TrueLegend
Member
Which one you prefer?
Last edited:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Metacritic vs Opencritic. GAF Decides.
- Thread starter TrueLegend
- Start date
- Community Poll
Abriael_GN
RSI Employee of the Year
The difference is too minimal to care.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Neither.
I've often played and enjoyed games that aggregate in the 60s and 70s. My personal taste and interest after watching game play etc is most important to me.
I've often played and enjoyed games that aggregate in the 60s and 70s. My personal taste and interest after watching game play etc is most important to me.
metacritic
Tiago Rodrigues
Member
Neither. I don't think entertainment in general should be validated with a number. It's all too subjective and does nothing for me.
Games like Ghost of Tsushima (83) or Guardians of the Galaxy (80) are better for me than plenty of +90 games out there on metacritic.
Games like Ghost of Tsushima (83) or Guardians of the Galaxy (80) are better for me than plenty of +90 games out there on metacritic.
Banjo64
cumsessed
Open Critic because it’s not got the old games like Metacritic where there was only 6 reviewers so they get a 98 score.
But reviews in isolation are pretty useless, got to look at user reviews and even then there can be games that are pretty average rating wise that are really fun and resonate with you.
But reviews in isolation are pretty useless, got to look at user reviews and even then there can be games that are pretty average rating wise that are really fun and resonate with you.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I can only speak about Metacritic, but the moment I realized that the whole *review* aggregation is completely arbitrary I lost all confidence in these sites.
I mean, just take a deeper look yourself on which reviews are chosen. One reviewer may show up for one game, then goes completely missing on the next, despite having put out reviews for both games.
Or you may find that 2 reviewers use a similar review system. Let's say one that consists of 5 steps, they're just named differently. Both reviewers give the game their second highest score (the 4th step). You may think this is going to result in the same score on Metacritic, but no. One gets rated 70%, the other 90%. A 20% difference, for the same conclusion.
What I'm saying is, Metacritic is a scam.
I mean, just take a deeper look yourself on which reviews are chosen. One reviewer may show up for one game, then goes completely missing on the next, despite having put out reviews for both games.
Or you may find that 2 reviewers use a similar review system. Let's say one that consists of 5 steps, they're just named differently. Both reviewers give the game their second highest score (the 4th step). You may think this is going to result in the same score on Metacritic, but no. One gets rated 70%, the other 90%. A 20% difference, for the same conclusion.
What I'm saying is, Metacritic is a scam.
Last edited:
graywolf323
Member
OpenCritic for the most part but I wish they'd break out later ports of things to Switch from the main entry
DinosaurNerd89
Banned
The Cockatrice
Gold Member
Imagine relying on critic scores to enjoy games.
spartan30gr
Member
Opencritic
Punished Miku
Gold Member
They're almost exactly the same thing. I guess I don't really care that much. I like that reviews have scores for quick reference, but then I ultimately decide myself and have specific reviewers I personally trust more than others.
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
Metacritic gave Elden Ring 98 whereas Opencritic only gave it a 97. Seems like Metacritic is more reliable and accurate
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Exactly what I was going to say. What's the difference really? They are usually the same or maybe a point different. Having said that, whenever I want to look up reviews for a game I use metacritic for no other reason than it is a habit and opencritic is an afterthought.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
Posts above detail some of the differences. But then you step back and it amounts to like .... 1 pt difference lol.
It really shouldn't matter to anyone.
Topher
Gold Member
ad blockers are your friend.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
The scores from the two sites are almost always identical.
Soodanim
Gold Member
Pop ups still exist? I haven't seen one in about a decade, every browser has built in protection
SeraphJan
Member
Ghost of Tsushima is underrated, even native Japanese historian appreciate the the games authenticity, that tells something.
It also got a 40/40 from Famitsu, the only western game after GTA getting this high score.
Last edited:
Punished Miku
Gold Member
Not your mom, that's for sure.
If you could save your mother or play BotW one last time, what would you choose?
MiguelItUp
Member
Honestly for me, neither. I glance at one or the other (when people are freaking out) when I'm already hyped and pulling the trigger on a game, the outcome doesn't really change. I kinda go, "Neat", close it, and move on.
If you care about reviews THAT much I'd highly recommend trying to break away from that and finding comfort in being your own critic.
If you care about reviews THAT much I'd highly recommend trying to break away from that and finding comfort in being your own critic.
Last edited:
yurinka
Member
I prefer opencritic because it combines the reviews from all platforms.
But I'd remove from both the clown fanboy sites and reviews that give these super low scores, and I would only make a mean average score removing 5% of the top and bottom reviews. I wouldn't give more importance to a site vs another one because each person has different favorite sites that thinks are the most credible/accurate ones.
But I'd remove from both the clown fanboy sites and reviews that give these super low scores, and I would only make a mean average score removing 5% of the top and bottom reviews. I wouldn't give more importance to a site vs another one because each person has different favorite sites that thinks are the most credible/accurate ones.
Last edited:
TransTrender
Gold Member
GameRankings but those days are gone, and yeah I mostly used it for the indexed reviews.
The artful mincer
Member
Obviously opencritic metacritic weights certain publications which is the most idiotic thing ever.
Sorry but Ocarina is NOT the greatest game of all time.
Topher
Gold Member
Loved gamerankings
TransTrender
Gold Member
Hah!
This guy gets it
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
Neither. Both are fucking retarded.
People need to stop relying on these mindless cunts and instead focus on cultivating their own ability to do research. Watch gameplay, see demos and trailers, maybe a couple twitch/YouTubers who you can somewhat trust to provide a good overview of what works/doesn’t work/is in the game.
Life
Member
I've been gaming long enough to judge a game for myself. I usually need a little bit of gameplay - but sometimes I may need to watch more playthrough vids to make up my mind. Sure, I look at scores initially, but only to tell me whether a game is even worth looking into. Anything that scores 6.5/7 is worth looking into. Games are still super simple, despite the year we're in. Most gameplay loops are made obvious in minutes.
Last edited:
SF Kosmo
Al Jazeera Special Reporter
I think the weighting on Metacritic helps because the fact is so much of game review scores bunch up around the mid to high 80s. The way we score games is sort of dumb, you would want 50 to be average but instead average is like 78, and game of the year is like 90, so it's just not enough differentiation.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll