Metacritic is heavily biased in favor of XBOX and against PS3.

T

Teh Nitwit

CAGiversary!
I keep seeing people refer to metacritic as some reliable, unbiased source of review scores. Makes me think people are unaware of just how heavily biased that site is.

Basically, they try to include those reviews that bring down the overall score for PS3 games and raise the score for xbox games.

They include reviews from sites that are owned by MS (and whose reviews are far off the average) and their parent company CBS has a $500 million "content distribution" contract. Basically, metacritic is in Microsoft's pocket.

Here is a link to a good discussion on this subject:
http://forums.metacritic.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/217108/m/6380070775/p/1

Instead of metacritic, everyone should use http://www.n4g.com
 
lol yes. A site that aggregates reviews from multiple sites and averages them/displays them in order of score is "biased".

Next up: math - biased against ps3?

Sony fans so crazy.
 
Is it also possible that the 360 has a library of higher scoring games than the PS3? That technically would raise their overall score if the number of 360 exclusives are scoring higher than the PS3 exclusives.

~HotShotX
 
just to be clear, metacritic is the worst. But not for this reason.
 
[quote name='jer7583']lol yes. A site that aggregates reviews from multiple sites and averages them/displays them in order of score is "biased".

Next up: math - biased against ps3?

Sony fans so crazy.[/quote]

Is it too hard for you to comprehend that metacritic can skew the score by selecting which reviews they chose to include?
 
[quote name='HotShotX']Is it also possible that the 360 has a library of higher scoring games than the PS3? That technically would raise their overall score if the number of 360 exclusives are scoring higher than the PS3 exclusives.

~HotShotX[/quote]

Sorry, but that is beside the point. I recommend everyone read the topic I linked. It explains well metacritic's bias.
 
I totally believe it, which is why I never used it. I find Gamerankings to be a bit more accurate, which is why I use that. Gamerankings had LBP has the highest (or 2nd highest) ranking game in 2008 and included some 10's.
 
[quote name='Dingleberry']I thought it was widely accepted that all multiplatform games score better on the 360[/quote]

They certainly do on metacritic, even if they're identical.

People, don't take my word for it. If you want proof/evidence the read that article I linked. There's many others like it on metacritic but this one is imo most convincing.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']They certainly do on metacritic, even if they're identical.
[/quote]

Now I'm not trying to take sides console-wise, but I was curious after seeing you write this, so I did a little research of my own. The following are the metacritic scores for some recent multi-platform games that came to mind.

Skate 2: PS3 - 83, 360 - 83
Saints Row 2: PS3 - 82, 360 - 81
Dead Space: PS3 - 88, 360 - 89
Prince of Persia: PS3 - 84, 360 - 81
GTAIV: PS3 - 98, 360 - 98
Mercenaries 2: PS3 - 72, 360 - 72
Mirror's Edge: PS3 - 78, 360 - 79
Call of Duty World at War: PS3 - 85, 360 - 84
Fallout 3: PS3 - 91, 360 - 93
Devil May Cry 4: PS3 - 84, 360 - 84
Soul Calibur IV: PS3 - 85, 360 - 85
Lord of the Rings Conquest: PS3 - 58, 360 - 56

I'm just not seeing bias on the multiplatform releases. They are mostly the same, with a few favoring PS3 and a few favoring 360.

Feel free to point out something I might have missed as far as multi-platform games go.
 
whatever. find a site you like or more particularly a reviewer you tend to agree with and go with that. Its not like the rank on an aggregating site matters/.
 
I don't see it either.

360 has more games, not to mention more high-profile AAA games. Of course it's going to have the higher percentage rating.

And I don't see them leaving out any of the credible review sites (ie; IGN, Gamespot, 1Up, etc, etc).

Obviously they should leave out fan sites like Playstation Fanboy and the irk. Where are all the 10/10s for LBP & MGS4 coming from anyhow? Neither game comes close to deserving them, unless the site's standard for 10's are "really good, but far from epic".
 
Over the weekend I was thinking about this a bit. What I wondered is about the top games, which get the most attention anyway. On PS3 3 of the top 6 are all exclusive to the system. By contrast, on 360 only 1 of the top 6 is exclusive, yet the score of the sixth game for 360 is higher than the sixth ps3 game. I just found that strange.
 
This is just bullshit. A bunch of Sony fanboy whiners angry that LBP got "only 95%"
 
never even heard of the site... biased or not, who cares, bottom line, it's my money, it's my free will. For those of us with PS3 and Xbox, the deciding factors are all mixed. I don't buy Xbox games anymore (except exclusives), #1 reason being RRoD, #2 being no free on-line play and #3 HDD upgrade sucks... When comes to graphics, both consoles are very close, the difference is so insignificant that it doesn't matter to me.
 
[quote name='Monsta Mack']93% for Killzone 2 on metacritic and a 92% on gamerankings. (As of today)

Yeap, biased for sure.[/quote]

i bet Gears got a lot higher score than that eh? If KZ2 is not 95% or higher, there's a problem... Again, i don't know the site and i don't want to know.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']Is it too hard for you to comprehend that metacritic can skew the score by selecting which reviews they chose to include?[/quote]

Do you know how much work that would be for Metacritic? You really think they have a guy hand-picking which reviews to include and which not to include, for every game, all for some crazy agenda? What would even be in it for them?
 
NExt you will say that gamerankings is biased towards the 360.

No, better games are biased towards the 360.
 
[quote name='jer7583']This is just bullshit. A bunch of Sony fanboy whiners angry that LBP got "only 95%"[/quote]

Either you didn't read the article (maybe just title) or you have some severe issues with reading comprehension.

Most of that thread is about metacritic "inventing" scores from Variety, which is Microsoft owned. Variety doesn't assign a score. Metacritic "infers" that score from Variety's articles. For multiplatform games, such as Fallout 3 and Dead Space, if that score is good, they only include it in XBox360 version's overall score and if it's bad they only use it for PS3 version's overall score.

LittleBigPlanet they have an 8/10, which is as silly as gamespot's review of R&C:ToD.

I don't personally care much for review scores, but they do matter because they influence public opinion and can cause good games to perform poorly.
 
[quote name='Serpentor']i bet Gears got a lot higher score than that eh? If KZ2 is not 95% or higher, there's a problem... Again, i don't know the site and i don't want to know.[/QUOTE]

Herein lies the problem. If the site doesn't mesh with your personal opinion, it doesn't mean it's biased.

More critics thought more highly of Gears than KZ2 /= bias.
 
[quote name='Vegan']Do you know how much work that would be for Metacritic? You really think they have a guy hand-picking which reviews to include and which not to include, for every game, all for some crazy agenda? What would even be in it for them?[/quote]

Not for every game - only the high-profile ones. Don't be naive enough to think that money is not involved. I already mentioned that their parent company signed a $500 mil contract with Microsoft.
 
[quote name='Serpentor']i bet Gears got a lot higher score than that eh? If KZ2 is not 95% or higher, there's a problem...[/quote]
Geez, didn't we learn anything from Twilight Princess? Some favored game gets less than straight 100% reviews and there must be a conspiracy afoot. Or maybe, you know, somebody just really liked the game, but didn't think it was absolutely perfect. That just might be possible.
 
[quote name='jer7583']Herein lies the problem. If the site doesn't mesh with your personal opinion, it doesn't mean it's biased.

More critics thought more highly of Gears than KZ2 /= bias.[/quote]

"More" has nothing to do with it. For example:

MGS 4:

metacritic: 81 reviews, score 94
n4g: 221 reviews, score 96

Gears 2:

metacritic: 85 reviews, score 93
n4g: 249 reviews, score 92
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']"More" has nothing to do with it. For example:

MGS 4:

metacritic: 81 reviews, score 94
n4g: 221 reviews, score 96

Gears 2:

metacritic: 85 reviews, score 93
n4g: 249 reviews, score 92[/quote]
So because they list every review from some no name sites we have never heard of before they have a 360 bias?
 
But the metacritic score for the PS3 exclusive is still higher on metacritic, so bias?

I'd also say that taking any and all review scores from every site makes you more likely to have bias by proxy because the validity of those 250 sites is less than the 100 or so that metacritic has approved.

Anyone who would go to such lengths to compare scores and worry about a few points difference as "bias" falls squarely into the "insane fanboy" category in my estimation.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']Thanks for taking the bait.[/QUOTE]

He's still correct.

Stop wasting your time with insane conspiracy theories and enjoy your games.
 
Gametrailers is awfully biased to.
They just gave Killzone 2 a 9.2 and Halo 3 9.8.
I guess that's telling people that they should buy a 360 and Halo 3 instead.
 
[quote name='Chibi_Kaji']So because they list every review from some no name sites we have never heard of before they have a 360 bias?[/quote]

I stated in previous posts why they have bias. In the above post comparing metacritic and n4g scores for Gears 2 and MGS4 I provided evidence to refute the suggestion that metacritic's scores are higher for xbox360's games because "more" reviewers like them.

But feel free to jump to conclusions and twist everything I say to suit your agenda. I don't really give a shit. I'm responding to all these stupid posts because I don't feel like working right now, but it's getting prettty boring.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']I stated in previous posts why they have bias. In the above post comparing metacritic and n4g scores for Gears 2 and MGS4 I provided evidence to refute the suggestion that metacritic's scores are higher for xbox360's games because "more" reviewers like them.

But feel free to jump to conclusions and twist everything I say to suit your agenda. I don't really give a shit. I'm responding to all these stupid posts because I don't feel like working right now, but it's getting prettty boring.[/QUOTE]

You're coming across as an insane sony fan and also a jerk in this thread. Just to let you know.

Take it to GAF, see how nice they are to you about your "TEH BIAS" story there.
 
So what if they're biased? If people are swayed by a couple points, then they shouldn't have been playing the game in the first place.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']
But feel free to jump to conclusions and twist everything I say to suit your agenda.[/quote]
#-o
 
XDF is always ready at the hip. I agree that metacritic is biased, but overall doesnt make too much difference. This gen has it out to destroy sony regardless of who it is, so no surprises. Microsoft pays millions every year to pay people to go on forums and post anti-sony/pro-microsoft propaganda threads everyday, im sure they are on this site also.

*XDF = Xbox Defense Force.
 
[quote name='blitz6speed']XDF is always ready at the hip. I agree that metacritic is biased, but overall doesnt make too much difference. This gen has it out to destroy sony regardless of who it is, so no surprises. Microsoft pays millions every year to pay people to go on forums and post anti-sony/pro-microsoft propaganda threads everyday, im sure they are on this site also.

*XDF = Xbox Defense Force.[/QUOTE]

You are incorrect and delusional, sir.
 
[quote name='blitz6speed']XDF is always ready at the hip. I agree that metacritic is biased, but overall doesnt make too much difference. This gen has it out to destroy sony regardless of who it is, so no surprises. Microsoft pays millions every year to pay people to go on forums and post anti-sony/pro-microsoft propaganda threads everyday, im sure they are on this site also.

*XDF = Xbox Defense Force.[/quote]

People seem to forget how powerful Microsoft is. If MS can afford to spend $500 million on Viacom

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/n...e-for-distribution-ads-and-games/18916/?biz=1

then they definately can afford a bunch of viral-marketers working out of their parent's basements. Viral-marketing is the new fad, and I wouldn't be surprised if MS put some money into that.
 
Yeah me and jer7583 are waiting for our new anti-PS3 arguements to be sent via hotmail.

Last they told us that we can use the Halo 3 > Killzone 2 arguement will work because it scored lower on Metacritic and Gamerankings, with more reviews to boot.

Still waiting on my invitiation to the XDF secret hideout to try out the XBawx 720.
 
Or there's just *gasp* people who prefer or only own Xboxes on forums.

Fanboys like you really make me upset, because in 2009, we should be discussing all things in games EXCEPT "TEH BIAS"

fuck off, seriously. You're the problem. Play your games and quit worrying about 2 percentage point differences.

If they actually are bias they're doing it poorly, because 2 percentage points don't mean shit to anyone.
 
I hereby rate Killzone 2...
bottlecapsdc8.jpg

Gears of War 2 gets...
herman20giant20rabbitxn3.jpg

Any arguments about bias?
 
This is retarded. I know for a fact that some independent publishers actually use GameRankings.com, which has Gears 2 at 93.1% and MGS4 at 92.9%. The difference between those scores and Metacritic is negligable. I actually prefer the look and design of Metacritic, so I usually go there. On LBP Metacritic is actually higher than GameRankings.

Even if Metacritic does have a
 
but Variety gave Gears 2 an 85 according to metacritic. so wouldn't that mean MS is pulling down the scores of their own games?
 
Isn't anything over 90% basically a must play anyway? I've never heard someone say that they wouldn't get a game just because the average sat at 93% instead of 95% or higher.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']
Any arguments about bias?[/QUOTE]

So how much is a giant rabbit versus that many nuka cola bottle caps in Fallout currency? That will verify the bias.
 
Giant rabbits are poisonous and have a very high sequence, but if you get ten pelts, there's this one ghoul in Necropolis that will trade you some Luger ammo for 'em.

...

I actually anticipated that question and thought all this out in advance.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']I hereby rate Killzone 2...
bottlecapsdc8.jpg

Gears of War 2 gets...
herman20giant20rabbitxn3.jpg

Any arguments about bias?[/quote]

Thats one big fucking bunny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top