Fuck those nerds. Kotaku is a shit heel of a website. Metacritic sucks ass too. Any game that spent over $100 million dollars on development automatically gets a 90 out of 100. We are so pumped. Games win!
haha, nice! love the link. I realize that contextually Jason was mostly in agreement with him and I think that makes his word choice all the more interesting. We could argue about the definition of "aberrant" all we want, however, Jason isn't necessarily being negative about Tom so much as condescending. Just like putting "CONTEXT" in all caps was condescending. Critique is a conversation. Not a lecture.
I believe a wise man once said that the sign of a mature medium was that the critical successes and commercial successes are not the same.
Apologies, I forget that this is the internet, where details like using CAPS is offensive - I merely meant to emphasize. But interestingly, it did illustrate my point - subjective analysis led to misunderstanding. So yes, choice of words is important, especially in today's abbreviated culture. But there's something to be said for the lost art of listening and actually attempting to *understand*, in context, what someone actually *means* as opposed to what they *say*.
Which brings me back to the seemingly singular attack on "abherrent". I don't see it, or the article, as condescending, given the big picture, and certainly no more so than Tom's divisive response. Yet I see precious few people calling Tom out on that issue.
(I might add, I agree with most of Tom's points, just not his perceived offense and his insistence that his views differ so "completely" from Jason's when, in fact, they are mostly aligned.)
Actually, that's not the shorter version but the incorrect version. What I'm saying is that if a review with a score is to be useful - it has to strive for the objective.
If you just want to speak your mind and offer your subjective opinion, that's fine - but then you should leave out the actual score. Especially if you're part of metacritic. Otherwise, you're only helping to misinform.
It's like striving for perfection even when you know it will never be achieved.
No, I mean the occasional fair review where an attempt at being objective has been made.
I rarely agree with any review, much less Tom's reviews. But I believe myself capable of detecting when someone is trying to be objective - which you need to try when giving a score.
It's rare for Tom to achieve that. I think it happens when he's not too invested in the game - and he's just going through the motions.
That's sweet.
Are you an idiot, or are you just unable to read the post you're responding to?
I'm sorry you don't like my opinion of Tom's reviews and you're all butthurt about it - but please crawl back into Tom's ass.
*kisses*
"That's ultimately one of the reasons I'm on Metacritic: I believe a wider range of opinions can add to its value.”
So you decided to participate? You commented on one of your other reviews, I think Halo 4, that you didn't ask to be included in Metacritic's aggregation data. Can you clarify this Tom? Thanks.
I think the most accurate thing said in that article is that publishers are just using this as leverage to avoid royalty payout. From my experience in the business world people are going to use any and all means they can to minimize costs and payouts, and I believe this to be especially true of larger publishers. If enough developers push back, or at least the best and most sought after developers push back, I think this will become less of an issue.
If anything bonuses should be tied to sales. If I make you money, I make money.
Give up already. If you believe that is the only reason his site gets traffic then why did you come here and give him more?
Burn? You really called him out on his progressive ideals there.
My personal opinion is that Metacritic couldnt go away fast enough, and that talking about entertainment media would only change for the better. Learning that it even decides HR decisions makes me loathe it even more.
Its always fun how Tom messes with it though, even more when he does it on purpose. <3 Tom.
l liked Dragon Age 2 despite it being a significantly flawed game. It was decent as you say. "Decent" is not 82/100 however by any scale I've seen any reviewer ever claim to use. That 4.2/10 probably was the effect of an internet tantrum, but is it any more ridiculous than the critic score? I would say not.
This article makes too much sense. It does not belong in this debate.
For the longest time critics like Adam Sessler have been clamoring for Metacritic to cease its aggregation of reviews into one number, but those critics completely ignore how so many people are being ignorant of the fact that ALL reviews are subjective and are not equal.
If the videogame developers and publishers want to include Metacritic in their contracts that is between them. Sure, I think it is foolish to do that, but I had nothing to do with the deal and the deal does not affect me.
There are some websites that have a review scale where the text of the review could indicate all kinds of bad, but the review still gets a 6/10 or something that is above the median. Metacritic isn't messed up, reviewers are.
I doubt a publisher would care about review scores or Metacritic as long as there is a return on investment.
No review or reviewer "strives for the objective." Any author who claims otherwise is either lying (to bolster their own rep) or stupid. It's impossible to write a single word of a game review of any worth without being subjective.
An "objective review" of, say, Bioshock Infinite would just go over the characters, plot points, levels, weapons, collectibles, and color palettes with no interpretation or critique whatsoever. Literally, it would be along the lines of - "You play as Booker. You have a sidekick named Elizabeth. You play in a city floating in the clouds. Your weapons include a shotgun and a pistol."
Once you get to the point of saying whether or not you think any of that is any good, you are in subjective territory. Since every single review of Bioshock Infinite made judgement calls on the game's elements, they were not objective or even trying to be objective.
I don't know why gamers seem to think that there is a "true" score each game "deserves" and sites should try to score it like that. Moviegoers do not feel this way, they know that a review - any and every review - is subjective and reflects the critic's experience. And, for what it's worth, virtually every movie review is scored.
Tom's scoring system is the same as one used by movie reviewers (actually it's expanded a bit, but it's the same concept), and for some reason moviegoers understand those just fine. I really, really think that this is a "people are stupid" problem.
My biggest problem with Metacritic is that each review site is weighted differently and these weights are not transparent, making the whole site completely useless.
Comparing yourself to Pauline Kael? Your humility is truly your greatest strength.
*sigh* I'll take the bait.
So you are looking to express reviews from a style similar to Consumer Reports. Go read a consumer reports review and see if that's a better fit for criticism of an artistic medium (Don't derail by going into 'are games art' territory).
Consumer reports puts realtivistic, but numerically based, ratings on every feature of cars, for example. Cost, gas mileage (normalized for vehicle category), safety features, etc. They are dry, dull, and only partially useful.
Do you want to know a secret? THEY'RE NOT FUCKING OBJECTIVE EITHER.
There is a definite skew in their ratings. They place a veneer of objectivity over a cars overall rating. 'Hey it had this many points in these categories, hence this car is objectively better than this other one' but dig into the math. When I bought my car their values did not match mine. Fuel efficiency got one mark, while things like acceleration, horsepower, top speed, etc got broken down into many smaller categories. Based on how they divied up points a 'fun' (like that's an objective value) drive got 7X more points than what mattered to me. So it was not an objective scale. Their scale was weighted to certain things that they perceived as valuable. They had a SUBJECTIVE OPINION on what made a good car, and that differed from my own.
Now would you honestly want game reviews to strive for this false objectivity? Do you want a dishwater dull laundry list of bulletpoint features? Do you honestly think that will do anything to move video games forward as either an artistic or entertainment medium?
If you answered yes to any of the above you are simply wrong. I'm sorry, but there is no better way of putting it, but you simply do not understand the purpose or value of criticism then, and your opinion (yes opinion) has no value in this discussion then.
I love you so much.