My issue is with the data fed into Metacritic. On the contrary, I consult them frequently, and I feel they provide a valuable if sometimes flawed service. Unlike a lot of writers - Adam Sessler really unloaded on Metacritic in Schreier’s article, implying that it keeps food from game developers’ families - I don’t hate the aggregates. And I’m the same way, as a guy who plays games and as a guy who writes about games. People like numbers, statistics, math, lists, favorites. People like to gauge the consensus on their entertainment. I’m grateful to be on Metacritic because it’s a fundamental part of the modern conversation about entertainment. I would argue that what doesn’t work and what’s hurting videogames is how many reviewers pretend ridiculously towards objective insight measured on a bell curve that spots a game 60 points for just showing up, but deprives them of 100 points for not being perfect. Schreier concludes that the system - Metacritic aggregating someone who uses the entire range with someone who doesn’t use the entire range - doesn’t work. We’re talking about entertainment here, not toasters, cell phones, or automobiles.
As a reviewer, I believe strongly in two things and I don’t feel either of these things should be “aberrant”: 1) I believe in using the entire range of a ratings system, and 2) I believe in rating games based on my experience with them rather than pretending I have some objective insight into their level of quality. That’s far more of a statement about the state of videogame criticism than a statement about me. But I can’t help but wonder that he introduced me as “well-known for aberrant scores”. I enjoyed Schreier’s article for the diversity of sources he used, and I’m grateful that he invited me to participate. I was fortunate enough to be part of Jason Schreier’s thoughtfully written and incendiarily titled article on Kotaku, Metacritic Matters: How Review Scores Hurt Videogames.
0 kommentar(er)
