Do MMO companies pay them all? Does Metacritic give preferential "weight" to reviews from the "big dogs" like IGN/PC World etc.?
No and NO.
Critics reviews individually may be questionable, but the average Metacritic displays as "Critics Review" is far, far more reliable than a single review site or any combination of user reviews.
Kind of contridictory to my previous statements, but I didn't see that TSW review was from 39 different Critics.
So what happened with TOR review? 73 critics, 68 of them positive!
Big problem with MMO reviews - they are ALWAYS too early.
I did the same thing with TOR - loved it at first, for the first 4-6 weeks I was hooked. But not worth subscribing too long term. Is ANY review site going to wait 2-3 months to publish their review? NOPE.
Listen, there are a lot of tiny sites out there rewieving games to get attention. They won't get attention by giving GW2 a 90 score.
At least a handful of them will give the game very low score just to stand out from the crowd and get a lot of angry GW2 fans to register on their #"¤#"¤ web page to rage.
To counter this, there will of course be the usual fight over who can praise the saviour the loudest too.
Originally posted by Creslin321 I think it's funny that some folks chose <70%...I mean, even you absolutely despise the game...we're talking professional game reviews here. There is NO WAY that GW2 is going to get <70% on metacritic. I mean, WAR got 86% LOL .
It's not a contest to pick the metric others will vote for.
Originally posted by Creslin321 I think it's funny that some folks chose <70%...I mean, even you absolutely despise the game...we're talking professional game reviews here. There is NO WAY that GW2 is going to get <70% on metacritic. I mean, WAR got 86% LOL .
It's not a contest to pick the metric others will vote for.
I'm not saying it is...I'm just saying they are wrong . If they are right, I will delete my MMORPG account. You can hold me to that.
I think the game will end up in the high-80s, low 90s. Reason being is the game does have a polarising effect on a lot of people. There's a lot of people who absolutely love it, but there are also a lot of people who will just find any excuse to bash the game they can.
I suspect there's going to be a decent amount of reviewers also stuck in the WoW-mentallity, who will rate the game poorly based on that alone. I've already seen quite a few vloggers doing this already (inspite their fans trying to point out their mistakes). Some people just don't care if they're viewing something wrong.
Do MMO companies pay them all? Does Metacritic give preferential "weight" to reviews from the "big dogs" like IGN/PC World etc.?
No and NO.
Critics reviews individually may be questionable, but the average Metacritic displays as "Critics Review" is far, far more reliable than a single review site or any combination of user reviews.
Kind of contridictory to my previous statements, but I didn't see that TSW review was from 39 different Critics.
So what happened with TOR review? 73 critics, 68 of them positive!
Big problem with MMO reviews - they are ALWAYS too early.
I did the same thing with TOR - loved it at first, for the first 4-6 weeks I was hooked. But not worth subscribing too long term. Is ANY review site going to wait 2-3 months to publish their review? NOPE.
Diablo 3: critic score 88, user score 3.8. Which one is closer to the truth?
Diablo 3: critic score 88, user score 3.8. Which one is closer to the truth?
I find diablo 3 an average game overall but most those low scores came right from launch when the servers blew up and people couldn't log in so they filled the rating with 0 scores
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
Do MMO companies pay them all? Does Metacritic give preferential "weight" to reviews from the "big dogs" like IGN/PC World etc.?
No and NO.
Critics reviews individually may be questionable, but the average Metacritic displays as "Critics Review" is far, far more reliable than a single review site or any combination of user reviews.
Kind of contridictory to my previous statements, but I didn't see that TSW review was from 39 different Critics.
So what happened with TOR review? 73 critics, 68 of them positive!
Big problem with MMO reviews - they are ALWAYS too early.
I did the same thing with TOR - loved it at first, for the first 4-6 weeks I was hooked. But not worth subscribing too long term. Is ANY review site going to wait 2-3 months to publish their review? NOPE.
Diablo 3: critic score 88, user score 3.8. Which one is closer to the truth?
I don't think D3 deserved an 88, I would say like 82...so I think the critic score is WAY closer to the truth.
I have to ask, have you ever played a truly bad game? Like ET? Or Big Rigs: over the road racing? Or Daikatana?
THOSE games are actually bad and deserve very low scores...D3 may not have been as good as D2, and may even be inferior to TL in some ways, but in NO WAY does it deserve a 3.8.
I really feel like if you think that D3 deserves a 3.8, then you have no sense of perspective in what makes a good and a bad game.
I think, all things being equal, that the critic score will be somewhere around 95, provided they "get it". User score - again if done fairly - slightly higher.
Now, considering how things actually run on those sites, the actual numbers will be a little lower, maybe around 90 for critics and slightly higher for users - if the haters don't purposely try to downgrade the score. Considering some of the hatred I've seen on this site, I wouldn't be very surprised. lol
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Do MMO companies pay them all? Does Metacritic give preferential "weight" to reviews from the "big dogs" like IGN/PC World etc.?
No and NO.
Critics reviews individually may be questionable, but the average Metacritic displays as "Critics Review" is far, far more reliable than a single review site or any combination of user reviews.
Kind of contridictory to my previous statements, but I didn't see that TSW review was from 39 different Critics.
So what happened with TOR review? 73 critics, 68 of them positive!
Big problem with MMO reviews - they are ALWAYS too early.
I did the same thing with TOR - loved it at first, for the first 4-6 weeks I was hooked. But not worth subscribing too long term. Is ANY review site going to wait 2-3 months to publish their review? NOPE.
Diablo 3: critic score 88, user score 3.8. Which one is closer to the truth?
I don't think D3 deserved an 88, I would say like 82...so I think the critic score is WAY closer to the truth.
I have to ask, have you ever played a truly bad game? Like ET? Or Big Rigs: over the road racing? Or Daikatana?
THOSE games are actually bad and deserve very low scores...D3 may not have been as good as D2, and may even be inferior to TL in some ways, but in NO WAY does it deserve a 3.8.
I really feel like if you think that D3 deserves a 3.8, then you have no sense of perspective in what makes a good and a bad game.
Different people have different rating systems I guess. For me a great game is above 8, an average game is between 4-6 and a truly horrible game is at 0-1. D3 is an average game so I'd give it a ~5. (and in no way is torlchlight better than either d2 or d3, I would give it a 2 or2.5 max)
An 82 for D3 seems crazy and unrealistic and (as the user reviews show) most people would agree with me and not you.
lol. similar.... try mirroring that. you obvious made arbitrary scales for some reason that I can only attribute to laziness or you are trying to coerce people into choosing a score that you had a personal connecton to. It is unethical.
Do MMO companies pay them all? Does Metacritic give preferential "weight" to reviews from the "big dogs" like IGN/PC World etc.?
No and NO.
Critics reviews individually may be questionable, but the average Metacritic displays as "Critics Review" is far, far more reliable than a single review site or any combination of user reviews.
Kind of contridictory to my previous statements, but I didn't see that TSW review was from 39 different Critics.
So what happened with TOR review? 73 critics, 68 of them positive!
Big problem with MMO reviews - they are ALWAYS too early.
I did the same thing with TOR - loved it at first, for the first 4-6 weeks I was hooked. But not worth subscribing too long term. Is ANY review site going to wait 2-3 months to publish their review? NOPE.
Diablo 3: critic score 88, user score 3.8. Which one is closer to the truth?
I don't think D3 deserved an 88, I would say like 82...so I think the critic score is WAY closer to the truth.
I have to ask, have you ever played a truly bad game? Like ET? Or Big Rigs: over the road racing? Or Daikatana?
THOSE games are actually bad and deserve very low scores...D3 may not have been as good as D2, and may even be inferior to TL in some ways, but in NO WAY does it deserve a 3.8.
I really feel like if you think that D3 deserves a 3.8, then you have no sense of perspective in what makes a good and a bad game.
Different people have different rating systems I guess. For me a great game is above 8, an average game is between 4-6 and a truly horrible game is at 0-1. D3 is an average game so I'd give it a ~5. (and in no way is torlchlight better than either d2 or d3, I would give it a 2 or2.5 max)
An 82 for D3 seems crazy and unrealistic and (as the user reviews show) most people would agree with me and not you.
Yeah but here's the thing...we are talking about metacritic here, which is just a aggregate of review scores. And MOST reviewers use a scale similar to the US grading system, which basically means that metacritic uses the US grading system as well. A 80-89 score for a game is very comparable to getting a "B" on your paper in school.
We are not talking about someone's arbitrarily defined scale. And honestly, arguing that you like using the whole scale or whatever is kind of dumb anyway, because there are an infinite amount of number between any two integers anyway. So it's not like you're losing any expressiveness by basically dismissing all numbers below 7 as "failure."
My viewpoint is that we may as well just use the scale that the majority of other people use. All trying to use your own scale does is muck things up...there is nothing inherently "better" with any scale over another.
lol. similar.... try mirroring that. you obvious made arbitrary scales for some reason that I can only attribute to laziness or you are trying to coerce people into choosing a score that you had a personal connecton to. It is unethical.
Yes I am uethical, go ahead and report me to the BBB lol. It's just a freaking poll. It's off by ONE number from that scale. ONE NUMBER. And this is out of a 100 point scale.
Also, what agenda do I have here? How am I trying to coerce people to choose something?
YOU personally may not like GW2, but anyone thinking its over-all Metacritic score (based on average of Critics reviews) is going to be anything less than 70% is "dey turk our jerbz!" stupid.
YOU personally may not like GW2, but anyone thinking its over-all Metacritic score (based on average of Critics reviews) is going to be anything less than 70% is "dey turk our jerbz!" stupid.
Thank you lol . I seriously thought people had lost their minds.
YOU personally may not like GW2, but anyone thinking its over-all Metacritic score (based on average of Critics reviews) is going to be anything less than 70% is "dey turk our jerbz!" stupid.
Thank you lol . I seriously thought people had lost their minds.
CRESLIN IS ASKING WHAT METACRITIC OVER-ALL SCORE FOR CRITICS IS GOING TO BE - NOT WHAT YOU THINK THE SCORE SHOULD BE
Comments
Wait, do people think that Metacritic invents their Critics score out of the blue?
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-secret-world/critic-reviews
39 different critics reviews.
Do MMO companies pay them all? Does Metacritic give preferential "weight" to reviews from the "big dogs" like IGN/PC World etc.?
No and NO.
Critics reviews individually may be questionable, but the average Metacritic displays as "Critics Review" is far, far more reliable than a single review site or any combination of user reviews.
Kind of contridictory to my previous statements, but I didn't see that TSW review was from 39 different Critics.
So what happened with TOR review? 73 critics, 68 of them positive!
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/star-wars-the-old-republic/critic-reviews?num_items=100
Big problem with MMO reviews - they are ALWAYS too early.
I did the same thing with TOR - loved it at first, for the first 4-6 weeks I was hooked. But not worth subscribing too long term. Is ANY review site going to wait 2-3 months to publish their review? NOPE.
Listen, there are a lot of tiny sites out there rewieving games to get attention. They won't get attention by giving GW2 a 90 score.
At least a handful of them will give the game very low score just to stand out from the crowd and get a lot of angry GW2 fans to register on their #"¤#"¤ web page to rage.
To counter this, there will of course be the usual fight over who can praise the saviour the loudest too.
My guess: 81
It's not a contest to pick the metric others will vote for.
ppl still taking metacritics seriously ? lol
every hater can go there and just put a low scores just for the sake of it
once MoP is out i will go give it a 1.0 without playing it, that will do it xd
I'm not saying it is...I'm just saying they are wrong
. If they are right, I will delete my MMORPG account. You can hold me to that.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
If you want to poll what people think user score will be...then make a thread for it.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
The world we know is going away http://www.graystatemovie.com/
Look up Agenda 21 as well.
I think the game will end up in the high-80s, low 90s. Reason being is the game does have a polarising effect on a lot of people. There's a lot of people who absolutely love it, but there are also a lot of people who will just find any excuse to bash the game they can.
I suspect there's going to be a decent amount of reviewers also stuck in the WoW-mentallity, who will rate the game poorly based on that alone. I've already seen quite a few vloggers doing this already (inspite their fans trying to point out their mistakes). Some people just don't care if they're viewing something wrong.
Diablo 3: critic score 88, user score 3.8. Which one is closer to the truth?
my review of GW2
I find diablo 3 an average game overall but most those low scores came right from launch when the servers blew up and people couldn't log in so they filled the rating with 0 scores
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
I don't think D3 deserved an 88, I would say like 82...so I think the critic score is WAY closer to the truth.
I have to ask, have you ever played a truly bad game? Like ET? Or Big Rigs: over the road racing? Or Daikatana?
THOSE games are actually bad and deserve very low scores...D3 may not have been as good as D2, and may even be inferior to TL in some ways, but in NO WAY does it deserve a 3.8.
I really feel like if you think that D3 deserves a 3.8, then you have no sense of perspective in what makes a good and a bad game.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I think, all things being equal, that the critic score will be somewhere around 95, provided they "get it". User score - again if done fairly - slightly higher.
Now, considering how things actually run on those sites, the actual numbers will be a little lower, maybe around 90 for critics and slightly higher for users - if the haters don't purposely try to downgrade the score. Considering some of the hatred I've seen on this site, I wouldn't be very surprised. lol
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
OP - take a lesson in social-statistics.
your scales ranges are inconsistant and the fact there is no ranges for anything below 70 notes your obvious bias.
if you want a fair and unbiased metacritic score, you have construct yout pole better.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
Glad you got it.
Since when is Tuesday a direction?
Anyone who think that GW2 will get <70% on metacritic is being completely unrealistic. Sorry, but the poll is fine
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
At least make the ranges consistant. This is the reason why China is winning.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
Different people have different rating systems I guess. For me a great game is above 8, an average game is between 4-6 and a truly horrible game is at 0-1. D3 is an average game so I'd give it a ~5. (and in no way is torlchlight better than either d2 or d3, I would give it a 2 or2.5 max)
An 82 for D3 seems crazy and unrealistic and (as the user reviews show) most people would agree with me and not you.
my review of GW2
The poll is constructed in similar fashion to how the +/- grading scale works:
http://people.sunyit.edu/~boylank/scale.html
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
lol. similar.... try mirroring that. you obvious made arbitrary scales for some reason that I can only attribute to laziness or you are trying to coerce people into choosing a score that you had a personal connecton to. It is unethical.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
Yeah but here's the thing...we are talking about metacritic here, which is just a aggregate of review scores. And MOST reviewers use a scale similar to the US grading system, which basically means that metacritic uses the US grading system as well. A 80-89 score for a game is very comparable to getting a "B" on your paper in school.
We are not talking about someone's arbitrarily defined scale. And honestly, arguing that you like using the whole scale or whatever is kind of dumb anyway, because there are an infinite amount of number between any two integers anyway. So it's not like you're losing any expressiveness by basically dismissing all numbers below 7 as "failure."
My viewpoint is that we may as well just use the scale that the majority of other people use. All trying to use your own scale does is muck things up...there is nothing inherently "better" with any scale over another.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Yes I am uethical, go ahead and report me to the BBB lol. It's just a freaking poll. It's off by ONE number from that scale. ONE NUMBER. And this is out of a 100 point scale.
Also, what agenda do I have here? How am I trying to coerce people to choose something?
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Creslin is right -
YOU personally may not like GW2, but anyone thinking its over-all Metacritic score (based on average of Critics reviews) is going to be anything less than 70% is "dey turk our jerbz!" stupid.
Thank you lol
. I seriously thought people had lost their minds.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
CRESLIN IS ASKING WHAT METACRITIC OVER-ALL SCORE FOR CRITICS IS GOING TO BE - NOT WHAT YOU THINK THE SCORE SHOULD BE