Metacritic Scores Show 2013 as Record for Lowest Number of "Great Games"

Metacritic Scores Show 2013 as Record for Lowest Number of "Great Games"

Trevor

Grand Theft Auto V was the highest scoring game on Metacritic of 2013, one of seven console titles to score 90 or higher last year.

2013 saw hits like Grand Theft Auto, The Last of Us, and Bioshock: Infinite, but these three games were one of only seven console titles to score a 90 or higher on Metacritic last year, making 2013 the record for lowest number of "great games."

"Great games" on Metacritic are considered 90 or higher. Metacritic notes that 11 console games made the list, but of those 11, seven were unique titles (as several were multi-platform). Including handheld and PC games, 18 games were scored 90 or higher, matching the total in 2012. Metacritic notes this was "an amount that was far lower than in previous years."

2013 was also the year we fully proceeded into the next generation of consoles, and while numbers for PS4 and Xbox One titles were not impressive, Metacritic believes there is hope for better results in the future. It notes Wii U, 3DS, and Vita title scores also improved from the previous year. The PS4 has the highest average Metascore at 73.4 among the consoles and PC, but the system only has one title with a 90 or higher and one exclusive with a 75 or higher. In comparison, Xbox One had an average Metascore of 67.7, zero titles scored at lest 90, and three exclusives 75 or higher. To round it out, Wii U obtained an average of 72.6, three titles scored at least 90, and seven exclusives scored at least 75. PC took home the greatest number of good exclusives - 46.

2013 was certainly not a bad year for games. Review scores aren't the be-all-end-all to games, and last year brought in games that challenged the medium, used the medium to its fullest, and started conversations on games. Most of all, we had a great time playing them.

Source: Metacritic

Permalink

I have a very simple philosophy: If it has a 60 or higher on metacritic, the exact score doesn't matter one bit. I've played fantastic games that had a metascore of about 65, and I've played dull as shit games that had a score of around 95.

Which is to say, I honestly couldn't care less if there weren't as many high numbers this year as in previous years.

Tactical Pause:
I have a very simple philosophy: If it has a 60 or higher on metacritic, the exact score doesn't matter one bit. I've played fantastic games that had a metascore of about 65, and I've played dull as shit games that had a score of around 95.

Which is to say, I honestly couldn't care less if there weren't as many high numbers this year as in previous years.

Pretty much this. I've played many games that were widely acclaimed on Metacritic as being "the best thing ever" and found little to no enjoyment from them. Meanwhile, I go and play Sonic Lost World like crazy and quite like the games, and they have a Metacritic below 70.

I also don't take MetaCritic seriously because it's so easy to review-bomb the place, especially after last year in which review-bombing was done like crazy.

I think this is mainly due to reviewers becoming more sensible and not just giving everything 7-10 anymore. That was getting pretty ridiculous over the last few years.

Tactical Pause:
I have a very simple philosophy: If it has a 60 or higher on metacritic, the exact score doesn't matter one bit. I've played fantastic games that had a metascore of about 65, and I've played dull as shit games that had a score of around 95.

Which is to say, I honestly couldn't care less if there weren't as many high numbers this year as in previous years.

Similar to my own stance.

I only so much care about scores in so far as they relate to the basic playability. Do bugs and shoddy controls hold it back? No? Then okay, the rest is highly subjective.

Tactical Pause:

Which is to say, I honestly couldn't care less if there weren't as many high numbers this year as in previous years.

I can see why you'd feel that way, but I find it particularly interesting that this is against the trend of score inflation.

With so many mediocre sequels, though, it might not be a trend in itself.

I have a very simple stance towards Metacritic:

They use an intrasparent bullshit system that weighs in scores different depending on source without any clarification as to how that is determined. So the Metacritic score is useless.

Numerical ratings are pretty useless to me. I prefer a simple Yes/No for recommending a game, and then a space to write a review, like Steam does it. Means a lot more than trying to discern why a game is a 6 or a 5. I thought 2013 had plenty of great games.

I didn't realize people gave any credence to metacritic, especially with the practice of reviewing bombing being a thing.

Personally, I just use my own judgement on a game and if I don't know enough about it I will watch trailers or gameplay on youtube.

Reviews are fucking pointless these days, even ages ago I wouldn't give them too much credit. Games are so subjective that one person saying it's great has another saying it's bad. People have raging gamer boners for indies such as brothers, gone home etc but I think they all look really dull.

Plus, with fanboys obviously inflating scores and all "pro" reviewers giving games such as GTAv 9/10 or 4.5 stars it's meaningless. We all know which games are going to be high scoring before they even release, GTA and COD have always been these kind of games. Ok, a dude on this site kind of bombed GTA5 but there is an exception to everything.

Three Wii U titles scored at least 90? I only see two: Super Mario 3D World and Skylanders: Swap Force (a solid platformer with cartoon characters that use the kind of often-intelligent humor found in TV shows like Adventure Time, MLP: Friendship is Magic, and the new TMNT show; not really worth over 90, but there are different tastes). Is Metacritic itself including Pikmin 3 or New Super Mario Bros U?

Because everyone knows that Metacritic is such a credible source for determining game quality.

If I want to know whether a game is worth my time, I'll find a little section of footage and find out what it's all about first-hand. Then if it still interests me, I'll get it.

I don't understand people who decide to forgo any kind of critical thinking in favour of taking the opinion of a critic as their own. Reminds me of people in the comments sections of Big Picture and Zero Punctuation who say things like; "oh you hated this? I bet I will too then!"

Ugh.

So anything below a 90 isn't a "great" game? Only eight "great" games?

My 3DS alone got over eight games I'd call system-sellers, ranging from Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, Shin Megami Tensei IV, Animal Crossing, Pokemon X & Y, Fire Emblem: Awakening, Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D, and Zelda: A Link Between Worlds.

Metacritic is fine and all, but I'm glad people are wisening up that it's not the end-all, be-all for a game's quality. I think most people learned that less with GTA4.

PC took home the greatest number of good exclusives - 46.

Pretty good for a platform that has been 'dead' for the past decade or so. Although I can imagine there are a few hundred shit PC exclusives too.

Xman490:
New Super Mario Bros U?

Why would it include that game for 2013? New Super Mario Bros U was a launch title on the Wii U back in 2012, so it wouldn't be included on the list at all because the list is about 2013 games, and no New Super Luigi U doesn't count because that's just an expansion pack being sold as a game mainly.

Not really surprising to me at least. Reviewers who actually have had a platform have been overall negative on games for the shallowest of reasons and on the developer side the games being created and distributed have certainly erred on the side of safety which was one of the worst things to happen during the console generation. So both sides are certainly at fault.

Gameplay wise there really wasn't much of a change and the biggest selling point for most new IPs was actually just the narrative to which reviewers were quickly to scorn because they aren't able to actually discern the difference between fictional content that is controversial compared to actually encouraging said controversial acts.

Certainly a lot of good games are out there but neither side is really helping each other out. Reviewers and critics are deciding it is more important to enforce their morality and beliefs in reviews over the actual content of the game. Hell there are game reviewers out there that label themselves are "turbo-feminists" and will literally give games a low score because they thought the content was "oppressive" to the female gender. Seriously people who are getting paid to write the reviews now aren't helping developers or consumers anymore but are just self-serving themselves for a fanatical base like it was a stupid game of politics.

Metacritc can go the same direction as the Youtube COntent ID thing and go jump in a lake.

I am a huge fan of Fallout New Vegas, but due to the retards who downscored the game because they hated it or its franchise, the developers lost out on their bonus.

I have never gone to the Metacritic website, and I never intend to. It can join the pulsating mass of raging fanboys and go away

I think the people absolutely dismissing metacritic are going too far. There is a lot of information in there and it's a pretty strong resource.

And it clearly is conveying information, in that I could look at any game and make a pretty good guess as to it's metacritic rating. It's a homogenisation of the global critical thought, it tells us that GTAV was the game everyone was talking about this year, as was Gone Home.

It's also a pretty darn good measure of polish. I can guarantee that no 90+ metacritic game is going to be a buggy mess and that the mechanics and art style will be well polished and balanced and to a degree this game is for 'everyone' so to speak.

If you're expecting it to be the be all and end all decider of 'good' for your personal expectations, of course it's going to fail, but even if you're not interested in reading the actual views, it's by no means useless.

Maybe Metacritic doesn't see many great games because every review based on a 10 point scale (or converted to it) is garbage. A perfect 10 is "buy it even if you don't own that system or like that type of game. 9 to 8 is great. 7 to 6 is buy it if you're a fan or rent it. 5 and below is the increasing shit level. Pretty much every game worth playing for a few minutes is an 8 minimum. Every one using this system needs to balance it out more so 9s and 10s are near perfect, 7s and 8s are really great, 5s and 6s are ok/rent it/check it out if you like that sort of thing, 4 and below is for diehard fans of a franchise and masochists.

Also, I bet the lower scores are because of backlash against accusations of review sites getting ad revenue and swag for better scores and producers holding back IPs to get games on the next gen after kinks are worked out of the systems(also install bases to go up) and games.

It's funny too, how these score still matter to people. There's too much bias in a lot of reviewers for it to count in an average. Famitsu used to rarely give out perfect 40s before around 2006 and now gives it to every other Square Enix game even though Final Fantasy pretty much died around then. The Halos and Call of Duties get better scores in the west compared to east's scores of them. People should read the review itself to see what sounds good about the game and if the person writing it is a total fanboy or a hater trying to hold back dropping the score by 2 points.

I don't trust reviewers enough to care about meracritic scores, but i will admit that it has been a pretty damn terrible year for gaming. I think i can count games i want to try on one hand (If i exclude 3DS and WiiU, two consoles i don't own yet). There's been some interesting stuff for ps3 like The Guided Fate Paradox, Gran Turismo 6, Metal Gear Rising, Armored Core Verdict Day and a couple of others, but aside from those it's been pretty dull. 2012 was pretty lacking, but still better than 13.

Why do we even Metacritic the time of day any more? The scores mean nothing since most if not all of the user reviews will rarely get any more in-depth than a binary 's good/'s shit, leading to much higher scores for average to excellent and much lower for mediocre to awful, leaving a rift in scores generally between 4 and 7. It's probably just an inherent problem with attributing a numerical value to abstract concepts like opinions.

I disagree with the point, "2013 wasn't a bad year for games." I believe it was, a terrible year for games...

FriesWithThat:
Why do we even Metacritic the time of day any more? The scores mean nothing since most if not all of the user reviews

I think I'm seeing your problem here.

The scores they take for these sorts of things aren't the user reviews, precisely because it's far too easy for users to review bomb or inflate games for no other reason than because they think it's funny.

VoidWanderer:

I am a huge fan of Fallout New Vegas, but due to the retards who downscored the game because they hated it or its franchise, the developers lost out on their bonus.

Yeah, I highly doubt any paid reviewer marked down New Vegas "because they hated it or its franchise". Or rather, if they did hate it, there was likely a lovely typed review providing reasons for why they did. And considering how buggy New Vegas remains to this day, I think it came out rather lucky overall with the launch window review scores.

Again, user reviews aren't given any weight. The fact that Obsidian "lost out" on a bonus because of the Metacritic score is a problem with Bethesda, not Metacritic.

Hairless Mammoth:
A perfect 10 is "buy it even if you don't own that system or like that type of game.

[Citation needed].

I'd address more in your post but, no offense, it comes across as a conspiracy theory.

AldUK:

I don't understand people who decide to forgo any kind of critical thinking in favour of taking the opinion of a critic as their own.

Of course, there's also the chance that the person saying they're likely to agree with a critic has followed said critic long enough to know whether or not their tastes align.

l33tness08:
I disagree with the point, "2013 wasn't a bad year for games." I believe it was, a terrible year for games...

Thank you. I was about to go point out that this year especially in comparison felt like a terrible year for gaming. Lets just hope 2012 repeats itself in 2014.

Trishbot:
So anything below a 90 isn't a "great" game? Only eight "great" games?

Hairless Mammoth:
Maybe Metacritic doesn't see many great games because every review based on a 10 point scale (or converted to it) is garbage. A perfect 10 is "buy it even if you don't own that system or like that type of game. 9 to 8 is great. 7 to 6 is buy it if you're a fan or rent it. 5 and below is the increasing shit level. Pretty much every game worth playing for a few minutes is an 8 minimum.

I present to you the metracritic score system interpretation:
image

If I want a numerical representation of a game's quality, I use the "Average User Rating" on various websites. Some websites even have User Review Average, User Rating and Metacritic score right beside eachother, and the one I almost always agree with is the User Rating.

Metacritic would have me believe that a lot of my favourite games are only worthy of 60s and low 70s. If I paid attention to those scores I might have never played those games. A collective average of reviews has no preference, and is thus is only useful to people who also have no preference. I don't know anyone who doesn't prefer certain genres to others.

While a User Score is also a collective average, it's an average generated by people who have an interest in a title. If I want a number to tell me how good a JRPG is for example, I'd ask if the people who actually like JRPGs thought it was good. Sure, that may sound biased but since I like JRPGs, I'm biased too. Biased scores from biased users that are useful to biased people, such as myself.

 

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.