Metascores and my thoughts

[Gabb]

In many past arguments, I am often quoted using metascores to justify whether a game is good or not ( or to be accurate whether its worth my time or not ). My friends often ask me why I hold such a value to metascores and often refuse to play a game below a metascore of 80. I thought I would take the time to explain so here are my reasons;

First off, we have such limited time in the world, especially if we hold a full time job or have a family, why waste time with games that aren't the best ( the best being a subjective term, but read on for further explanation ). Second off, because of this limited time factor it is impossible to have first hand experience with EVERY game ( not to mention the limited money factor if the game doesn't have a demo or we can't try it out beforehand ), so we have to compensate for this by using other peoples opinions, the opinions I rely on are metascores. These opinions aren't just some 12 year old kid whos played a game for 5 minutes and threw it away ( which is most of the user reviews on Gamespot ), these are professionals whos jobs are to critique a game, they have vast amounts of experience to compare a game being reviewed to classics of the past and often look at all the dimensions of a game ( graphics, gameplay, controls, presentation etc and most important of all, replay value ). If one game site is in fact bias, well then that won't matter much because I'm not looking at an individual critic's score, but the average of all the professional critics' score of a game.

Metascore is even powerful enough to change the games developers/publishers stock before the game even comes out ( proven by Bioshock ). If a game has a metascore below 80, then something is wrong with it seen by a huge majority of the professional critic community, sure the game can still be fun, but theres so many other games that are fun and don't have these serious faults. I understand that these serious faults the metacritics find in itself are just opinions and are always subjective, but from my personal experience these opinions match my own.

For example, the reason FarCry 2 didn't get a 90+ metascore was that many professional critics were cited as saying the games single player is INCREDIBLY repetitive. I took a chance and gave the game a try to see what I would think and not surprisingly while I was going through the single player I thought….WOW this game really is repetitive. That didn't completely ruin the game experience as there were many other redeeming qualities ( which is also the reason why it didn't get below an 80 ), but that's an example of how the meta opinions matched my own. Sure there are probably exceptions where the meta opinion won't match my own and theres some hidden jewel somewhere…but we at least need some sort of a guide right? I can't waste my time and money playing every game to find this one hidden jewel whos meta opinions differ vastly from my own. Its also incredibly rare this event can happen. I challenge you all to find an amazingly fun and good game ( of high caliber ) that has under a metascore of 50…I've tried and don't think it can be done.

Some may say, I will try a game if I'm interested regardless of metascores or not, and that's a fair statement. However is it really a fair decision to those who are financially and time limited to place a whopping $60 dollars down at times to discover that the game that got a bad metascore really IS bad to them as well? Nothing feels worse then making those kinds of decisions where “you should have listened to others.” There's other more important decisions like car buying that are almost a requirement to research professional reviews on. Test drives however offer us first hand experience without taking much time and are free

Lastly there is a very strong correlation with games I enjoy and find to be superb ( GTA4, Mario Galaxy, SSBB, MGS4, Fallout 3, Oblivion 4, Dead Space, Left4Dead, Crysis ) that have a very high metascore, and I don't think this is any coincidence, I think professional critics, at least meta wise, know what a “good” game is ( despite the fact that good will always be subjective, their definition corresponds with mine ). At the same time, if a game that doesn't grab my attention initially ( Oblivion 4 ), gets a good metascore as it did, I usually take notice and this led me to trying out Oblivion 4 and finding out that I agreed with the meta opinion, it was quite an amazing game indeed.

If I have no other choice, I would always trust the overall opinions of professional critics over a single gamers opinion, I think this is a fair statement. I think at the very least metascores should be used as a guide, but if you even have less time and money then its okay to use it as a judgment to whether or not to play the game in the first place. First hand experience will always and I can't stress this enough, always give you a better impression on your thoughts of a game ( kind of obvious ) but in an ideal world we don't have the financial or times to experience everything we want and that's when metascores come in.. Thoughts and comments appreciated

 

[aaronkupen]

I don't disregard metascore as an adequate accumulation of critic reactions to a game, I am just saying that most video game critics are inadequate.

I raise your example of the repetitiveness of farcry 2 getting deducted points with the fact that an even more repetitive game -- GTA4 -- still received many perfect scores and is considered one of the best games of all time.

Critics are entirely too objective with video games as well, if game A has 10 weapons and 5 multiplayer levels, but the sequel comes out with an extra few weapons and an extra multiplayer level ... that automatically means it is a better game. I don't necessarily agree with that frame of mind.

However, in a day where video games cost $60, I think critics can be useful to get some sort of idea --- but actually going by the numerical score seems a little bit dodgy at best to me. I much prefer reviews that disregard numerical scores for a more thorough evaluation of the game where the consumer can actually make up their mind based upon the opinions of the game. What if a user likes repetitiveness? What if the reviewer didn't like something in the game that someone else may like? The score would not accurately reflect that then, and I think a lot of people who would have been happy with playing that more poorly rated are now being put off due to low (and meaningless) scores.

 

[stb1swat]

I generally know what video games I want to play, through following the development or friends.

So, while I do think metascore is better than most reviewers, I generally tend to do my own reviewing.

Reviews do a better job telling people certain games are bad...rather then if they're good or not.

 

[aaronkupen]

Reviews do a better job telling people certain games are bad...rather then if they're good or not.

I'd generally agree with that.

 

[ricanflow]

Problem i find with "metascores" is games are personal preference....i dont care how professional a critic may be and how many games theyve played. They still dont have the qualifications to tell me whether i should play this game or that game.

If i like a game, ill play it.

Just because 10 people give a game a low score doesnt mean its bad....it just is to them.

 

[Gabb]

I raise your example of the repetitiveness of farcry 2 getting deducted points with the fact that an even more repetitive game -- GTA4 -- still received many perfect scores and is considered one of the best games of all time.

.

whoa whoa...being as that I just finished Farcry 2 and GTA4 I think I'm in good position to compare them and evaluate your claims to which I highly disagree too, heres why. Farcry 2 and GTA 4 Both involve a lot of "go from point A to point B" type objectives, however heres where the similarities end. GTA 4 is not repetitive simply because of the vast universe it involves you in. Disregarding the huge living spawling city your in, the large amounts of entertainment the radio, internet, and television can provide in the game is remarkable. Combine this with the far superior emotion invoking story line ( imho ) with incredibly high movie like production values when it comes to character design and voice acting as well as dialogue. Not to even mention all the mini games the games offers like darts, pool, bowling, I am just completely baffled as to why people wouldn't enjoy the game since it seems to literally offer something for everyone. The physics crashing alone provides hours of entertainment, and the game is filled with replay value in the superior multiplayer component with a lot of unique multiplayer modes like cops n crooks. This game is so many leaps and bounds beyond Farcry 2 imho, I just don't know where to start. Oh and I forgot to mention the most important part, GTA4s missions have a LOT more variety compared to Farcry 2...I mean theres some missions where your stalking people or escorting them, Farcry 2 had none of that.

Critics are entirely too objective with video games as well, if game A has 10 weapons and 5 multiplayer levels, but the sequel comes out with an extra few weapons and an extra multiplayer level ... that automatically means it is a better game. I don't necessarily agree with that frame of mind.
.

I disagree with this statement and don't find it corresponds to many reviews IGN and Gamespot write. Often times adding just a few more weapons and levels is not enough in a professional critics mind. If the game developer sticks to the same classic gameplay, they have to refine it to perfection which is GTA4s case when compared to other GTAs.

However, in a day where video games cost $60, I think critics can be useful to get some sort of idea --- but actually going by the numerical score seems a little bit dodgy at best to me. I much prefer reviews that disregard numerical scores for a more thorough evaluation of the game where the consumer can actually make up their mind based upon the opinions of the game. What if a user likes repetitiveness? What if the reviewer didn't like something in the game that someone else may like? The score would not accurately reflect that then, and I think a lot of people who would have been happy with playing that more poorly rated are now being put off due to low (and meaningless) scores.

Theres always subjective factors that come into play and not everyone can be appealed to, but as Zmatt said...theres some sort of general consensus about certain things, one being that people do NOT like repetitiveness in their games lastly, my point was, theres so many superb games out there that you will enjoy very much, so why care about missing a game that you might enjoy but got a bad review? Seriously...theres way too many games to worry about stuff like this

Problem i find with "metascores" is games are personal preference....i dont care how professional a critic may be and how many games theyve played. They still dont have the qualifications to tell me whether i should play this game or that game.

If i like a game, ill play it.

Just because 10 people give a game a low score doesnt mean its bad....it just is to them.

Did you read all of my post ricanflow? The main point pretty much was, that in the real world we don't have all the time and money to discover the stuff we like or will not like, hence to your statement "if I like a game, ill play it", how do you determine if you like the game or not? Do you always buy every game you are interested in? In the past, I think either you and/or Zmatt stated that they decided they didn't like L4D based on screenshots, is that really more accurate then metascores?

 

[Oreo]

I usually know what games im going to get, i only check reviews if it's a game i havn't been following but looks good. But games like Empire: Total War, i have been following, i know it will be good, so i won't read any reviews, same with GTA4.

However games like Company of Heroes i never followed the development of the game, but it happened to catch my eyes. I saw the reviews and purchased the game, i never use metacritic though - i just read IGN reviews, occasionaly Gamespot and Kotaku and on the rare occasion eurogamer. I do this because i find i would rate games very close to what IGN rate them, the only game that they have reviewed well and i didn't like so much was Mass Effect for xbox 360.

 

[ricanflow]

Did you read all of my post ricanflow? The main point pretty much was, that in the real world we don't have all the time and money to discover the stuff we like or will not like, hence to your statement "if I like a game, ill play it", how do you determine if you like the game or not? Do you always buy every game you are interested in? In the past, I think either you and/or Zmatt stated that they decided they didn't like L4D based on screenshots, is that really more accurate then metascores?

Doesnt matter how i acquire the game.

I dont like left 4 dead because its a valve game, ive tried multiple valve games before and didnt like them. And i hate steam with a passion as well....i shouldint have to use a third party application to play a game.

Usually when a game comes out, theres a demo/beta. i try them, and if i like it i buy it. Or i acquire a game by other means, and if i like it again ill buy it.

Sometimes i get them for free, like when i bought my GTX 295 it came with FC2. I was never intresested in the game but i installed it and gave it a shot and it was pretty cool.

 

[Gabb]

Usually when a game comes out, theres a demo/beta. i try them, and if i like it i buy it. Or i acquire a game by other means, and if i like it again ill buy it.

Hmmm but theres so many games coming out. Even if we were under the assumption that all these games have demos ( which is not true ), the demos are usually very large ( almost always true now, demos seem to be 1+ gb now ) and consume a lot of time to play ( due to the fact it makes you go through the tutorial ). At one point or another your going to have to make a sacrifice and just skip a whole bunch of games your interested in, and my question to you is, how do you determine which games to skip?

If you answer, well games that look interesting, I go by that as well. Even then however, there is many games that look interesting to me that I don't have time for, and that is one of my points...its only then do I use the metascore as a guidelines to guide me in the right direction, and devote time to trying out games that I am interested in. If your one of those casual gamers that aren't interested in very many games and really only purchase just a few games a year, well then yeah, the metascore guide wouldn't be very useful to you.

Sometimes i get them for free, like when i bought my GTX 295 it came with FC2. I was never intresested in the game but i installed it and gave it a shot and it was pretty cool.

Well yeah thats always nice, but its rare that happens. Also what about the games you weren't interested in that got very good scores? Isn't there a good chance your missing out on games you might love because you didn't use the metascore guide? Oblivion 4 is the perfect example for me...I dont even like fantasy RPGs to be honest, the game got so many game of the year awards that when I finally checked it out, that despite my interests, not even I could deny it was an amazing game and I had an amazing time playing it.

 

[stb1swat]

Gabb, do you actually worry that you might miss out on some "good" game? Far as I can tell that's your reasoning for promoting metascore.