Metacritic

Metacritic is a website that aggregates reviews of films, TV shows, music albums, video games and formerly, books. For each product, the scores from each review are averaged (a weighted average). Metacritic was created by Jason Dietz, Marc Doyle, and Julie Doyle Roberts in 1999. The site provides an excerpt from each review and hyperlinks to its source. A color of green, yellow or red summarizes the critics' recommendations. It is regarded as the foremost online review aggregation site for the video game industry.[2][3]

Metacritic
Type of site
Review aggregator
OwnerRed Ventures[1]
URLwww.metacritic.com
CommercialYes
RegistrationFree/subscription
LaunchedJanuary 2001 (2001-01)
Current statusActive
OCLC number911795326

Metacritic's scoring converts each review into a percentage, either mathematically from the mark given, or what the site decides subjectively from a qualitative review. Before being averaged, the scores are weighted according to the critic's fame, stature, and volume of reviews. The website won two Webby Awards for excellence as an aggregation website. Criticism has focused on the assessment system, the assignment of scores to reviews that do not include ratings, alleged third-party attempts to influence the scores, and lack of staff oversight of user reviews.

History
The original logo for Metacritic

Metacritic was launched in January 2001[4] by Marc Doyle, his sister Julie Doyle Roberts, and a classmate from the University of Southern California law school, Jason Dietz, after two years of developing the site. Rotten Tomatoes was already compiling movie reviews, but Doyle, Roberts and Dietz saw an opportunity to cover a broader range of media. They sold Metacritic to CNET in 2005.[5] CNET and Metacritic were later acquired by the CBS Corporation.[6] In 2020 Metacritic and other CNET titles were bought by Red Ventures.[1]

Influence

Metacritic has been used by businesses to predict future sales. In 2007, Nick Wingfield of The Wall Street Journal wrote that Metacritic "influence[s] the sales of games and the stocks of video game publishers". He explains its influence as coming from the higher cost of buying video games than music or movie tickets. Many executives say that low scores "can hurt the long-term sales potential". Wingfield wrote that Wall Street pays attention to Metacritic and GameRankings because the sites typically post scores before sales data are publicly available, citing the respective rapid rise and fall in company values after BioShock and Spider-Man 3 were released.[5] In an interview with The Guardian, Marc Doyle cited two major publishers that "conducted comprehensive statistical surveys through which they've been able to draw a correlation between high metascores and stronger sales" in certain genres. He claimed that an increasing number of businesses and financial analysts use Metacritic as "an early indicator of a game's potential sales and, by extension, the publisher's stock price".[7] However, a 2015 study analyzing over 88 Xbox 360 and 80 PS3 games from 2012 found that Metacritic scores did not impact actual sales.[8]

Controversially, the website has been used by game publishers as a means of determining whether a game's developer receives additional royalties. One notable example is the 2010 game Fallout: New Vegas, which received an average Metascore of 84—one point too short of Bethesda's, the game's publisher, 85-point requirement. As a result, its developer, Obsidian Entertainment, received no additional bonus. Columnists took issue with the company's use of Metacritic, with one suggesting that this makes game critics ultimately accountable for deciding the developer's profits and another pointing out that a Metascore of 84 is not significantly lower than 85. The latter also pointed out the impressive sales of five million sold units and US$300 million in revenue, and also noted a series of Obsidian's layoffs in 2011 and 2012.[9][10]

The website has been used by columnists and commentators as a general reference for critical reception,[11] and by publishers as a tool of improving their products. Along with other executives, in 2008, John Riccitiello, then CEO of Electronic Arts, showed Wall Street analysts a chart illustrating a downward trend in the average critical ratings of the company's games. He took the ratings seriously and stressed the need for the company to bounce back.[12] Also in 2008, Microsoft used Metacritic averages to delist underperforming Xbox Live Arcade games.[13][14]

Metascores

Scores are weighted averages. Certain publications are given more significance "because of their stature".[5] Metacritic has said that it will not reveal the relative weight assigned to each reviewer.[15]

Games Editor Marc Doyle was interviewed in 2008 by Keith Stuart of The Guardian to "get a look behind the metascoring process". Stuart wrote: "The metascore phenomenon, namely Metacritic and GameRankings, have become an enormously important element of online games journalism over the past few years".[7] Doyle said that because video games lead to a greater investment of time and money, gamers are more informed about reviews than are fans of film or music; they want to know "whether that hotly anticipated title is going to deliver".[7]

Score index[16]
Indication Video games Films/television/music
Universal acclaim 90–100 81–100
Generally favorable reviews 75–89 61–80
Mixed or average reviews 50–74 40–60
Generally unfavorable reviews 20–49 20–39
Overwhelming dislike 0–19

In June 2018, Metacritic established the "Must-See" label for a movie that "achieves a Metascore of 81 or higher and has been reviewed by a minimum of 15 professional critics".[17] In September 2018, it added the "Must-Play" certification for video games attaining a score of 90% or more, and a minimum number of 15 reviews from industry professionals.[18][19]

Reception

Metacritic received mixed reviews from website critics, commentators, and columnists alike. Its efficacy has been analyzed, with conclusions finding it to be generally useful[20] or unreliable and biased.[21] The website won two annual Webby Awards for excellence in the "Guides/Ratings/Reviews" category, in 2010 and 2015.[22][23]

Criticism

Metacritic has been criticized for converting all scoring systems into a single quantitative percentage-based scale. For example, an "A" score equates to the value of 100, an "F" the value of zero, and a "B–" the value of 67.[7] Joe Dodson, former editor at Game Revolution, criticized Metacritic and similar sites for turning reviews into scores that he found to be too low.[5] Doyle defended the grading system, believing that every scale should be converted directly to that of the website, with its lowest possible score being 0 and the highest 100.[7] Further criticism was directed to the website's refusal to publicize how it aggregates scores.[8]

According to Doyle, publishers often try to persuade him to exclude reviews they feel are unfair, but he said that once a publication is included, he refuses to omit any of its reviews.[5] A Washington Post review of Uncharted 4 was assigned with a rating of 40/100 by Metacritic; this was the only negative review of the game.[24] Readers who disapproved of the review petitioned Metacritic to remove the Post as a trusted source.[25] As a result of its perceived negative influence on the industry, several reviewing sites, including Kotaku and Eurogamer, have dropped numerical reviews that would appear in Metacritic, instead favoring a qualitative assessment of a game.[26][27] Kotaku also highlighted a practice alleged to be used by some publishers who use Metacritic scores as a way to leverage more favorable terms for the publisher or deny developers bonuses should they not reach a certain score. Doyle countered this by saying "Metacritic has absolutely nothing to do with how the industry uses our numbers... Metacritic has always been about educating the gamer. We're using product reviews as a tool to help them make the most of their time and money." [28]

Metacritic has also been criticized for how it handles banning users and their reviews, with no notice or formal process for appeal.[29] Critics and developers have pointed out that a product can suffer from rating manipulation by users, as by garnering low ratings that purposely damage its reputation or by receiving high ratings from throwaway accounts to make it appear more popular than it actually is.[30][31] Signal Studios president and creative director Douglas Albright described the website as having no standards.[32]

See also

References
  1. Spangler, Todd. "ViacomCBS Reaches Deal to Sell CNET for $500 Million to Marketing Firm Red Ventures". Variety. Retrieved November 13, 2020.
  2. Leack, Jonathan (September 25, 2015). "OpenCritic's Gamer-Centric Style Is Everything Metacritic Should Have Been". Game Revolution. Archived from the original on September 27, 2015. Retrieved September 12, 2019.
  3. Rose, Mike (July 10, 2012). "Metacritic is here to stay, but can we fix it?". Gamasutra. Archived from the original on September 15, 2018. Retrieved September 12, 2019.
  4. "Metacritic: The History". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Archived from the original on September 5, 2018. Retrieved September 5, 2018.
  5. Wingfield, Nick (September 20, 2007). "High Scores Matter To Game Makers, Too". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on February 15, 2015. Retrieved February 15, 2008.
  6. "Columbia Journalism Review - CJR's guide to what the major media companies own". Columbia Journalism Review. Archived from the original on April 17, 2016. Retrieved November 28, 2011.
  7. Doyle, Marc (January 17, 2008). "Interview: the science and art of Metacritic". The Guardian (Interview). Interviewed by Stuart, Keith. Archived from the original on October 6, 2014. Retrieved February 15, 2008.
  8. Khan, Imad (December 11, 2015). "Do Metacritic scores affect game sales?". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on April 12, 2019. Retrieved September 12, 2019.
  9. MacDonald, Keza (July 16, 2012). "Is Metacritic Ruining The Games Industry?". IGN. Archived from the original on February 11, 2020. Retrieved September 8, 2019.
  10. Orland, Kyle (March 15, 2012). "Why linking developer bonuses to Metacritic scores should come to an end". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on December 17, 2019. Retrieved September 12, 2019.
  11. Gilbert, Ben (May 9, 2019). "The 10 best Pokémon games of all time, according to critics". Business Insider. Archived from the original on September 27, 2019. Retrieved September 8, 2019.
  12. Hillis, Scott (February 21, 2008). "Game scoring site wields industry clout". Reuters. Archived from the original on February 7, 2020. Retrieved September 8, 2019.
  13. Remo, Chris (May 22, 2008). "Microsoft To Delist Low-Ranking XBLA Titles, Raise Size Limit". Gamasutra. Archived from the original on May 25, 2008. Retrieved May 22, 2008.
  14. Keiser, Joe (May 22, 2008). "EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: MS to Delist XBLA Titles". Next Generation. p. 1. Archived from the original on January 24, 2012. Retrieved May 29, 2008.
  15. "Frequently Asked Questions". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Archived from the original on August 13, 2015. Retrieved July 29, 2015.
  16. "How We Create the Metascore Magic". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Archived from the original on September 28, 2015. Retrieved May 13, 2012.
  17. "New on Metacritic: Must-See Movies". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. June 11, 2018. Archived from the original on October 18, 2018. Retrieved October 16, 2018.
  18. Leonard, Matt (September 12, 2018). "Metacritic Adds 'Must-Play' Label to Highly Reviewed Games". Game Revolution. Archived from the original on February 27, 2020. Retrieved September 9, 2019.
  19. "New on Metacritic: Must-Play Games". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. September 12, 2018. Archived from the original on September 14, 2018. Retrieved April 24, 2020.
  20. Grubb, Jeff (August 7, 2013). "Metacritic works: Why the review-aggregation site is important for the average consumer". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on February 26, 2020. Retrieved September 7, 2019.
  21. Spector, Warren (May 13, 2013). "Defining Success: Why Metacritic Should Be Irrelevant". GamesIndustry.biz. Archived from the original on January 30, 2020. Retrieved September 7, 2019.
  22. "2010 Webby Award Winner". International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences. 2010. Archived from the original on February 26, 2020. Retrieved September 6, 2019.
  23. "2015 Webby Award Winner". International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences. 2015. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved September 6, 2019.
  24. "Uncharted 4: A Thief's End for Playstation 4 Reviews". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Archived from the original on August 13, 2018. Retrieved August 6, 2018.
  25. Schreier, Jason (May 16, 2016). "Reviewer Targeted For Giving Uncharted 4 Negative Review". Kotaku. Archived from the original on May 16, 2016. Retrieved May 16, 2016.
  26. Tolito, Stephan (January 30, 2012). "How We Will Review Games". Kotaku. Archived from the original on February 10, 2015. Retrieved February 10, 2015.
  27. Welsh, Oli (February 10, 2015). "Eurogamer has dropped review scores". Eurogamer. Archived from the original on February 10, 2015. Retrieved February 10, 2015.
  28. Schreier, Jason (August 8, 2015). "Metacritic Matters: How Review Scores Hurt Video Games". Kotaku. Archived from the original on November 18, 2019. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
  29. "Metacritic bans 'bombing' user reviewers". ComputerAndVideoGames.com. September 23, 2011. Archived from the original on September 24, 2011. Retrieved September 23, 2011.
  30. Glennon, Jen (June 24, 2020). "Metacritic has a review bombing problem. Here are 6 ways to fix it". Inverse. Retrieved June 28, 2020.
  31. Valentine, Rebekah (February 21, 2020). "Kunai becomes the latest title review bombed on Metacritic by a single person". GamesIndustry.biz. Archived from the original on June 29, 2020. Retrieved June 28, 2020.
  32. Klepek, Patrick (September 22, 2011). "Metacritic Finds, Bans Group of Users Unfairly Scoring Games". Giant Bomb. Archived from the original on March 8, 2014. Retrieved September 22, 2011.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.