Why I No Longer Trust Metacritic

First, I would like to say that Metacritic.com is a novel idea.  The concept of pooling the opinions of trusted indviduals and creating a number based upon those opinions is inventive and clever.   It has created a tool for the average person to read the thoughts of critics and to browse through many reviews in a convienient location.

 

But who are these critics?  What is this arbitrary publication that gave this piece of media a number score?  Is there a face to Gameplanet, to The Onion, or to Armchair Empire?

There are a few critics whose opinions I always respect, if not at least agree with.  But I feel that with so many publications giving out scores, it's hard to discern which critics have the same mindset a certain individual has.  For example, I thought Inception was a brilliant movie, and made me fall in love with Christopher Nolan.  Roger Ebert clearly loved it as well, giving it a perfect score of 4 out of 4.  However on Metacritic Inception received a 74.

However Roger Ebert's opinion is vastly more important to me than the 42 other publications.  Why?  Because I've read his articles on other movies.  His thoughts are precise, clear, and insightful.  His experience expands over decades, and his words are ones that I respect, even if they degrade a movie I personally cherish.

Why does this relate to Metacritic?  I'm saying that the opinion of a trusted few is stronger than that of the anonymous crowd.  Read up on a few critics, see if their articles make sense.  Maybe you'll find one that you agree with.  One whose experience and insight you can trust.  And even if that critic gives something you love a bad score, it doesn't really matter.

I mean, it's just an opinion.

Dan Broadbent's picture

I agree.  I mainly use MetaCritic to find out if something is really good or really bad.

brodyitis's picture

As far as video games go, there are about 5 critics on MC that I respect. And about 100 that suck.

Solifluktion's picture

I always ask friends if a game is good or I have a look which score the GameStar (biggest european PCGame-Mag) give a game.

And some games I buy blind (Bioware/Blizzard)-Games.

explicit_baron's picture

I gauge my game reviews from friends and from 3 main publications

1. Gamespot- overly critical so, when a game is good, it's usually really good

2. IGN- less critical, more of an expansive critic, good all around reviews catered for me, a gamer with a large array of gaming interests.

3. Classic Game Room- VERY rarely critical, finds the fun in 90% of games from any videogame era

Semblance's picture

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/killzone-3/critic-reviews?dist=positive

The offical Playstation magazine and Playstation Lifestyle gave Killzone 3 a 100/100 score. Metacritic's system doesn't handle bias very well.

brodyitis's picture

@explicit_baron

I haven't used gamespot since the Kane and Lynch situation, but I still love their podcast (The Hotspot) I love IGN; I listen to all of their podcasts and read the site almost daily. But my favorite reveiws have to be Giant Bomb They aren't very critical as far as scores go, but they do mention almost every major problem with the game in the review text.

pfro's picture

calm down. wasn't this a topic on portal 2 walkthrough? nevermind. metacritic is more reliable than one person's review. you don't have to trust the score, but all the resources are pooled into one. just sift through and find the important ones and maybe agree with ones you haven't heard of. just because a source isn't a big time source doesn't mean it can't have an excellent opinion. besides, most of you people bash on big sites (ign)

Create New Account or Log in to comment