The numerical rating system and thus the rating aggregator Metacritic is under threat. The large European site Gaming-eurogamer.net wants to break away from “rating by numbers”.
Ratings are a sensitive topic in the gaming industry. Readers and the industry are attracted to these small or large numbers that condense massive articles into something that can be grasped at a glance.
Through this number, the success or failure of a product can supposedly be evaluated objectively. Just recently, the CEO of Take-Two stated before the release of Evolve, how important numbers are in the industry. This is not like movies, where a film is loved by critics but rejected by audiences. In games, critic opinions correlate with buying behavior.
In short: A rating above 90 brings in serious money. This is then also passed on to the developers: Allegedly, there were bonuses for Bungie connected to a high rating for Destiny, which were then not achieved.
Many readers skip the tedious reading of a review and jump straight to the end. Or they skip watching individual reviews altogether and go directly to metacritic, where ratings from large international magazines are mixed into an opinion mix that is supposed to provide an objective picture. A single review, so the logic goes, can be mistaken. If you put 50 in a pot and mix vigorously, the right thing will emerge.
Today, Eurogamer.net is one of the first “major” general gaming sites to break away from the rating system. Local editions are also pulling out. They only want to make recommendations in the future.
By doing so, they consciously give up their place in the Metacritic machinery. According to Eurogamer, they rejected an offer from Metacritic that practically wanted to “convert” their ratings. They apparently no longer find it acceptable that their differentiated opinion is reduced to a number that then has the influence that the review is supposed to have.
For many game creators, far too much is riding on a Metascore – good or bad – for us to allow it to be influenced by a rating that we don’t think represents us fairly, or that we don’t have full control over.
Over the years, we’ve come to believe that the influence of Metacritic on the games industry is not a healthy one (and we’re not alone in this opinion in the industry, either). This is not the fault of Metacritic itself or the people who made it, who just set out to create a useful resource for readers.
Only rough recommendations from now on
In the future, they want to give 4 “rough assessments”: they want to warn against bad players, say nothing about the average ones, recommend the better ones, and award the very best. However, Eurogamer-net would still like to keep the “Google stars”.
According to their own statements, Eurogamer is separating from the rating system because it no longer meets today’s demands. It does not do justice to the games, the readers, or the testers. Is it really fair for a brilliantly balanced multiplayer game to be penalized for a lack of story, they ask?
Additionally, Eurogamer states that ratings are inflating today. Even a 7/10 or 8/10 is portrayed as a disappointment.
About a month ago, the US site Joystiq also announced that it would forgo numerical ratings. The site has since been shut down.
This is how we see it. How do you see it?
My MMO says: With all the good arguments: It is certainly also a strategic decision of the gaming site.
Who ends up as one of 80 numbers on Metacritic, from which the average is calculated, might feel somewhat flattered (especially as a German site), that they belong to this exclusive circle, but it doesn’t really bring clicks or prestige. It makes sense that Eurogamer retains the “Google stars” since they stand out and bring clicks. Of course, the review is also condensed to a much rougher “rating” here.
That clear numerical ratings are losing importance in today’s time seems clear to us as well. Our Cortyn has dealt with the topic in a Criticism Wednesday.
How do you see it? How would you like a rating system from us at mein-mmo.de?
