Banned for life!
At least I think I am considering nobody bothered to notify
me.
If you're even the most casual of gamer you've probably hit
Metacritic (http://www.Metacritic .com/) to check out what
everyone else thinks of your potential purchase.
Now we all know that so-called "professional" game
reviewers have a bias. That is, they don't
want to kill the golden goose by giving a damning review if it means they lose
access to the developer. It's the fine
line walked by all consumer journalists.
Even if what they're reviewing is crap the most critical review won't
rise above a middling, "Could be better."
Which is why I find them useless.
I can appreciate an opinion when it's genuine. If, however, said opinion comes only at the
expense of the reviewers credibility then we're edging dangerously close to
something resembling those 50's radio payola scandals.
I'm not outright accusing Metacritic of taking kickbacks
or anything like that but I am accusing them of supporting a corrupt system.
Think about it. How
many times have you bought a game based on a "supposed" expert
opinion only to find disappointment and rage?
I know its happened to me more than once and considering
the outrageous prices a Triple-A title can command it's formed the foundation
for my hatred of gaming hype.
Case in point. Take a
look at the current, (as of this writing) Metacritic
review of Battlefield 4. The professional reviewers (52 of them) give it a combined rating of
81 out of 100 which for Metacritic is actually a grade of B. Users, on the other hand, have given the game
a 5.9 (out of 10) based on 3200 user reviews.
5.9 is 59% which was a failing grade when I was in school.
That's quite a discrepancy isn't it...
It almost makes you wonder if the two groups were playing
the same game. To me I'm thinking the
backroom press parties at E3 2013 must have been awesome!
Yes, I believe it happens and I also believe that developers
will use whatever means necessary for a higher Metacritic "Meta" score
to have ammunition for their next pitch to a publisher. Of course they won't bring up the
"user" scores. Check out
Kotaku if you don't believe me...
It's human nature. We
always choose the option that to us is most favorable. The problem comes about when the grade is on
a curve. In this case a motivated
developer and motivated reviewer enjoying a symbiotic relationship. The end result is a marketing fantasy that
leaves millions of hyped up gamers disillusioned on launch day.
So I suppose my viewpoints could fly in the face of all that
and provide cause for censorship by the less impartial in what is laughably referred
to as gaming "journalism."
I now include Metacritic
in that group. Not because I'm particularly vindictive or even
care for that matter. Rather I find it disappointing that Metacritic has chosen to
selectively ban viewpoints that challenge the status quo from its "User"
reviews.
It's far too easy to hang the label of Troll on people online. Comment sections and forum posts will come
right out and levy the accusation with reckless abandon. Sites like Metacritic , however, level it with silence.
And so it seems it is with me. I went to the site today and found that I was
suddenly banned from posting any new reviews.
The stated reason, "You may
no longer submit a review due to the content of you previous comments or
reviews"
I was racking my brain for an hour trying to figure out what
triggered the ban hammer. I'd done about
a dozen or so reviews on Metacritic in the past few years with my content averaging
somewhere around the middle. Meaning
there were games I liked and a few I didn't.
Still, I was hard pressed to give anyone a 0 out of 10. Short of malware installing with the game
executable it just wasn't going to happen.
Being a game blogger I was also conscious of my
presentation. Meaning any 8th grade
English teacher would be more than proud of my contributions. That meant no profanity, 2 word reviews ( e.g.
'IT SUCKS" ) or personal attacks.
Without warning or recourse I find myself craving some
measure of closure (or maybe disclosure?) If I'm guilty of
wrongdoing then like any thoughtful individual I'd like to see the evidence. But alas, I know my day in court isn't
forthcoming.
Others have contacted Metacritic
to contest their silencing with mixed results.
I won't bother with that mostly because I find little value in expending
the time. If the hand of an individual
is the reason, I'm fighting a subjective opinion. If it's an automated system then it's broken and
much like YouTube's Content ID, the odds are unquestionably against me. In the end, if the sin can be committed then it's
pointless to petition your way back into such a Hell.
So I can only surmise that it's politics and not premise. Which brings into question the veracity of Metacritic itself.
What possible use is a metric based on a subjective curation of
opinions?
As it stands now it appears that even if the latest triple-A
title delivered the digital equivalent of bull manure, there would never be a user
score below 1 on a scale of 10 if the "pros" bestowed anything above
an 80.
But then, we're just stupid consumers, what do we know...
No comments:
Post a Comment