-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
What do you prefer: Opencritic scoring system vs Metacritic scoring system?
- Thread starter Kolx
- Start date
I don't really mind. The differences really vary by any wild margin.
For a score used for marketing purposes, or even for some kind of attempt to objectively measure subjective opinions I think I prefer Metacritic's more algorithmic approach to trying to weedle out sites that constantly score high/low.
For a score used for marketing purposes, or even for some kind of attempt to objectively measure subjective opinions I think I prefer Metacritic's more algorithmic approach to trying to weedle out sites that constantly score high/low.
Metacritic's system is dumb for the reason people say that the "you can't spell ignorant without ign" meme is dumb. Most of these big named sites have dozens of reviewers with varying degrees of experience. One person could've have written reviews for multiple sites but because one of those sites is more well known, that review is given more weight than any other reviews that person may have written before.
Didn't gamerankings (rip) have an issue where smaller websites would make old reviews just to change the ranking of a game? It's this sort of thing that makes me concerned about weighing all sites the same. It may get closer to fanboy reviews that you see with the "user score".
If opencritic takes scores only from decent publications in the first place, then I'm all for weighing all evenly.
If opencritic takes scores only from decent publications in the first place, then I'm all for weighing all evenly.
As a Switch player I am interested in platform-specific reviews due to the uneven history of ports to the system. Does OpenCritic allow you to filter in any way?
Opencritic has the second figure of what percent of reviewers recommend the game. It would be 50% in the first case and 0% in the second. Both sites also show the distribution, most clearly on Metacritic with its green, yellow and red bars.
With crap like slant magazine that purposely shits on popular games for getting clicks, I'd rather the metacritic system.
OpenCritic.
The weighting system of MC is nonsense. I don't buy that bigger publications like GameSpot and IGN have more value, especially after big scandals like the Jeff Gertsmann exit and Filip Miucun plagiarism.
Combining reviews between platform-specific publications works out better.
Having an RT-like recommended meter is much more useful for making purchasing decisions. "Should I buy this or nah?" is a significantly more useful metric than "how does this compare to Citizen Kane?"
The weighting system of MC is nonsense. I don't buy that bigger publications like GameSpot and IGN have more value, especially after big scandals like the Jeff Gertsmann exit and Filip Miucun plagiarism.
Combining reviews between platform-specific publications works out better.
Having an RT-like recommended meter is much more useful for making purchasing decisions. "Should I buy this or nah?" is a significantly more useful metric than "how does this compare to Citizen Kane?"
Some games aren't well optimized on some platforms. Like Bayonetta 1 which was unplayable for some people on PS3. If I can separate reviews by platforms in cases like this it would be ideal.
I prefer Opencritic just in terms of the UI, so that's what I use. I hadn't thought much about the differences in the rating systems. To be fair, it's not bad idea to put more weight on more reputable reviewers, but you should be open about how and why you do this.
A straight real average of all reviews makes the most sense to me.
But from what I've seen don't the vast majority of scores usually end up the same or maybe 1 point of difference between the two anyway?
But from what I've seen don't the vast majority of scores usually end up the same or maybe 1 point of difference between the two anyway?
People, like you in particular, are the reason why I've been aiming for Metacritic as much as possible. So that way, while yes, JackofAllControllers.com is fairly small, we'd have the ability to have new people come in for perspectives since we're on a respected platform.
That's mainly because OpenCritic still has a review process. It took my site JackofAllControllers.com months to get accepted since they don't let the average Joe shmo in. So for the most part it's the same reviewers across the board besides a few differences here or there.
Metacritic, but only because it's become so ingrained that it's like instinct pulling out my phone and checking a game's reviews.
Easily Open Critic. Metacritic hiding it's weighting system and having no transparency is a bit lame in my opinion. You get an overall score but have no idea how that score came to be. Plus, just because a website has more viewers, for example IGN, doesn't mean their reviews are better written/ more informative. Why do their scores carry more weight? I think many of the smaller sites and reviewers have much better reviews and they can gave a smaller impact on a Metacritic score.
Then you will have a game that had like 40 reviews for PS4 have a lower review score than the same game on Xbox which might have 20 review scores. Open Critic just looks at the scores overall.. Much better
Then you will have a game that had like 40 reviews for PS4 have a lower review score than the same game on Xbox which might have 20 review scores. Open Critic just looks at the scores overall.. Much better
This basically. Reviews are the content -- i.e. a human's baseline perspective + their evaluation. I can read a positive review and know I'll hate the game and vice versa. Or maybe I'll just be intrigued by the writing.
Treating criticism as a score to rack up really devalues it imo.
I think there should be a weighting system, so that the more reputable publications do have a greater weighting to the final score (as smaller publications have more of an incentive to publish clickbait reviews). That being said, Metacritic should be transparent with how each critic is weighted.
OpenCritic.
I actually like the "Critics Recommend" thing they have alongside an average of the scores.
I actually like the "Critics Recommend" thing they have alongside an average of the scores.
Has anyone been able to articulate what's superior about OC in practice rather than principle yet? You don't like obscured weightings of scores. Great. What does it matter when the unweighted averages are nearly identical?
What pernicious effect is the MC score having on the industry that OC is not?
What pernicious effect is the MC score having on the industry that OC is not?
I like that Opencritic aggregates all platform on a single page with a single score, but I prefer Metacritic's algorithm for determining scores.
So Metacritic by a hair I guess.
So Metacritic by a hair I guess.
Opencritic doesn't make its reviewers jump through flaming hoops like fucking circus lions.
So I'm going with that site.
Oh and fuck Metacritic in general.
So I'm going with that site.
Oh and fuck Metacritic in general.
Opencritic
I also prefer how they present the data with the Weak ... Mighty scale and the Critic Recommended percentage.
Also, the design of the web site is so, so, so much better than Metacritic. It seems to me that Metacritic isn't even trying in that regard.
I also prefer how they present the data with the Weak ... Mighty scale and the Critic Recommended percentage.
Also, the design of the web site is so, so, so much better than Metacritic. It seems to me that Metacritic isn't even trying in that regard.