Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time

[AppleQueso]

The problem with percentage scales and out-of-ten type stuff is that people have different ideas on what "5/10" should mean. Some consider that straight up bad, while others think it should be 'mediocre'. There's no consistency in exactly how the scores are distributed, which makes stuff like Metacritic pretty useless if you ask me.

At least if you do out-of-five or out-of-four, everyone can agree that 2/4 or 2.5/5 is "mediocre"

Mediocre has a negative vibe to it though, right? Shouldn't 5 mean average?

And I agree that with less "points" to be given, people don't complain as much as when it's a out of 10 or out of 100 scale

I didn't think about that. Essentially replace "mediocre" in my post with "average" like you said and my point still stands.

Review content is far more important than scores anyway, but I think everyone agrees with that.

[ZeroAX]

Review content is far more important than scores anyway, but I think everyone agrees with that.

Tell that to those poor game developers who lost their bonuses due to metacritic scores....

[AppleQueso]

Review content is far more important than scores anyway, but I think everyone agrees with that.

Tell that to those poor game developers who lost their bonuses due to metacritic scores....

Ugh, seriously. It's just ridiculous. I've even heard of people outright losing their jobs over it.

Metacritic has definitely had a negative impact on the industry I think. Seems to just be a gaming industry thing too, as last I checked, you don't see film crews getting canned over RT scores.

[Menegrothx]

The problem with percentage scales and out-of-ten type stuff is that people have different ideas on what "5/10" should mean. Some consider that straight up bad, while others think it should be 'mediocre'. There's no consistency in exactly how the scores are distributed, which makes stuff like Metacritic pretty useless if you ask me.

At least if you do out-of-five or out-of-four, everyone can agree that 2/4 or 2.5/5 is "mediocre"

The star scale used to rate wrestling matches is a good system :p

DUD – Horrible match.
* to *3/4 – Bad match
** to **3/4 – Decent to good
*** to ***3/4 – Good to really good
**** to ****1/2 – Excellent
****3/4 – Match of the Year Candidate
***** – One of the greatest matches ever

it makes me so sick to see people (not naming you or anyone, moreover talking about the turds on YouTube) perverting the star rating system to the point that **** is for a GOOD match. No, it’s not. It’s for a goddang excellent match, I don’t get how the system got perverted this far.

Although imo it should be ****1/4=excellent and ****2/4 to ****3/4=MotY candidate

One major problem I see with any kind of grading system is that an innovative, yet flawed game is rated on par/slightly below of a stale but mechanically sound game, when the innovative game might very well develop a cult following and become a game that defined the game system after years of it's release while the cookie cutter game will be completely forgotten and ignored after it's no longer relevant. Why bother with generic game X when you can play a game that truly perfected that formula (whether it's FPS, beat em up, fighter or platformer it doesn't matter)? But a game that did something original, something that has never been done before nor since will always be remembered.

[Gamerforlife]

Review content is far more important than scores anyway, but I think everyone agrees with that.

Tell that to those poor game developers who lost their bonuses due to metacritic scores....

Ugh, seriously. It's just ridiculous. I've even heard of people outright losing their jobs over it.

Metacritic has definitely had a negative impact on the industry I think. Seems to just be a gaming industry thing too, as last I checked, you don't see film crews getting canned over RT scores.

It's strange the disconnect between those Metacritic reviewers and actual, real gamers. I listened to a podcast where they were talking to the designer for Thieves in Time, and he talked about how much higher user reviews on the net are for this game than the "critic" reviews. The game has a user review average of 8.8 out of 10 while the average from "professional" reviewers is 76 out of a possible 100. Amazon review scores average at 4 and a half stars out of a possible 5.

So what does metacritic review scores really tell us? That snobby, stuck up, "professional" reviewers don't know jack and I'm sick of them running the game industry. Every year I see fantastic games get snubbed while lesser games get all the attention because of "critics"