SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - Users vs Critics

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

http://features.metacritic.com/features/2011/game-critic-scores-vs-user-reviews/

A Metacritic article that details the large gap between user and critic reviews on some very large name titles.

Largest differences:

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 PC
Dragon Age II PS3
Grand Theft Auto IV PC
Madden NFL 09 PS3
Dragon Age II PC
Spore

Definitely worth a read.

Posted: May 08 2011 12:01 pm

I disagree with the users comment on Little Big Planet. The gameplay is awesome! It brought me back to the old platforming days when it was just pure fun, no story was really needed and with the customize-ability it made the game SO much better.

I agree with the first game on the User plus list: The Fight: Lights Out. The game is really fun and it does it's job: you do work out and you do burn calories. If anything it's a good way to get your heart rate up.

Posted: May 08 2011 12:19 pm

Very interesting. :3

I agree with the feedback on Dragon Age II, unfortunately. I think I played it all of a half an hour and then gave up in disgust. It was utterly uninteresting to me, which was terribly depressing when I sunk easily 100+ hours into the first one. I wanted to like this game soooo much. I tried so hard.

Also, I agree with the comments on NWN2. I played more of it than I did Dragon Age II, but still, they changed so much in NWN2 that just wasn't broken that it became clunky and unfun for me. Part of the problem though was a computer that was kinda lagging with that game, so maybe I should give it another shot now that I have a better machine.

Oh, and I disagree on the LittleBigPlanet score too. That game is amazing!!

Joined: Mar 18 2010 Location: Tuonela Posts: 299

I rarely check out ratings from Metacritic. I've heard that some companies use it as a criteria for pay raise or bonus, depending on whether their game gets 90+ or not, which is a bit dumb. Metacritic converts everyting to 0-100 scale in a very violent manner. Consider that some sources use stars from 0-5, Famitsu uses 0-40, etc. Conversion seems mathematically simple, but in reality, people have different ways to use their scales. Some mags/sites use the 0-100 from top to bottom, others just use the higher half, and others will never give a full 100. There's also semantic differences between scales: compare three stars to 60 points. At least for me, a game with three stars equals "ok", but 60 points feels much lower. Therefore, something is lost in the conversion.

Posted: May 08 2011 01:37 pm

Dragon Age II wasn't bad, it was just closer to Jade Empire than Dragon Age Origins. People bought something expecting one thing and got something completely different.

Joined: Sep 17 2007 Location: The Opium Trail Posts: 3475

Perhaps I should get me some Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn

Posted: May 08 2011 02:23 pm

I agree with Spore pretty much. I remember that game being quite disappointing.

Joined: Jun 29 2010 Posts: 1818

Pandajuice wrote:

I agree with Spore pretty much. I remember that game being quite disappointing.

Yeah, same here. I mean, they put a lot of focus on the creature building when it came to advertising and trailers, and it was like 20% or so of the expected game play time. That was a slap to the face.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Vaenamoenen wrote:

I rarely check out ratings from Metacritic. I've heard that some companies use it as a criteria for pay raise or bonus, depending on whether their game gets 90+ or not, which is a bit dumb. Metacritic converts everyting to 0-100 scale in a very violent manner. Consider that some sources use stars from 0-5, Famitsu uses 0-40, etc. Conversion seems mathematically simple, but in reality, people have different ways to use their scales. Some mags/sites use the 0-100 from top to bottom, others just use the higher half, and others will never give a full 100. There's also semantic differences between scales: compare three stars to 60 points. At least for me, a game with three stars equals "ok", but 60 points feels much lower. Therefore, something is lost in the conversion.

The system may not be perfect, but it is balanced across their reviews. It isn't like a 3 star rating means something different on each site.

Also, at this point Metacritic and other aggregate scoring sites are a reality. If you aren't rating on a 10/100 point scale, you are doing an injustice to your readers. I would argue that the reviewers need to change their scoring measures in this case.

Posted: May 10 2011 05:58 am

I'd agree with that. Reviews out of a 4 or 5 are just way too broad to have any real meaning. The difference between a 3/5 (60%) and 4/5 (80%) for a game is huge. Every reviewer should at least be on a scale out of 10, if not 100.

Posted: May 10 2011 05:59 pm

If games are going to be scored on an "out of 5" basis, they need to be broken down into categories like Graphics, Control, Story, Fun Factor, Replayability...etc, and they need to be shown and explained why they recieved the scores they did. I hate when they just say, "Control: 2/5".

Posted: May 10 2011 06:16 pm

Douche McCallister wrote:

If games are going to be scored on an "out of 5" basis, they need to be broken down into categories like Graphics, Control, Story, Fun Factor, Replayability...etc, and they need to be shown and explained why they recieved the scores they did. I hate when they just say, "Control: 2/5".

I'm not sure if that's how Gamepro still does it, but back when I was getting it (98-2001) they had the exact set up...

Posted: May 11 2011 01:13 am

I remember X-Play explaining the 5 point rating system once. It made sense.

1 star - Avoid at all costs!
2 star - Try if you like the series/Not for everyone
3 star - Average
4 star - Great, but not perfect
5 star - Perfect, a must play

I understand that different sites use a different system for 5 point ratings, but I still use X-Play's reasoning.

Joined: Jan 09 2010 Posts: 29

Thunderhorse wrote:

I remember X-Play explaining the 5 point rating system once. It made sense.

1 star - Avoid at all costs!
2 star - Try if you like the series/Not for everyone
3 star - Average
4 star - Great, but not perfect
5 star - Perfect, a must play

I understand that different sites use a different system for 5 point ratings, but I still use X-Play's reasoning.

Seems reasonable, but I feel like there should be some middle ground between great and average. This system is essentially saying that if a game doesn't get the "just shy of being perfect" rating (4-star), it's just run-of-the-mill. There are games in between.

Joined: Mar 18 2010 Location: Tuonela Posts: 299

What the review really says for most consumers, is simply:

a) Buy it
b) Buy it, if cheap / tried it and liked it / fan of the genre or series
c) Don't buy it

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

The problem with 5 star systems is that they might be adequate when describing a game to a potential consumer, but they are not sufficient when comparing games to one another.

A 100 point scale is needed to really tell how good two games are compared to each other.

Posted: May 11 2011 12:44 pm

My only reliable gauge of how good a game is is how much I care to finish it. I have beaten very few games, but those I have completed are the most memorable to me. The only exceptions are those with crappy endings, but those are even fewer. After that, the next measure is how much I think about it when I'm not playing it. Every RPG I've played past the halfway point gets me thinking about the characters' motivations and why I bothered interacting with them. I reason that if I think too much about something while I'm waiting at a red light, they must be doing something right.

Posted: May 11 2011 04:40 pm

Nothing pissed me off more than DA:2 reviews and how off they were.

They sang like that game was God's Gift to earth and it was "meh" especially compared to the first one.

But, lets look at it.

From what I know, DA:O took YEARS to create. EA is a company that loves to capitalize off a games prior name, and will slap a harsh deadline onto games, so they rushed out a new DA to cash in on the name.

They did it to Command and Conquer, Need For Speed, Now Dragon Age, and others.

I fucking HATE EA for that.

On the other hand, we have a company like Blizzard who releases fucking GEMS IMO, but they take damn near 5-10 years to create.

For me? I'd rather wait for those Gems. I can still pop in Starcraft 1, any of the Warcrafts, or Diablos and love it. I'm even back into WoW again.

Posted: May 11 2011 09:46 pm

The problem is that when you have a successful game and an engine to build upon already in place from the first game, they require very little in the form of development times. This is especially true with Madden's. You have all the ground work done and you just revamp and adjust it. I don't especially like rushed sequels no matter what the game but companies like EA need to keep them fresh in our minds so newer games from different companies don't come along and take our $.

Posted: May 12 2011 12:48 am

I would love to see what would happen if they stopped doing yearly releases on Madden and focused on improving the gameplay enough to justify a new purchase, like SNK Playmore did with King of Fighters.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

The-Excel wrote:

I would love to see what would happen if they stopped doing yearly releases on Madden and focused on improving the gameplay enough to justify a new purchase, like SNK Playmore did with King of Fighters.

Like creating a game called "Madden 1.0" and offering continuous roster updates. Then a few years later releasing "Madded 2.0" with a new graphics engine, features, etc...

Ideally being able to move game stats from 1.0 to 2.0 in the form of season/career play and self made teams. Rosters continuing to be available for all platforms though through the life of the console.

Posted: May 12 2011 04:30 pm

It will be interesting to see what they include in this years Madden as the new feature. Last years was stupid. You can set up a gameplan. Whoo...fucking...Hoo...I really don't see me buying a Madden especially since the EA license isn't gonna be exclusive anymore, here comes NFL 2K12!

Posted: May 12 2011 05:53 pm

Douche McCallister wrote:

It will be interesting to see what they include in this years Madden as the new feature. Last years was stupid. You can set up a gameplan. Whoo...fucking...Hoo...I really don't see me buying a Madden especially since the EA license isn't gonna be exclusive anymore, here comes NFL 2K12!

Since 2006 I have only purchased two Madden Games, Madden 2004 and Madden 10. 04 was pre-owned and Madden 10 was on sale for five bucks at target. Madden has never interested me no matter how much the critics say "This years is the best ever" They should bring back Mutant Football League...