MetaCritic co-founder says game ratings are unbalanced

Also ironic that the source of this article/blog is Destructoid…

@DSB I’m not going to deny it and say you don’t have a point…credibility can definitely be questionable, but where does it apply? Only when a site covers a game extensively and advertises it and then gives it a good score? What about the site that advertises it and previews it then gives it a bad score (deservedly so)?

Also the problem with reviews are they are all relative…someone, maybe even the same person, on the same site can give one game an 8 while the other person gave a much higher quality game an 8…for instance, once again the example of Eurogamer (who’s EG TV advertisement is currently plastered all over the site) giving RDR an 8 and then giving Brink an 8 a year later…I was really looking forward to Brink and played it a bunch but by no means is it an 8 imo…probably a 6 or 7 at most, especially since the lag at launch basically made it impossible to find a match to play competitively on, not to mention co-op (which that game was based around online play) hell GameSpot delayed their review for that exact reason until a patch was released to assist in fixing the lag (which it did not, may have helped slightly though), and I play RDR all the way through and did most of what the game offered and while personally I would give it a 9+ I respect that someone can say its an 8, but comparing the two…they are both not 8s…its either one or the other…Brink was a great idea but not executed well enough to deservedly get the same score as a AAA extremely high quality game such as Red Dead

It applies universally, just like any other principle.

As soon as you’re paid by someone, you’re completely disqualified in covering them from a standpoint of basic credibility.

It doesn’t matter whether the ball goes in the gutter or into the pins when you step over the line. Over the line, is over the line.

*EDIT*

Actually that’s not entirely true. There’s a big difference between a paper with several different advertisers, and a games mag that’s fully supported by the industry. There’s no harm involved in bringing an ad that’s related to what you write in your medium, but if there’s any reason to think that you’re somehow dependant on that advertiser, then you have a serious problem.

@DSB the problem is once you stop advertising…that’s the minute your site ceases to exist…because now who is going to pay you? Unless you have a sub fee, an online publication cannot exist…the only one I see occassionally not advertise games is IGN since they cover movies as well and will advertise those…for instance this site constantly has advertisements, now they do not review games which makes it ok, but if you couldn’t review something once you advertised it, there would be no more game reviews…

And still my point is even if “credibility” is lost in your eyes, how is it still the same in both situations? They are getting paid to do their job and that’s what they do whether its giving a game a good review or a bad review…and especially is the case with bad reviews, they can’t be a reliable source because they were paid to give the game a bad review?

I don’t care what their problems are, Duce. That’s none of my concern. Once you start taking money from the people you cover, you have a credibility problem. It doesn’t matter if you’re forced into it or not, and if your very survival depended on it, that would still only serve to diminish that credibility.

And with that said, who’s to say that you can’t get other advertisers? Do gamers do nothing but game? Don’t some drink Red Bull or other energy drinks? Aren’t they liable to buy some custom mice and keyboards, or gamepads? Don’t they buy from independent retailers every now and then?

I don’t buy it at all, and I don’t care why a magazine is compromising its credibility.

I’ve never used a movie medium beyond Rotten Tomatoes personally, and I certainly wouldn’t use IGN, so I have no idea how they run their business or how they rate their movies. But if they’re fully dependent on advertising from the production companies they cover, then they obviously have exactly the same problem.

@DSB…in regards to your edit, so then why is it a problem if a site advertises a different game every week?

Because plenty of electronics mags/sites or car mags/sites advertise a product and preview it and then review once it is released…so is there a problem with that? How are games any different?

Now I do not dispute publishers may be selective with what publications get review copies due to past experiences with the company…but when you are that high up its all about the numbers and I guess if you want to keep reviewing a companies games you can’t give it an unfairly bad review…but that has nothing to do with advertising, unless the site has a bad rep for something there is no reason why any other publisher is more or less likely to advertise on any site besides demographic preferences and the money it costs to advertise on that site…

@57 Because of relevance, obviously. A company isn’t going to advertise a game that isn’t relevant. There’s a limited window there. It’s not as if EA are going “Buy EA games” – They’re going “Buy this specific game” while that very game is featured in news, or reviews right next to it. That’s a glaring conflict of interest.

But again, I’m not saying that everybody is being paid to write certain things, and I have no idea how great that problem really is, the only thing I can establish is that the standard generally isn’t very high.

Either they’re either too close to those companies, or too incompetent in terms of journalism, to regard things like credibility as an issue in their reporting.

Ok that may be so that credibility is lost once you take money from a company/product you cover…but that’s the way of the world and there is examples of it everywhere and its not going anywhere

Pretty much, according to journalistic ethics, no gaming site that does reviews has any credibility since they all advertise games…you’re right, maybe they could advertise something else, but I assume they are not getting offered the right money to do so otherwise you would see it more often…most are just spreading the word about good games and getting paid for that, may be frowned upon ethically, but most people don’t think twice and say ‘yeah…oh I remember that game, oh there’s the release date right there on the advertisement, I need to go pre-order that and get that bonus’ or ‘I should go pick that up when it comes out’…nothing wrong with the industry supporting other members of the industry

And now yes maybe they won’t advertise a shitty or obscure game right next to a shitty review for that game…but if Battlefield 3 comes out and their review is up at the same time that’s just because you advertise a game before, during and after its release…and game’s are reviewed only during or immediately after release (or when the embargo is lifted on reviews)…so its more just a situation of timing when good games are being advertised at the same time they are being reviewed…

Well, principle and reality are two different things, but those principles exist to preserve the sanctity of the press, which traditionally is a pretty holy thing.

It’s likely that a lot of editors simply feel it suits their sites more to have games being advertised than other things – Again, because they don’t consider the conflict of interest.

I don’t know why it is the way it is, but I think it comes to down to most of the games press being a case of gamers becoming writers, rather than actual journalists covering these things.

DSB: You’re being unrealistic or at least you’re oversimplifying matters. Cars are provided to car reviewers by the car manufacturers. The magazines containing said reviews can, logically, contain advertisments about the same or similar products. It’s a simple matter of pragmatics and economy. As you said yourself, it’s in the interest of the magazine to display thetmatically appropriate advertisements. And it’s in the interest of manufacturers to get their products out there and written about (and sometimes to censor what’s written about). It’s the same (including advertisments and reviews of the same products) in almost any industry that has specialised publications.

And in most cases that obviously does not hinder what you call “Objective journalism”. Because objective journalism entails just that strict separation of reviews and marketing, which does usually not constitute a problem at all. You talk about “magazines” as if their were uniform blocks of faceless matter while there’s really groups of individuals working there. And these individuals usually have a very lively interest in preserving objectivity while reviewing products. And they have a lively interest in not being pressured into writing positive reviews. In fact, as the Gerstmann case showed, it can and will cause scandals if reviewers are put under pressure by superiors or publishers.

So no, advertisments which are tailored to a specific target audience do not automatically speak against integrity. Manifest corruption does. Take Penny-Arcade: These guys are among the most critical and reliable voices in gaming “journalism” and yet they advertise games. At times even the ones they criticise.