Firstly, you are insinuating that only fanboys go to work at any particular brand centric review outlet. In the real world, people are just looking for a job and take what they can get, most of the time. It's not DualShockers job to make playstation look good, their job is to cover playstation centric news. The only correlation is that dualshockers is more likely to review a playstation game, not inflate its score.That's exactly where the term bias comes from though and it is the same meaning. In this case it would be those specific reviewers scores that are sampled resulting in a deviation of the score from that of the general population. That's exactly what Jason is referring to if you read the tweet. Not what you're referring to as "psychological bias" which if you think about it doesn't really exist.
It would be pretty fruitful, why wouldn't it be? especially when the hypothesis is that outlets with xbox in their name are what's bias. You can show this to be true or not statistically and even quantify it.
It's 83 point something
Removing the Xbox sites would make it lesser than that. Not to mention the argument about setting the tone which can have a big impact early on.
Go on, you can do it!
That dude is about as dense as my mom's sour cream pound cake. I don't think I have ever had a coherent debate with him.Go on, you can do it!
You're reaching. I don't understand why you believe that an outlet cannot be bias collectively, particularly if they are somehow funded, receive perks, or are otherwise reliant on the success of a given publisher/system. You think things like the kane and lynch incident don't happen anymore?Firstly, you are insinuating that only fanboys go to work at any particular brand centric review outlet. In the real world, people are just looking for a job and take what they can get, most of the time. It's not DualShockers job to make playstation look good, their job is to cover playstation centric news. The only correlation is that dualshockers is more likely to review a playstation game, not inflate its score.
Secondly, I clearly explained my reasoning why the exercise wouldn't be fruitful.
You're reaching. I don't understand why you believe that an outlet cannot be bias collectively, particularly if they are somehow funded, receive perks, or are otherwise reliant on the success of a given publisher. You think things like the kane and lynch incident don't happen anymore?
Not that I can't believe it, I just don't think generalizing is very productive. I don't attribute the fault of a few to the whole, it becomes an exercise in confirmation bias.You're reaching. I don't understand why you believe that an outlet cannot be bias collectively, particularly if they are somehow funded, receive perks, or are otherwise reliant on the success of a given publisher. You think things like the kane and lynch incident don't happen anymore?
I heard stories of English teachers fucking their students, but I struck out everytime I tried. He wasn't even that much older than meWe've also heard stories of editors overriding the score that reviews, often freelancers, before publishing. There is more than one way to peel that potato.
I heard stories of English teachers fucking their students, but I struck out everytime I tried. He wasn't even that much older than me
I banged my deans daughter. Made the deans list that semesterMy buddy fucked the art substitute. She didn't even try to hide her desires.
Not that I can't believe it, I just don't think generalizing is very productive. I don't attribute the fault of a few to the whole, it becomes an exercise in confirmation bias.
Edit: I try not to, I am human and I am not above prejudice
I vaguely remember this, at polygon everything had to go through Arthur Gies who had final say on the score.We've also heard stories of editors overriding the score that reviews, often freelancers, before publishing. There is more than one way to peel that potato.
Edit: I'm not going to argue semantics. You were generalizing.it would be like saying "I think I will measure the global percentage of people who like Nascar by asking people in the US". if somebody were to suggest "but the US might not match the general population" that's not generalising. It's the exact opposite of generalising. It's knowing that there might be factors that introduce bias in the result and making no assumptions. If I were to say "you're from the US, you like Nascar " that would be generalising. Acknowledging that somebody from the US might be more likely to like Nascar than somebody from another country is not generalising.
Greg Miller is probably the most embarrassing "man" involved with gaming currently.Notable Playstation fanboy, Greg Miller, chose Starfield as his Game of the Year .
I saw it before the edit.Edit: I'm not going to argue semantics. You are misrepresenting my statement.
No game comes even close to this rent free space on GAF and its users minds like Starfield.
The game has more threads than any game I’ve ever seen on here.
Todd Howard has done it again.
i was even banned from a threadLast of Us Part 2 was pretty bad on here back in 2020.
Steam reviews keeps winingJust like The Last of Us.
what do you expected? is the most important RPG of the last 10 years and yes, its exclusive after all.No game comes even close to this rent free space on GAF and its users minds like Starfield.
The game has more threads than any game I’ve ever seen on here.
Todd Howard has done it again.
?That year was rough. Only Elden Ring and Ragnorak were true goty contenders. The rest was fluff. If Ragnorak came out in 2023, it would be around 90.
Id rate GOW around 85. Great game, but underwhelming finale to a series with so much more potential.
To me, user scores are more unreliable than MC scores since all it takes is some internet bombing and a game can go down the drain. As much as people like to hate FIFA, WOW, COD etc.... these games can get user score bombed to 1 or 2/10. Thats worse than Big Rigs Racing. So for you guys comparing MC scores to user scores, dont forget these if user scores are so accurate.
The Last of Us Part II Reviews
Five years after their dangerous journey across the post-pandemic United States, Ellie and Joel have settled down in Jackson, Wyoming. Living amongst a thriving community of survivors has allowed them peace and stability, despite the constant threat of the infected and other, more desperate...www.metacritic.comThe Last of Us Part II Remastered Reviews
Play the winner of over 300 Game of the Year awards, now remastered for the PlayStation5 console. Experience for the first time or relive Ellie and Abby's story with graphical enhancements, new gameplay modes like the roguelike survival experience No Return, full DualSense wireless controller...www.metacritic.com
Same thing. PC users bombed it too.
I don’t see what they can do. Maybe refuse to review it. A good game being barely upgraded doesn’t turn it into a bad game, especially if it is the definitive best version.This is not a unique Xbox case. We have a remaster from Sony that is pretty much a directors cut with so ridiculously minimal changes sitting at a ridiculous 91 on MC. Watching DF video and reading those reviews is so embarrassing.
Without proof? No. It could not be used.Jason’s statement could be used for any platform exclusive, the high-scoring platform focused websites are always there.
It doesn't average out. When/if brand-centric websites continuously rate a game higher, they inflate the overall average score. The 83 MC we see for Starfield is already inflated. Take out all the 9.5s and 10s out of the equation, and the score will likely drop to 80 or below.There are low-scoring websites too though. It is what it is. The whole idea with Metacritic and Opencritic is to see an average score where the extremes gets kinda filtered out.
Nah. It was a flawless port.
TLOU2 is not though, absolute masterpiece IMO but deserves a much better remaster.Lol this is hilarious considering the obvious score boost any game gets when its a Playstation game. I always suspected this but didn't know for sure. But now that these games have come to PC I can say for sure most of them are totally overrated.
the problem these days is that they try to make the game as big as posible and think thats enough , all we could hear about starfield was how big it was and that you have 1000 planets to explore , lets look at larian for example because its the most recent high success , every time they showed the game they talked about how much you can do in it , how progression works , how much choice and consequence there is , how the world reacts to what you do , because its an rpgI think Starfield is an example of just how difficult it is to create a game nowadays. They gave themselves enough time to create a new IP. 7 years. MS then gave them an extra year for polish. Something zenimax never gave them before. They put in the work to make the graphics look way better than their past games when other bethesda devs like Arkhane and Machine Games simply phoned it in. The marketing showed that it had the elements to make a truly great game, but unfortunately, it just didnt come together at the end. I think the devs made the game they wanted to make. They just didnt realize that it didnt work.
Todd said he wanted to make a talky game to stand out from the crowd because there are so many open world games out there today. Well, he did that. It's just that the writing sucks and talking to people simply isnt as fun as going out there and exploring those Bethesda worlds.
I had the same feeling with cyberpunk. We take for granted how all these AAA games just work and hit 90 on metacritic, but one thing off and it doesnt work. Cyberpunk had the graphics, the city, and the combat, but it just felt like it was lacking something that the only managed to truly capture 3 years later with phantom liberty.
TLDR; making great games isnt just hard, it's a miracle we all seem to take for granted nowadays.