pay to win , i like the game tough and i dont buy aur since its BS 
Doesn't change the fact that metacritic is a horrible site (I tried to keep the ranting part free from oozing a pro Dust514 vibe, it was just easier to use Dust 514 as an example and also more on topic)
The problem is, that in a year or so this 5/10 (or in metacritic terms 50/100) material might increase to a 6 or 7 (or 8 / 9 / 10 / 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4), the metacritic score would still be 59/100.
Also please give an exact definition, what pay to win is. I get the feeling that we might end up talking about two completely different things if we don't get on a common base.
Arramakaian Eka wrote:
While you do have good critique about Metacritic, the way the scoring works and doesn't change even if a game is patched encourages devs to release games which are ready. Way too often these days we get games which should have stayed in beta for many more months, Dust is just one of the many.
Devs need to appreciate that releasing too early not only kittens up your players, it hits the bottom line via poor reviews. Don't blame Metacritic for something which is the responsibility of devs: releasing a game when it is ready, not when a sexy date appears on the calendar.
I totally agree with you, that Dev's should deliver a game when it is ready, and not when "a sexy date appears on the calendar" (hence the thunb up - good point i completely overlooked), it doesn't however change that metacritic is awful. The only thing i blame metacritic for, is a lack of transparency when it comes to the weighting and their irresponsible behaviour with updated reviews/revisited content after major updates etc, something which isn't at all a responsibility of the developers but metacritics own responsibility. Their way may does lead to a certain amount of pressure pre-release to deliver a more polished game, but at the same time it promotes shorter lifespans post release - why fix those bugs if metacritic doesn't update their scores? Why add content post release? |