It sure feels impossible to have an honest conversation about Starfield online right now.

  • thingsiplay@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    @Ashtear Exactly. The 100% rating is often misunderstood. It does not mean perfect game, plus every publication has their own standards. Therefore one 100% is not comparable to another 100%. And like in your example conversions from 4/4 to 100% (because it can only be 0%, 25%, 75% or 100%), is done so an overall Metacritic score can be calculated.

    For the longest time I think Metacritic is a bad for the gaming industry, if they lean too much towards (in example bonuses for developers, if they reach a certain rating).

    • CleoTheWizard@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think that we need to continue to “think” it’s bad for the games industry. It IS bad for the industry. Period. Very famously, obsidian got less money and lost out on a bonus from the initial release of fallout NV because it didn’t hit 80 on metacritic. We need to stop pretending these scores are objective or reflect anything about user enjoyment of a game. Users maybe, but the critic score is worse than useless. It’s downright misinformation to aggregate critic scores.

      Like the entire point of critics is to provide different perspectives on a game. Why would I want their average? The average of their opinion is not the average gamer opinion and it also isn’t the average of the individual readers opinion.

      I need no further proof than go look up the last 5 games you played on metacritic and try to guess the critic and user score and get within 5 points each time.