-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Metacritic are doing a "Must-Play Games" badge for games rated 90 or higher
- Thread starter Gravity Insanity
- Start date
First post nailed it, again.
I can't believe there's still cash bonus on MC/GMRK score. They should check sales, not scores.
When people get so invested in a MetaCritic score they go on dozens of pages arguing about whether a game should be 89 or a 90, when developer's bonuses are withheld because they were 2 points away from a 90 (on a 100-point scale, which means they missed the mark by 2%), when posters use the MC score to prove a point, yes it is trash and awful.
Bonuses being withheld if one potential troll review gives a or 3 or 4 and holds a score from 90 is shitty.
Because the dev team can't control sales very well, but they have more control (albeit not absolute, particularly if it's an experimental or divisive concept) over the quality of the game, which MC scores usually roughly represent. You have exceptions like the Wonderful 101, but it's generally a decent metric of quality.
And the two yellow reviews both complained the game was "too difficult" as reasons to take the metacritic down. Unbelievable
this happens already with score requirements for bonuses
I don't see how adding a badge to a score is going to make things worse
also, surely the blame for those situations should rest on the publishers, not metacritic
I bolded all the parts that are an issue with people choosing to respond to metacritic scores in a certain way that are not inherent issues to metacritic scores themselves. How is it a MetaCritic score's fault gamers are hysterical manchildren when a thing they like is criticized or judged more negatively by someone else?
If your issue is entirely the studio bonus issue, advocate for better workplace policies and worker protections - don't yell at numbers. Publishers would just immediately pick a new metric to base bonuses on anyway. It has nothing to do with metacritic.
Yep.
IMO, they shouldn't do separate rankings per platform. It does not make sense (except rare cases).
I can see many a publisher paying a fee to put the meta critic must play on their game of the year box art
How exactly is that Metacritic's fault? If you don't like bonuses based on Metacritic scores, bitch at publishers, not them.
There's an argument for both. If everything is just based on sales, then we could see fewer experimental games with everyone just chasing the mainstream.
But a bonus is just a bonus.
If they are gonna go down this route just make it 95 or higher, so many games get above 90 it's not even really that big of a deal. For me there are certain games I will make myself try even if I suspect they aren't for me, because the reviews and word of mouth are exceptionally high. I see those as 'must plays', but God of War would be an example of this and that only got a 94.
Nope, if consumers didn't lived or died by it then none of this would've happened.
Look no further than all the review thread people are making over here or the importance Rotten Tomatoes is given.
Thankfully more website are getting rid of scores which is pretty great.
Thank god for opencritic cutting through the bullshit and giving us the real scores oh wait they're virtually indistinguishable from MC scores.
Just further warping a perverse review scale in which anything lower than an 8.0 indicates the game is utter garbage.
The people who take part in that are part of the problem. It's a vicious circle that needs to be broken.
