The most recent issue of Game Informer (the one with The Beatles: Rock Band cover) contains an article titled “Critical Mass,” in which Glen Schofield complained a lot which details the advantages and disadvantages of Metacritic. I highly advise that you read the article in its entirety, but we’re going to focus on a little blurb in the upper right hand corner of the second page where GI and Glen Schofield, the executive producer of Dead Space, seem to agree on something rather upsetting.
Companies could also be more self-selective about what opinions they decided should matter in an attempt to tune out some of the static. Schofield says that in the case of Dead Space’s near-miss of a 90 Metacritic rating, it turned out that the game’s lowest score was from a freelancer that a particular magazine had hired. This made him question the score. “They just picked up a freelance person and he or she did a review on it, and so, you know, I wonder, why would we give so much weight to that? Maybe that person’s favorite video games were sports, and maybe shouldn’t be doing this kind of game.”
I want to jump right into this with the disclaimer that, yes, I’m the aforementioned “freelancer.”
Issue 1: The Freelancer
Journalism lesson number one: fact-checking. At the time that I reviewed Dead Space, I was an intern at Official Xbox Magazine, not a freelancer. Sure, you could see this as, “Oops, they didn’t know,” but Schofield also wasn’t aware that I’m a girl. This makes me question whether he ever read the review. He certainly didn’t see the byline. For putting so much weight into that solo 6.5 he could have at least given my review a glance. If he had read my review, he would have known that I am an avid fan of horror games and simply didn’t see Dead Space as anything of the sort. But that’s another point entirely.
Issue 2: Freelancers in General
Schofield’s comment on freelancers is, frankly, terribly ignorant, and GI did nothing to defend the profession that keeps most gaming magazines and sites well-stocked. He first suggests that a freelancer is unqualified to write a review. Your average Joe may not be qualified, but freelancers aren’t just some shmuck gamers the editor picked up at Dave and Buster’s. It takes a lot to get on a publication’s freelance list: published reviews, solid references, writing that adheres to the publication’s particular style, and so on.
He further insinuates that a well-established magazine (in this case, OXM) hires freelancers on a whim, tosses their reviews into the magazine, and doesn’t take a second glance at the score. Schofield is essentially insulting every editor that’s ever hired a freelancer.
Editors are neither lazy nor careless. Firstly, editors heavily research a freelancer before assigning him (ahem, or her) a piece. They read the freelancer’s published reviews, Google his or her name for a solid background check, and talk with the freelancer one-on-one. They then hand the freelancer a small, bound-to-be-forgotten game like BlazBlu: Calamity Trigger. If they approve of the work, they may toss ‘em something bigger next time. Oh, and they edit the review too. It’s why they’re called “editors.”
Furthermore, editors don’t hand out assignments all willy-nilly. Notice in OXM how Fran Reyes, the Editor-in-Chief, always gets the J-RPGs? She lives for them while the other staffers cringe at the sight of all those spikey-haired pretty boys. When it comes to genre, freelancers also get to pick and choose. Editors ask at the beginning what games the writer prefers and assigns accordingly.
In my case, since I was sitting just a few feet from my editor, he stood up, looked over the cubicle wall and asked me if I liked horror games. I said something along the lines of, “Hell yeah! I’ve played all the Resident Evils, every Silent Hill, and Condemned 2.” I was excited to play another, supposedly revolutionary horror IP. Luckily enough, I was simultaneously testing the Turtle Beach Ear Force X4 headset — noise cancellation and surround sound. Perfect for horror, right?
Back on track: renowned mags and sites typically require a secondary review whether the writer is a freelancer or the editor-in-chief. It may not be published, but, like OXM, someone else on the staff has played the game. If the two disagree, they either rework the review or give the writer a kill-fee and hire someone else. In some cases, the entire staff might have a meeting to discuss each and every score, from the obscure XBLA title to Halo 3. So yes, someone at OXM played Dead Space and everyone on the staff gave the go-ahead to print.
Issue 3: The “Static”
If a reviewer has the minority opinion, this is apparently called “static” that should maybe be “tuned out.” Remember when your elementary teachers would say something like, “I didn’t give you a D, you earned a D?” Same here. OXM, Eurogamer, Wired, and EGM (four highly regarded publications) didn’t give Dead Space lower than an 8 just to watch Schofield sob in a corner. We believed that the game didn’t earn anything more. It was not worthy of Schofield’s coveted 9. Other prestigious publicatons — 1up, G4, IGN — didn’t think the game deserved a 9 either.
“How do you get 51 that are above 90 and end up with 89?” asks Schofield. Again, please fact-check. Metacritic said they based the number on 79 reviews, not 90. And it’s a weighted average. Companies already are self-selective about what opinions they believe should matter. In this case, they believed that 6.5 (only .5 lower than the next one up) mattered. Ironic, since Schofield himself wonders, “why would we give so much weight to that?”.
Aaaand that’s all I have to say on the matter. Please feel free to comment on this part, the entire article, Schofield, Dead Space, what’s with the giant graphs on page 12 and 13 of GI, or whatever else you have on your mind. Cheers!
Tags: Glen Schofield, Dead Space, Metacritic weighted average
September 8, 2009 at 10:34 pm |
Speaking for what I’m affraid will be the standard rhetoric when others hear what you have to say: It sucks to be singled out in a public forum (even if you were never “named”) but I hope that now you will be known as someone who stands up for themself and is not going to let anything get in the way of what they deem a game deserved, either in score or in criticism.
Speaking for myself: Fuck this guy and fuck anyone who cried about a fucking SCORE without reading what you wrote. OXM still asking you to review is proof enough for me that you are a tallented writer and should keep it up. Good luck.
September 9, 2009 at 1:20 am |
Heh, yeah, after Googling my name for months after that debacle, I learned to grin and bear it.
But whether Schofield disapproved of the OXM score isn’t the issue. What matters the most to me is that he is doing a disservice to freelancers by throwing out an anecdote that, well, had nothing to do with freelancers. And worse, GI printed it without noting the actual facts.
September 9, 2009 at 1:56 am |
EZ has a point that I think is a shining example of why Schofield is *wrong*.
Clearly, you’re just some random, dumb freelancer that the industry’s best magazine continues to let clog up their mag with awful content…
Riiiiight.
I think you really nailed it with your point about the man writing off the magazine’s credit by essentially saying that the editors just mindlessly hired any shlub who showed up in their e-mail inbox. It’s disrespectful to a staff of folks who know a lot about the industry, and a lot about games. And what makes it worse is that they didn’t write the review, so he thinks he can make these claims without any repercussion. It’s annoying as an idiot freelancer without any knowledge of the genres or games I review.
September 9, 2009 at 2:30 am |
That’s a good breakdown of the facts Meghan.
Personally, working in print, fact checking is the most important thing. How to word things correctly, getting your facts straight before they see newsprint. I imagine the same goes for magazines. As such, I wouldn’t take this guy seriously from the first sentence, when he calls you a freelancer. That’s blatantly incorrect and therefore the entire article comes off as ill-researched.
September 9, 2009 at 3:50 am |
Here’s the issue with that, Ross: the only people who know or care about the ignorance is everyone responding to this post. Everyone else is none the wiser, and sees it as this guy spouting self-righteous gospel.
Which is why I think this post is necessary. Meghan should be able to stand up for herself if this producer is going to make ill-willed gestures toward her and the outlet she worked for. Regardless of her position, the accusations are insulting to the media as a whole, which is something that Meghan also hit on: why didn’t GI go “Whoa, whoa, wait, what?”
September 9, 2009 at 3:56 am |
Excellent column.
It makes me wonder why he wanted a 9 so badly. What, did he have a bet with someone? Do you get a gift Basket? Are there ponies involved?
Ah, well. I think this is a symptom of the disease. The disease being numerical review scores. I mean, it’s not a freaking math quiz, it’s a game. Personally, I’m a partisan of the ‘games as art’ ideology, so numerical scores obviously don’t sit well with me. If we started saying “The Mona Lisa is a nine”, or “Michelangelo’s David” is a seven”, we’d be viewed by artistic society as dunderpates. After all, art is subjective. But even though these high-and-mighty game developers claim they make art, they worry the review scores to death.
Does that strike anybody else as being shockingly – and embarassingly – full of shit? Am I alone here? They want artistic credibility, but won’t accept criticism? That dog won’t hunt, good sir. They’re trying to seem artistic and makes money, as well. You know what that is? Advertising. Marketing. They just wanna get paid. Which I understand. Hey, we all want money. But you can’t ride your high artistic horse and then be a money- grubbing asshole and expect not to be regarded far and wide as the jackass you so clearly are.
And that’s how I feel about that.
September 9, 2009 at 4:03 am |
I’m still sort of scratching my head about this. I understand, and honestly agreed with your review (after playing Dead Space, of course), but I just look at it as a review. Yeah, it’s someone elses opinion, but still… You sort of use that as a guideline. I do agree that Schofield is blowing steam out of his ass. I mean, BIG DEAL!? Focus on the damn game… People like that just make me facepalm and sigh.
September 9, 2009 at 7:01 am |
What really, really grinds my gears is that he can’t look at it as someone’s opinion of his game — Meghan isn’t classified as a potential consumer who might have played the game and thought it was decent-but-not-great. He sees the entire thing as a knife wound in what Josh mentioned above: potential pony bonuses.
Now, we don’t know that there are ponies or prizes of any kind involved with Dead Space’s high score ranking, but we all know that it’s something that *does* happen around the biz.
Regardless, why is he so sore over one score from OXM if he shouldn’t be putting so much weight into it? Maybe put some weight into the lower-average PS3 version?
September 9, 2009 at 7:29 am |
That is, indeed, perplexing. Particularly in light of the fact that an 89 average is nothing to be ashamed of. Hell, it’s actually a GREAT score.
Perhaps it comes down to one essential human quality: Greed. He got to 80%, and he was happy. But what’s this? He’s closing in on 90! Getting higher ad higher, it’s practically guaranteed!
“And why not”, he chortles, sitting astride a magnificent Roan Stallion, glutting himself on the spoils of his conquest, “After all, I made a fantastic game. Why, a 90 is nothing short of what I deserve for making this game. No longer shall I worry about it – the 90 will come as a matter of course, and I need no longer fret over whether I shall get it.”
But Lo, the scores are in. And behold! An 89.
And Schofield, in a manner and tone in which only a man with a sense of entitlement can bespeak himself, loudly cries: “This is fundamentally unjust! How dare I be robbed of that one percent. Why, it’s so close that I can practically shake hands with it, but it is now forever denied me!”
And naturally, as we all of us know, no one person of such import is ever to blame for their problems. So he broods. And broods. And broods.
“Surely,” quoth he, “I have been knowingly and willfully spited by some jackanape in some publication I have doubtless never heard of. One bad review must have cost me that precious one percent, and denied me my proper place in the annals of gaming history.”
He looks at metacritic. And as much Alonso Quijane as any ever man has been, he finds his proverbial windmill – Meghan’s score. Now, not only has he been robbed of his 90, but the same review that robbed him of said has had the nerve – the GALL – to give him a 6.5.
Sullen, and churlish, he tents his fingers, and furrows his brow. Given now time for a gentle repose from his discontent, he knows that he cannot voice any real rage. Rather, he must appear reasonable – logical, objective even – in his mention of this affront. No press quote ever given in rage has swayed fans and reviewers. So he mentions the idea offhandedly, with no trace of bile in his voice, and only the readiness of the words on his tongue and the slight furrow in his brow betray his true disdain for the one who has cost him so dearly.
At least, that’s how I see the whole thing playing out in my head.
I guess a good comparison would be telling a kid he can get two toys at the store. Then, you mention that if there’s a sale on, he may be able to have three. But no sale’s to be found, and he gets the initial two. He feels cheated, doesn’t he? He feels he had a right to that third toy, even though he has substantially more toys now than he did before he went to the store. Some people are just never satisfied with what they’re given.
September 9, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
This makes my day a little brighter!
Regardless of the nastiness of the past, I’m really glad to see that you are getting free of all the negativity and I hope life goes well for you.
September 9, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
Oh god that was amazing. When’s your book come out?
September 9, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Heh, thanks. I did kind of go off on a little ‘thing’, there. Seems I write best when I’m under a sense of outrage, because a lot of my essays aren’t half as compelling as the above.
September 9, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
like your review of the game, just accept the comments and replies to your review as a difference in opinion. there are positive ones that agreed with you, and a lot of negative ones that disagreed.
http://www.oxmonline.com/article/reviews/xbox-360/a-f/dead-space
September 9, 2009 at 6:06 pm |
Unfortunately, Metacritic score often impacts real world business decisions. Marketing dollars, buy-in from retailers, support from the console manufacturers, even the compensation (bonuses, etc.) of the developers on the team. The difference between an 89 and a 90 Metacritic score (even more so than the difference between an 88 and an 89) is not a psychological one, but one that has significant real-world financial implications for literally hundreds of people involved with a triple-A console title like Dead Space. Since Metacritic’s weighting algorithms are all hidden inside a black box, this can lead to a lot of frustration on the part of developers who have to sit back and watch 2-3 years of work distilled to an integer.
To be fair to Mr. Schofield, your 65 was a lone outlier, 5 points below the next lowest score, and significantly below the median score. But rather than wonder about the weight Metacritic gave your 65, one could just as easily wonder why Metacritic says a B+ from 1up translates to an 83 while an A- becomes a 91. There are dozens of little quirks in this system that alchemically converts the opinions of a group of individuals into cash money. When I read reviews of games I’ve worked on, there are a handful of reviewers and publications that I look at to determine whether I personally feel I made something “other people” like. If I feel like they “got it,” then I can feel good about my work, no matter the score. But Metacritic equals money, and that means it affects my life whether I want it to, or not.
It’s not about who writes the reviews, or what their base for comparison is. It’s not about you, or any other specific reviewer. It’s about letting a small group of strangers affect our financial compensation. That’s the real “weight” of the situation.
(N.B. There are, of course, reasons why things work this way. I’m not here to advocate for an alternative. But one of the downsides of this system is that it leads to this sort of frustration. When developers complain about metacritic or review scores, it’s not personal.)
September 9, 2009 at 6:38 pm |
You make some good points, and bring up some information I wasn’t aware of. But wouldn’t you agree that such a system of scoring and reaction affecting finances undercuts the notion of games as art?
I think the dickering about percentages and dollar figures is purely within the business aspect of the Video Game industry. It’s things like that that keep games out fo the realm of ‘High Art’, and put us in the state we’re in today.
Which is of course to say, video games are not widely acknowledged as an art form.
Oh sure, gamers say it is. But we’re kind of a biased sample group, aren’t we? It behooves us to say games are art, whether or not we actually believe it. But unfortunately, the masses don’t see it like that. Nor do casual gamers. The people who don’t game only know what they see in commercials. And what they see in commercials is advertising. Good for bolstering sales. Not so good for bolstering artistic integrity.
I’ve used painters extensively as comparisons, so I’ll now try musicians.
Beethoven. Mozart. Bach. Rachmaninoff. Chopin. Did these men worry about whether or not their music was liked by everyone? No. They wrote music that they wanted to write. They knew that art is reflection of self, and wrote what they felt. They never once hit a conference room, and said “Gentlemen, you’re going to love this composition. Nine out of ten people on the street do, so obviously this is good music. With that in mind, how would you like to pony up some dough so I’ll write another one?
Towards the end, Mozart was actually in a bad way financially. But he kept on writing music, because that’s what he loved. If most game developers were told that they could continue to make games if they wanted, but would be paid either a pittance, or not at all, we would see a massive migration from the profession. People would resign in droves. We’d be left with mostly indie developers, and even those in short supply.
So, games are not held as legitimate art because of their various creator’s devotion to the almighty dollar. To most of the world, they’re a product – a marketable commodity. Something to be made and sold to people who have no better things to do. And while we all of us as gamers know that that’s not precisely true, there’s not alot any one of us can do.
And noone seems to mind. Noone seems to care. We’re most of us content to say “Fuck ‘em” and go about our business. After all, is it my responsibility as a fan to legitimize the art form? Nay, nay. It is the responsibility of the artists to legitimize THEMSELVES.
It’s a sad reality, but the fact is that nine out of ten game developers don’t actually care about gamers at all. At all, At all. They posture and they pose, and they talk about “What fans want”, and whenever I see that, I quickly look for a picture if the person with a top hat and cane. Because that’s all it is – a big ol’ song and dance.
September 9, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
“Unfortunately, Metacritic score often impacts real world business decisions. Marketing dollars, buy-in from retailers, support from the console manufacturers, even the compensation (bonuses, etc.) of the developers on the team.”
This makes me very, very sad. You think it would have more to do with the way a game is received in the sales department, not how well it’s received. This is the exact reason that people think critics are corrupt — they want to remain friends with the publisher, so why screw people out of extras? That perception drives me batty, and developer incentives via critical reception doesn’t help it.
I think that if you’re expecting reviews to line up in one area, then you don’t really know what a review is. This isn’t me accusing you, Mr. or Mrs. Game Designer, but you triggered something with your “they got it” comment. I think that if reviews are expected to fall in one range, then there’s no reason for them to exist. A review like Meghan’s should be considered as much as any “100″ or “85″ review. Reviews exist for guidance, as a form of pre-purchase counsel, or to get a general idea of what to expect.
And I don’t want to blow anyone’s mind or anything, but not everyone is going to love the games that a person makes. Why shouldn’t that be represented in reviews? Why should it become a huge thing that warrants bringing up, and complaining about, a year later? Meghan’s review should be looked at and considered as a personal opinion of someone who played and, for the most part, enjoyed the game. But, oh, she’s ‘just a freelancer’ so it isn’t relevant.
Personally, I enjoyed the game significantly less than she did, and would have scored it lower. And, to be frank, it’s bullshit that your bonuses should be on my back. You say it’s not personal, and I totally believe you, but in this situation Schofield is calling out a specific magazine and writer through vague accusations. It’s not hard to figure out who he’s up in arms about. And that the gentleman has the nerve to make the radical claims he does because the score was a kind of anomaly (remember, there were a couple 70s in there, too) is infuriating.
There is always going to be a lowest score. There’s nothing you can do but to deal with it.
September 9, 2009 at 7:27 pm |
Actually, what I mean by “they got it” is whether they picked up on the bits we spent the most time honing. Often you’ll find the high and low points called out across many reviews very similar, but one reviewer calls it a 75 and one calls it a 90. Seeing that reviewers noticed the things we tried to highlight gives me a personal sense of satisfaction that keeps me coming back to make more games, regardless of the numbers.
The numbers are important mostly for financial reasons, and because they make your resume more attractive when you try to get hired.
I think if Mr. Schofield wanted to attack Meghan, he’d have done so. Rather, it sounds like he’s providing a personal anecdote to illustrate a general concern developers have about how the opinions of any one reviewer can impact the careers of professional game developers.
September 9, 2009 at 11:31 pm
I’d want people to notice the parts I worked on the most too. But these “highlights” don’t always matter to the reviewer. For instance, RE5 claimed to work heavily on the lighting. Thus, previews of the game made clear mention of the light vs. dark contrast. Reviews, on the other hand, didn’t. The lighting just wasn’t as important as, say, the co-op, horror, shooting, strategy, overall visual appeal, etc.
As for the personal anecdote, this is mostly the fault of GI. Dead Space and its 89 should have been thrown in as an example of Metacritic’s disadvantages. Instead, most of the piece was a profile on Schofield and his near-miss. What happened to quoting both sides? An anecdote doesn’t deserve two pages.
September 9, 2009 at 7:37 pm |
“…gives me a personal sense of satisfaction that keeps me coming back to make more games, regardless of the numbers.” — This is awesome. I like this. High five.
I don’t think he wanted to attack her as much as he wanted to make a point and use her as an example… specifically because her review was the lowest on the list. Which is about what you said. I just don’t appreciate the general slander to freelancers and editors.
September 9, 2009 at 11:22 pm |
Thanks for the feedback Mysterious Game Designer. I think a big part of this is miscommunication between game designers and journalists, so it’s nice to be able to talk with one another directly.
A couple things I want to say in response to both Mitch and MGD:
1. Metacritic definitely does have its flaws, namely the aggregation of diverse opinions without the info/background to go with them and the strange division of A-F grades that some websites give.
What I came to realize very quickly is that OXM’s review is the minority opinion. A lot of people loved the game but there was a good portion out there who really couldn’t see its popularity, even as horror devotees. At first, I thought “Oh God, I got it wrong.” But the 6.5 stands as a representation for all those out there who didn’t think it stood up to the classic horrors.
Unfortunately, people don’t accept the review as a minority opinion because reviewers are generally thought of as “the every gamer.” That’s a really hard position to be in. I honest to God thought “the every gamer” would hate Dead Space. So what started out as an “every gamer” review became my personal opinion due to its minority status.
The downside of Metacritic is that when the all of these scores become one, people stop thinking about the publications themselves. OXM and Edge aren’t afraid to give a bad game a three. That means that 6 is a decent game, not a terrible one. But for GI, 6 is a “Don’t bother.” However these differences, as well as the letter grade calculations, aren’t really taken into account when a gamer reads the aggregate score.
2. “This can lead to a lot of frustration on the part of developers who have to sit back and watch 2-3 years of work distilled to an integer.” I don’t like this either. When movies get stars, people pay attention to the reviewer: what movies he likes, what he’s reviewed in the past, etc. For instance, I trust Ebert and I really dislike this one guy on the Chicago Tribune review staff. So I trust one and not the other. No problem.
On a different subject (but regarding the same statement), working long and hard on something doesn’t make it great. I “got” that the DS had an in-game hud. I “got” that they focused heavily on the atmosphere and sound. But I’m not going to give an A for effort because, when it came to the overall game, I felt that there were more important aspects to include within the 600-word cap.
Think about the movie Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Three hundred and fifty animators worked with real auto engineers to meticulously build by hand more than 750 parts in order to realistically detail the transformation, step-by-step, of a single car. Most reviewers didn’t note the sweet animations. They instead focused on what they felt deserved mention: the terrible plot, the racist robots, and Megan Fox’s ass.
September 10, 2009 at 6:57 pm |
I think you’re right about the rating variations, but it’s on the reader to determine what scale they’re reading. That’s what sucks the most about reviews is that everyone sees one number one hundred different ways. So you’ve got mixed perceptions on something that is very clear.
September 10, 2009 at 8:44 pm |
When I read that article, I immediately knew who they were referring to in the Dead Space segment. To be honest, you (Meghan) didn’t deserve all that heat from the fanboys or even the guy bitching about Metacritic. No matter where you write, you should be respected for your writings. A review is an opinion, and your opinion should be respected even if one does not agree with it. When developers make games, they should expect low scores and high scores from various publications and websites, because not everyone shares the same opinion.
I recently was picked up as an intern writer at a gaming press site, and I know that I will run into folk who will curse me out for my opinion. I do applaud you Meghan for taking a strong stance in your opinion, and I wish you the best of luck in the future in the big, big world of journalism. : )
September 13, 2009 at 8:11 pm |
[...] – Meghan Watt, author of Official Xbox Magazine’s Dead Space review — the lady who EA executive producer Glen Schofield said “maybe shouldn’t be doing this kind of game” in last month’s Game Informer — has written a rebuttal: [...]
September 14, 2009 at 7:03 am |
I’ve noticed that reviewers that definitely like a certain genre (like horror, for instance) tend to be harder reviewers than someone who’s disinterested. Look at Jeremy Parish’s review of Shadow Complex; the man is well-known for exalting Super Metroid, so when Chair started billing the game as the big 3D update to Super Metroid, Parish was far more willing to call them on that. I think he might have been a bit harsh, but I definitely noticed other reviews basically rewording that marketing line.
I do find it incredibly ironic that the whole reason why Metacritic has become relevant from a development perspective is because publishers, EA in particular, are trying to correct the distortion they introduced by rewarding developers for making commercially successful games, which lead to bland, triple-A known quantity titles, and reward them instead for making excellent games.
September 22, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
I’m wondering how many subscribers they lost because of your “Review” Meghan. I was one, and still am.
It questions the motives of the magazine to see games like Legendary and Turok recieve better ratings then Dead Space. Which Dead space was by far a better game. However I think OXM gave World at War a 7.5 which I also don’t feel deserved such a low score.
I truly believe there are benefits OXM recieves by going extremely low and extremely high on certain reviews. It’s also hard to believe “everyone” at OXM agree’s with your review. I’m betting the majority doesn’t.
September 22, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
I’m guessing anywhere between none and zero. That, or anyone who quit reading an entire magazine because they disagreed with one review obviously need to seek psychiatric assistance. No offense. I just think it’s absolutely silly to brush off great editorial content because someone’s opinion didn’t line up with yours.
I humbly request that allegations of “motives” stop here and now. I used to be one of those dumb forum kids who questioned the “motives” of outlets, but it’s as simple as this: great games get great scores. But you also need to factor who is writing something. And if you’re assuming they’re on the take for “extremely low and extremely high” scores, then why are games in the 6.5-7.5 range the only ones you’re referencing? That’s higher than the middle ground but below the “Great” threshold.
I can’t wrap my head around that kind of logic. Oh, someone else likes something more than I did? Heresy. Oh, someone else liked it less than I did? I’ll unsubscribe.
Straighten out this mind-blowing mess for me, would you?
September 22, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
I will admit there are times when I question whether someone is fit to review something; For example, I shouldn’t be anywhere near Madden. “1 of 10, I hate football.” Similarly, 1up posted a review of Neverwinter Nights that was essentially a review of D&D game mechanics, and the writer’s strong dislike of them. S/he was not reviewing the game.
That said, a review is a subjective opinion, and as long as the writing is clear and honest, then any review is valid. If you didn’t like the game because you had 3.5 D&D, then as long as you make that clear, readers can understand that people who don’t like D&D probably shouldn’t play this game. Same goes for a devoted football fan that’s been playing Madden since the golden years on Genesis; the high scores Madden pulls ever year have no meaning to me. I ignore them.
While I think sites like MetaCritic and GameStats are good general indicators, they’re just that! General indicators. There are going to be different opinions. If I’m looking at movies, I trust two things: First, Roger Ebert. Even if I disagree with his review, he explains his stance so well that I never question what he has to say. Second, Rotten Tomatoes. The critical consensus is generally right, but the masses are never going to trump one well-thought-out opinion.
Personally, I loved Dead Space, but I totally respect another reviewer’s right to dislike it and to take the time to explain why.
October 5, 2009 at 9:16 pm |
Well Mitch, he did say he was no longer a reader so that is at least one. Unless you think he is lying.
I look at it from a perfectly selfish point of view because, really, I’m the only one here I care about.
OXM gave Legendary a 7.5 and Dead Space a 6.5. I played both and DS was MUCH more enjoyable. I loved it.
So this means to me that OXM can’t be trusted enough by itself. I always check Metacritic too before making a game purchase.
Yes, that is probably some obvious good advice for everyone: Check more than one review before deciding.
And I do think the Editors at OXM messed up on this one. Such a high profile new IP should have been given more than half a page review and more than 2 staffers should have played the game.
Meghan is entitled to her opinion and right to stick by it. She is apparently my “one guy on the Chicago Tribune review staff.”
October 6, 2009 at 6:03 am
1. The Legendary and Dead Space reviews were written by two different people with entirely different tastes. Your tastes didn’t happen to align with either of them. That doesn’t make OXM wrong. Nor does it make you right or wrong. It’s differing opinions.
2. Please explain to me, since I don’t understand from your comment, why they messed up. Especially given your factual errors: Dead Space was given one page, not one half, and I don’t understand why more than two people should have played it. Some outlets don’t even go that far. Do you really think that would have changed the score’s outcome?
October 6, 2009 at 7:40 am
“High profile new intellectual product” my ass. That game garnered practically no buzz until it was released and reviewed. It’s only high profile NOW – that shit isn’t retroactive. What, OXM should assign at least 2 writers to review every new IP that comes along? I’m guessing they don’t have the staff for that.
October 6, 2009 at 6:37 pm
OXM -does- assign 2 writers to every review. And that’s 1/3 of the staff, not including the art director. They can’t feasibly do more than that when they cover every 360 and XBLA game that comes out, plus all of the features, previews and extra department articles that give the magazine its edge. GameInformer has the luxury of being backed by the one and only game retail chain and they too have only 2 writers review each new release.
October 6, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Not counting the small sidebar the review was less than 400 words!
One of your staffers (Paul? I Think) put the game as 101st on his Top 100 Xbox games. Yes, I think the score would have been different if he had played it before the review.
Ok, I admit I am wrong about more than 2 staffers should have played the game considering the size of the staff. It’s just an unfortunate coincidence (for DS and OXM readers) that the 2 who played it weren’t thrilled with it.
October 6, 2009 at 11:20 pm
I think that’s a problem with the reviewing process as a whole. We try our darndest to stay in line with what we believe gamers like and dislike. Unfortunately, I thought wholeheartedly that people would agree DS just wasn’t up to par with other horror games. I’m a huuuuuge fan of horror, and with all the hype this one got for being “original”, I just wasn’t impressed. Paul, on the other hand, is admittedly a complete wimp when it comes to horror (one of the reasons he passed the game to me). DS, being more of an action-thriller than a standard horror, was a perfect fit for Paul and obviously many, many others (for more than this reason, I’m sure).
That’s one of Metacritic’s strong points. When you see the discrepancy between one score and another, you can read both reviews and decide what’s best for you. For example, I love J-RPGs, mostly for the good stories. So if one reviewer says he loved it because of all the loots and battles, I would second-guess his opinion. If another one said he disliked it because the story was cheesy, I would trust the score he gave it. That’s why you read more than one review.
Even after this debacle, I still really appreciate Metacritic. I generally check Metacritic so that I can pick and choose two to three reviews to read. People who just glance at the score average aren’t doin’ it right.
October 5, 2009 at 6:03 pm |
Good for you, standing by your work. I’d rather read an honest review than PR ego stroke. I’m sorry this guy didn’t get that sweet bonus he would have had it hit 90 but maybe he’ll negotiate a bit better with EA over his next game or, I don’t know, make a better game next time.
To be fair, the give and take between designers and marketing often screws up many good games but your opinion, the opinion of the magazine you write for really, is just that – an opinion, albeit an educated one based on your gaming experience.
For the guy that won’t read OXM anymore, World at War SP does suck.
October 5, 2009 at 7:57 pm |
[...] Have a read of Meghan’s full report on the situation over on her blog. [...]
October 5, 2009 at 9:17 pm |
Well Mitch, he did say he was no longer a reader so that is at least one. Unless you think he is lying.
I look at it from a perfectly selfish point of view because, really, I’m the only one here I care about.
OXM gave Legendary a 7.5 and Dead Space a 6.5. I played both and DS was MUCH more enjoyable. I loved it.
So this means to me that OXM can’t be trusted enough by itself. I always check Metacritic too before making a game purchase.
Yes, that is probably some obvious good advice for everyone: Check more than one review before deciding.
And I do think the Editors at OXM messed up on this one. Such a high profile new IP should have been given more than half a page review and more than 2 staffers should have played the game.
Meghan is entitled to her opinion and right to stick by it. She is apparently my “one guy on the Chicago Tribune review staff.”
October 6, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
Oh, I didn’t know that, Meghan. Faulty assumption on my part, my bad.
October 7, 2009 at 9:03 pm |
Dead Space was horrible, and any review is a review. The developer’s a petty idiot who couldn’t look away from average tables long enough to notice that it wasn’t just OXM who tore the game a new arsehole, it was several other magazines. If he responded that badly to a review that was, to be fair, far from bad, then how did he feel reading Edge’s repeated comments on how it was a complete load of tripe? I think it failed as a horror game in every level, the movement was clunky and the concept old and tired. Ignore him, and best of luck.
December 28, 2009 at 7:40 am |
Интересно, кто обьяснит девушке как добавить этот сайт в избранное?