Sheikah

I agree with what some others have posted, I think this article also does a good job explaining some of the problems we now face.

Oh, hang on. Just because people who talk to insiders, say they have spoken to around 20 insiders to specifically write an article about it, who live and breathe games journalism; just because these people are reporting the same fucking story, we shouldn't necessarily assume there is truth there? Hello? Hang on, you mean the system that has always been in place and is the de facto method of reviewing games. The system that, ultimately, will be used until one ventures to think of something better? Tell me - where is the article from these other guys outlining that review scores are great, and that metacritic linked bonuses are great. You can't argue that people merely using a system proves its worth. If they haven't any counter evidence to refute the claims, then I'm sorry, but no dice! Appeal to authority happens all the time. Do you diagnose yourself of illnesses or go to the doctor, the expert, who has done research into how to treat diseases? Your argument is fucking shit son. It's not like I'm purely using the fact they know more on its own to dispel your points. I'm also taking into account that they have done actual research into it (again, the article). And obviously, the decision to switch systems will not have been taken lightly. When you have both credibility and evidence, that's when shit gets real. On the whole, the people are happy. Go look at EG's comment boxes - you'll see 300+ thumbs up at people congratulating the switch. People can also down vote on these things, and they often do on EG, so it's not like they're just 'EG fanboys'. Whenever EG make another Destiny article for instance, people will complain how poor it is for EG to keep making such articles and people +1 those posts. When EG make video articles, a lot of people don't like them and people +1 those negative posts. Of course they won't disappear, but if enough of the big reviewers abstain from scoring then it weakens Metacritic dramatically. All of a sudden, the key reviewer outlets are no longer listed and the case for metacritic use in this way weakens considerably. Actually that's not true. It's a shared problem. Sure, publishers (not developers) are really to blame, but ultimately they wouldn't be able to do it if scores weren't MC listed.

Not at all. Kotaku spoke to ~20 people involved in the industry when writing their article; not just one. Eurogamer have obviously spoken to people to come to similar conclusions. The facts are there; people who know a lot more than you - people who are involved in the industry, say something that is completely opposite to what you, someone who knows very little, is saying. That's ultimately what it comes down to. Integrity of the speaker - the voices I am putting forward are more reputable than your own. And I can tell you fucking hate it, because there's nothing you can do to change it other than provide irrelevant comparisons to other media. Except - it's not! Thanks to the likes of EG, Kotaku and Joystiq, who have taken a stand, the governing system that is Metacritic is being weakened. It's not tough; people can do something about it. Never believe it's pointless if something is able to be changed.

From what I've discovered, it actually would. Game developers are having bonuses tied to metacritic scores. If you get chance to read the article I put forward, you'd see how that's a bad idea because it leads to features being crammed in for the sake of it, like tacked on multiplayer modes. The metacritic system is a reasonable idea but ultimately pretty flawed. These are not just my words, but the words of two really big game reviewers that no doubt have put a hell of a lot more thought into this than any of us here, on account of it being their jobs. You've also got the fact that certain kinds of games will score highly (leading to enrichment of those sort of titles on consoles; see metacritic), while others, that are still very much valued, often score lower. This system actually decreases the chance those games will ever see the light of day. I know you're trying to be sarcastic in the bolded part, but pretty much: yes! At least, bonuses are pretty much being tied to that, and not Google. Also as a writer, I value the idea that readers may want to instantly know if a game is good (in my case, that'd be a scientific abstract at the beginning of a publication). Well, the EG system awards merits, so you would instantly get similar feedback to a 9 or 10/10. What I think is better about this is that it removes the scale that isn't really fit for purpose. That scale allows comparing of some very different games that aren't really comparable, yet if they had the same score then people start to compare them. It just doesn't really work.

Ha! Still denying the validity of the claims, even though clearly both Kotaku and Eurogamer have been reporting similar findings, and both consist of many employees that deal with industry insiders on a daily basis. Honestly, the way you're still trying to discredit the truth reminds me of that sketch in Austin Powers. The one where Austin is discovered to have a penis pump and staunchly denies it's his. They then produce more and more evidence indicating it is his, like a signed declaration by him saying he endorses it or something, and he still keeps denying it. Fuck's sake man, nobody is buying it! If even insiders are saying that the metacritic tied bonuses are a bad idea and ultimately hurtful to game development, then we'd have to be pretty daft to assume otherwise.

They've already said they're working on the next Fallout, so let's hope it is that! I'd much rather Fallout than another Dishonoured.

I don't see the point in doing a remake of something that will look worse than what it originally was on (like with Xenoblade). Do it justice on the Wii U, man!

I should be able to make 8 ish.

Not really; EG can give the verdicts 'avoid', no commendation, 'recommend' or 'essential'. That gives people all the information they need. The current /10 system is bust. Everything below 7/10 is often considered shit. The scale is inflated and people can even take an 8/10 as a slight against their favourite franchise. You also still haven't addressed the points made by Kotaku (as well as EG) detailing bonuses tied to metacritic, and the interviews they've had with publisher insiders who slam the current system. This is no longer the spiel of 'one guy' any more, which was your only way of discrediting the point Oli Welsh made before.

Yeah, should be.

Maybe it's like with the Majora edition 3DS? New console owners might be getting it early.

For some reason, I read this as general gaming discussion. Oh well!

When I get it this weekend, just out of interest, what steps should I take to transfer over my old stuff from my old 3DS XL? If Majora's Mask is installed on the new 3DS XL, but I have games and stuff on my old 3DS XL, can I move over my old games and somehow keep the installed Majora's Mask? How will it know the pre-installed Majora's Mask is registered to my NNID if it gets wiped and I need to redownload?

Well, now it's 'recommended'. :p

@Zechs Merquise, I wouldn't say the gaming industry is immature. More like a large number of gamers and review readers are immature; I'm sure you know well the fallout of Gamergate and even the 8/10 Mario 3D World fiasco you were involved in. As for the rest, I'll try answer it without jumping into the pit of loathing you seem to want to pull me into. Well, it's not just one guy who is saying those comments. Eurogamer is a group of multiple individuals, people who understand their industry and a great deal more about it than you. They're also easily one of the most reputable and professional of all the review sites, although obviously that is my opinion. You can bet that the switching to this format isn't down to the beliefs of one guy, and you can also bet the editor wouldn't be making those comments if everyone else around him disagreed. You've then also got far more than just your standard Eurogamer making this switch. Eurogamer Germany, Eurogamer Italy, Eurogamer France, Eurogamer Portugal, Eurogamer Spain, Eurogamer Czech, Eurogamer Denmark, Eurogamer Sweden, Eurogamer Poland and Eurogamer Benelux, which are all switching to the new system. Really, you could argue that they're switching because they're being told to, but at the same time such an extensive network demonstrates that they're a pretty big deal and not just something you can dismiss as 'one guy with no credz'. Then there's also Kotaku, another giant who have ditched the system. Really though, if you want proof of what he's saying, here you go: http://kotaku.com/metacritic-matters-how-review-scores-hurt-video-games-472462218 That's the outcome of research by Kotaku, to show you it's not just EG that are flying this banner. As you can read, Fallout New Vegas staff were being paid a bonus based on their metacritic success. Big deal, right? A bonus is a good thing? Well, not really. And Kotaku's verdict: They go on: There's a lot more to why they're bad, and it's a really great read. Regardless, EG clearly have experience and knowledge of their industry and have clearly thoroughly researched it prior to making the switch. If you're going to find a problem with this, it's not going to be the credibility of the dudes involved.

Can you give an example of a review where you could glean less from the text than the score? Struggling to see that being true.

Game comes preinstalled dude.

How could a number they gave at the end of a review tell you more than the text explaining what was good about it/what its shortcomings were? Literally the only way that could be true is if it was in another language. And if a review was that shite, why would you even pay any attention to the score? Then you've also got to remember that the current scoring method isn't even consistent. Some reviewers consider 7/10 to be meritable, others see it as a new kind of 'average'. And again, to the guys who support review scores, here is what they are doing to games and developers:

There's also games they give no recommendation and no avoid. That would be the games they think are fairly unimpressive but not outright terrible. They already said recommend lets them praise games they like that may be flawed in other ways, which I think is neat.

[tweet]565177233623769088[/tweet]

Ha, I remember that. :p I remember those days, I was probably almost like 'those people'. Yeah...I definitely see the bigger picture now. Interesting QnA session going on with Oli Welsh (editor of Eurogamer) right now: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-02-10-eurogamer-editor-ama

I think his message was pretty easy to grasp. Sure, if you're leaving a review then often a star rating is required to go with it. What he's saying that throughout life, ie. beyond the computer, it's not something we really do. If I was recommending a game to a friend, I would probably summarise in a few sentences what makes it great, than tell them out of 10 what I'd rate it. My favourite 'scoring' system so far: ^ Kotaku review. Takes hardly much longer to process but so much more meaning, and no fanboy fallout. A look at Kotaku comment boxes versus old Eurogamer comment boxes - it's the future!

How does what you just said disprove what Goafer does in his life? Is Goafer working within those industries? Does Goafer line up a string of all his previous mobile phones and rate them each from 1-10? If you do that, maybe you need help?

I can only get it changed to deliver to a neighbour, and it's wouldn't really have been guaranteed to end up with me if I had originally got it sent to work. Not really bothered anyway.

What, you thought I was suggesting it out of kindness? I'm saying it because it's bullshit, because many people don't take the right message away from it. As in, there are people who clearly just go for the score to fuel their fanboy agendas, clogging up comment boxes with inane remarks like "so this got a 7/10 and insert totally different genre game here got an 8? Tell me, how is this a good thing? Less distinction is needed, not more. Distinction is good in that it filters the turds out and highlights the gems. But when you over differentiate titles then the same bullshit comparisons and inferences are made, foregoing the point of the review. People will argue about the scoring system being shit if 2 games receive 8/10 yet they believe one game is better than the other. But that's much less likely to happen with 2 games that are listed as being recommended. TL;DR - I say scrap it because it's arbitrary and shit. Not to save people's feelings.