Don't miss
  • 12
  • 6468
  • 6097
  • 20

Metacritic: A Defence

By on February 4, 2009
Print Friendly

Though by no means a new target, I was drawn recently to a Develop magazine column by Simon Byron discussing the multitude demerits of Metacritic and other review aggregators.metacritic

I use Metacritic on a regular basis, so I feel obliged to step into the firing line. I like being able to get multiple perspectives at once, and to quickly ascertain how well a game has done at review – and while I’m not going to jump straight into questions of artistic objectivity, I like avoiding the trap of reading a 90% review and finding out after purchase all the others were in the 50s.

The Decline of Journalistic Standards

Byron begins by attacking general post-web journalistic standards. “The barriers to entry have fallen so far over recent years that anyone with the ability to type words into the Internet can almost legitimately call themselves ‘press’.” Far be it from me to disagree with that statement – my first web review was off the back of four A Levels and a decent sample, and that was five years ago – but you can hardly blame the hobbyist reviewers.Byron, in fairness, also blames Metacritic’s selection criteria. “Its sources are a mix of top specialist review destinations and loads of My First Internet Sites.” This flaw is compounded by the fact that although Metacritic weights the reviews, this rating system is secret – “We’re just supposed to trust the opinion of a site which apparently doesn’t have an opinion.”

Again, it’s a hard accusation to deny, not to mention a strange flaw in the system – why does Metacritic reference such amateur sites? My disagreement is only with Byron’s interpretation of the facts.

The Defence

First, the weighting system may be secret, but at least it’s there – and I’m sure we can all guess which sites are the heavier hitters.

Second, his dismissal of the ‘lesser’ sites seems somewhat naive (I’m sure it’s not, it just sounds it) in light of front page scandals like GamespotGate and more recently the Tomb Raider / Barrington Harvey ‘score managing’ ordeal. Clearly it’s impossible to place all your faith in sites with everything to lose. The guys whose Bioshock review “…had been read by 451 people in its month since publication” are a lot less likely to be swayed by anything other than honest impressions – even if that doesn’t leave time for more than a casual nod to grammar.

I’m also swayed by the (un)canny accuracy of the aggregates. Certainly on the games I’ve worked on, the aggregate score in each case has been pretty closely matched to my own expectations. Further, the standard difference in scores is usually pretty tight. You get a couple of extremes, but everyone else is usually bunched up within 10% – 15% of one another, ie the scores are reasonably representative. An aggregate score is never intended to be all things to all men – but if it can capture the majority, surely it’s done its job?

What’s more, the ‘respected’ sites like Gamespot and Eurogamer seem to differ from one another just as much as any other – indicating, as if it needed pointing out, that this is a subjective game – there’s no such thing as a ‘correct score’.

The Value in Aggragation

On that note, I’m not sure what to make of Byron’s comment that, “Some sort of central hub of opinion is fine in theory – why make up your mind yourself when you can simply think what everyone else does?” On the one hand I feel Metacritic’s hub has proved defendable in practice, and on the other, I object to the suggestion that the site encourages sheepism.

Byron may feel that Metacritic panders to “score-obsessed autism that proper journalists… become legitimately dismayed about,” but I look at it the other way. To take a Metacritic score as the be all and end all of a purchase decision is clearly almost as flawed as treating a single review score similarly. To take a Metacritic review list as a reminder that no one opinion is objective – that one man’s 50% is another man’s 80 – is good business sense.


The value in a review isn’t found in the reviewer’s education, his readership, or even the quality of his writing (though the latter is certainly nice). A valuable review is one that reflects your own preferences, and that’s something Metacritic delivers in spades. I read the very best, and the very worst review in any given list, and it consistently does a better job of addressing concerns of importance to me than the sanitised mass market approach of the IGNs and PC Gamers.

Finally, to address accusations that Metacritic scores are too influential in publishing, I’d point out that Metacritic is a reasonable representation of critical success, and therefore anything which encourages publishers and developers to pursue quality as well as sales can only be a good thing.

About Tom Jubert

Tom Jubert is a freelance games writer / narrative designer, best known for his work on the Penumbra series, for which he was nominated for a Writers' Guild Award. His upcoming releases include Lost Horizon and Driver: San Francisco. He was previously the Managing Editor at, and has also spent time in production.
  • Anonymous

    Some good points. Personally I really appreciate Metacritic. A lot of people only have the money to buy a full priced retail title every month or two, and if we don’t work in the press, retail or some other industry connected avenue where we get to try out a game first, if we don’t want to make badly uninformed choices based on flashy advertising, we have to base our decision on something.
    In the past, like you said, I have bought bad games guided by the enthusiasm of a great review, and found the game terrible. I have then found that the broad spectrum of reviews generally agreed with me. Often making these purchases means I have left another game I was interested in on the shelf. Whilst one or two reviewers may give an erroneous score, generally when Metacritic hase a close score range, it is right. Obviously a few games have very devided reviews, Deadly Premonition springs to mind, Which I am yet to try, this tells us that opinion on this game is subjective and we could love or hate it. But for a game with few reviews above 45% it’s clear most people agree it’s a bad or at least dissapointing game. Obviously ideally we would try it our selves, but in reality that’s not an option.
    Conversely, it’s not always just stopping us buy. I may not have ever tried Limbo had it not been for it’s incedible metascore, not because I was looking for the score, but becuase I may not have heard of it. It gives attention to outstanding indie games, and I find it hard to see that as a bad thing, Limbo was one of my favourite games last year.

    Byron can call us sheep, but we have to base our decisions on something, the ideal is playing the games, but that is not going to happen. Better a consensus opinion than buying the one with the best cover.

    Developers seem to love Metacritic when they are getting good scores, and turn against it when their scores are a bit more mixed.

    Publishers using it to determine bonuses and lay offs is maybe a bit harsh, but if your boss decides that you should use paint brushes for hammers, they will be rubbish for the task at hand, but that doesn’t make a paintbrush a bad tool when used correctly. Unless you broke it by using it as a hammer of course.

  • As someone who spent a lot of time talking to investors in the games industry, I think that Metacritic has only been a good thing. Investors used to look at a *single* review when trying to decide whether a game was any good: that meant that a canny company would put good reviews in a pack for investors, while less canny ones could be shafted by a single bad review.

    Metacritic aggregated the reviews in one place, made it easy for investors to find them, and for the first time, I felt that reviews were a meaningful contribution to an investor’s view of the company (previously, I had believed that only sales mattered).

    Metacritic is flawed, as Simon argues. But it is better, in my opinion, than either looking at either a single review or no reviews at all

  • I should point out that I can certainly see where Byron is coming from. I’ve always been apposed to scores on reviews – or at least scores out of more than 3. Scores suggest objectivity, words suggest subjectivity.

    It’s disturbing to think that a niche game might receive a low aggregate score as a result of its precise appeal, and therefore be perceived as somehow unsuccessful, and I suppose Metacritic is the biggest figurehead for that kind of mentality.

    All the same, I don’t look at it as actively encouraging such mentality any more than a magazine dishing out percentage scores does. My overall impression of the site remains a positive one.

    What are your views? Has Metacritic directly impacted a project you’ve worked on, or your buying habits?