Jump to content

Proposal: Metacritic or equivalent


Recommended Posts

Reviews are a very important part of 'discovery' of what game to play. How much more useful would our lists be if we could filter or sort by Metacritic score? 

Metacritic includes the Critic score which tends to be fairly static after release.
There is also the User Score which tends to fluctuate a lot, even years after release, or is subject to review bombing.
I would be happy to include both.

Potentially, Metacritic scores would sit inside the Infobox, with a link directly to the relevant Metacritic page. 
The values themselves could be gleaned from Wikidata, or another automated method, or could be entered manually.
I am also open to alternative review aggregators and am open to suggestions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I flatly reject this proposal. With traditional reviewers caught in the global pattern of politically-oriented reviews, if a good game happens to run afoul of a reviewer's political leanings, especially a popular one, then it creates a heavily-biased review, which feeds into the Metacritic score.

As PCGW is to be politically-neutral, I'd say, for the time being, the inclusion of any Metacritic or Metacritic-equivalent would run afoul of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do plan on implementing scores, I'd suggest also including OpenCritic scores alongside Metacritic, and perhaps avoiding user scores as they can widely vary over time.

Opencritic is intended to be a more open version of metacritic, aiming to have the algorithm behind generating the overall score being more transparent, compared to Metacritic which is completely private about how they calculate their score.

The Enhanced/Augmented Steam extension already adds these to Steam pages, which ends up looking like this:
389426325_Annotation2019-03-16212740.png.2f446b9b3918584fb72c5dd9184fd70e.png

In terms of worry that adding review scores would potentially add a politicised spin to the site, I think using review aggregators that collate lots of different reviews from critics of all different political leanings, and using several different aggregators that use different algorithms avoids any politicisation.

On the other hand, I think leaving out user scores would be best as they can swing so rapidly depending on the politics surrounding any game, shown by how the Stream reviews swing all over the place whenever some drama is stirred up. Just using aggregate critic scores should avoid that.

Finally, while I don't think review scores are a vital part to the site, they do go hand in hand with a more wikipedia-minded future. Wikipedia pages for media discuss general reception, notable reviews, and scores including metacritic all the time, so I don't see why this wiki should be any different, especially if it'll help the site grow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Individual reviewers might write reviews with a political stance, however aggregators like Metacritic and Opencritic normally contain a balance of different opinions. PCGamingWiki is politically neutral, however this shouldn't stop us from balancing this with new features and to make a better resource for PC gamers. For example Wikipedia PC game articles including a Reception section citing reviews or review aggregators doesn't necessarily compromise its neutrality. Users can choose to ignore review scores on this website if necessary.

I am open to Metacritic, OpenCritic and any others. However Metacritic has a lot of old games where OpenCritic doesn't.

I am also open to Steam reviews however the issue becomes how to keep these up to date. It also may stabilise due to changes being made to the Steam review system: https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/valve-takes-steps-against-steam-review-bombs/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah I forgot OpenCritic only went back to 2015 sorry 😕

Older games in mind, maybe Moby Games would be a good place to get review aggregation from.
Looking at their Deus Ex review page, they have both critic and user scores, and have the critic scores going back from time of release up to now, and even segment those reviews out by platform. Seems just right for the wiki to me 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I'm against adding Metacritic or Opencritic scores because the vast majority of outlets issue the same score for all platforms (prominent when the 100-point scale is used), presumably not comparing the platforms extensively, or not much at all. The PC platform universally has lower amount of scores than the console platforms which have roughly 100 ratings for major releases — the Metacritic average also tends to be lower despite objective technical advantages.

More significant issue is that practically every publication listed on Metacritic ignores the technical aspect: 30fps lock, locked resolution, mouse acceleration, key-rebinding, available configuration options (if any), gamepad-friendly HUD, mismatched X and Y sensitivity are so rarely mentioned that I might as well say that they never are. I skimmed through every English review for Alice: Madness Returns (when online, some pages haven't been archived by archive.org) and the game's 30-fps lock was never noted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...

I would also like to propose including whatoplay.com. Their aggregate score "playscore" is 50% critic and 50% users from stores/communities. This might not seem typical but it does make sense when you think of aggregate ratings as more of a measure of reception more than an actual grade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I've taken the feedback into consideration and I think we should move ahead with implementing review aggregation with the major websites on our articles. I acknowledge that no aggregation system is perfect (and indeed many are politicised) but it is a service that is useful for our readers and does more good than harm. It will allow us to create tables where users can quickly glance to see whether a game is rated well by 'critics' - this is useful to see whether or not you agree with the way that the scores are aggregated or the way the reviews are written.

 

I would like to go with what I see are the 3 major players - Metacritic, OpenCritic and IGDB.

Taking Deus Ex: Mankind Divided as an example for our Infobox_game template - this information can be displayed like so below the Release dates in the Infobox:

chrome_Jw3MJGyFIj.png

 

Here are the properties as I see them:

 

Metacritic

|metacritic = deus-ex-mankind-divided

Link translates to: https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/deus-ex-mankind-divided

|metacritic_score = 83

 

OpenCritic

|opencritic = 1812/deus-ex-mankind-divided

https://opencritic.com/game/1812/deus-ex-mankind-divided

|opencritic_score = 81

 

IGDB

|igdb = deus-ex-mankind-divided

https://www.igdb.com/games/deus-ex-mankind-divided

|igdb_score = 83


 

It would be good to have feedback on implementation, choice of aggregators etc. (rather than 'whether we should do it' - this has been decided).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said I am against it, but since the decision was made I would further water it down and only show the average of those three.

Review average:

Metacritic, Opencritic, IGDB: 82

With names "Metacritic, Opencritic, IGDB" being a link to each of the pages. Or use an icon like for MobyGames, Wikipedia and others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Found PCGamingWiki useful? Please consider making a Donation or visiting our Patreon.
  • Similar Content

    • By onlinepc
      This wiki provides lots of info on patches, fixes and ways to tune the game to work on pc. But as someone who plays kb+m, it's difficult to find ways to tell if a ported game managed to convert controller prompts to kb+m equivalents.
      Any chance we could add this information to wiki's for games ported to pc?
    • By stuttgart
      I've had the idea that the infoboxes should somewhere contain information about a game's save system, since there are a lot of different ways games handle it:
      - Roguelikes (dying completely resets you, but you retain certain benefits)
      - Hardcore-modes where dying deletes your savegame, e.g. "Trial of Iron" mode in Pillars of Eternity 2
      - Only at the start of each level, e.g. Freespace 2
      - Only checkpoint / autosave, e.g. most modern shooters
      - Checkpoints that can be manually activated several times, e.g. Resident Evil typewriters or sleeping in Kingdom Come: Deliverance
      - Bonfire-system, e.g. Dark Souls (like above, but respawns all enemies)
      - Free, manual saving (and whether it also allows in combat + how many available save slots)
      - "Free" saving that still resets you to checkpoints, e.g. Tomb Raider: Legend
      - Manual saving, but at a cost, e.g. Kingdom Come: Deliverance (consumes alcohol)
      - Quicksaves
      - Special savegame shenanigans (e.g. message if you save too often in Metal Gear Solid 1, deleting your savegames if you die too often in Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, voluntary savegame deletion in Nier and Nier: Automata...)
      - Whether it allows to select individual chapters to replay, e.g. Syndicate (2012) and Condemned: Criminal Origins
       
      What do you think about this feature? For me personally, not being able to save freely is almost disqualifying for a game, so I always want to know such information. And it often changes even inside a franchise (e.g. FEAR 1 has manual saving, 2 and 3 only have checkpoints; Splinter Cell 1-4 allow manual saves and quicksaves, 5 and 6 only have checkpoints; Call of Juarez 1+2 has quicksaves, 3+4 only has checkpoints; etc.), so even if you like the previous installment you can't be sure if the next game works the same when you want to buy it.
      This information could be included in the infobox below the "save game location" info. It could just be simplified into a simple checkbox whether the game allows manual saves or not, and a "Notes" field with additional information (e.g. the things I listed above, how many save slots etc.). This way it wouldn't be cluttered, you just have a simple "Manual Saves?" checkbox next to the save location, and if there is any additional custom information, it can be written into the Notes field. What do you think about that?
    • By Dave247
      This is follow on from my post on the Special K Steam Discussions, but expanded to include other third party tools such as Re:shade.
      Link to Steam Discussion thread: https://steamcommunity.com/app/1157970/discussions/0/2650881941771332222/
      Reply from: @Aemony
       
    • By EVERGREEN
      Today more than ever, (fast) storage space is expensive. One thing that always makes me mad is the insane amount of unused Localizations, game modes (often dead/closed multiplayer modes) that are installed by default - this is literally dead content. Wasted storage. Wasted money.
      Now back in ye old days, it used to be a gigabyte at best. Not the end of the world, and not exactly worth the time investment. But old habits die hard, and I'm still doing it today.

      With games becoming larger and larger, storage has become an issue that can thankfully be alleviated. 
      I'm going to list a few interesting examples, then propose a solution and finally suggest a way to integrate it to PCGW's structure. I'll also list a couple of issues with my proposal, potential flaws and uses cases etc. If you have a better idea or any suggestion to make this a thing, you're more than welcome.

      Please note that all the numbers given are taken from Steam, but GoG, Uplay, EGS & Origin are guilty of the very same thing. Uplay's even worse, as always. 
      Any constructive feedback would be much appreciated - I never suggested a feature before, but this one has been on the back of my mind for at least a year. I feel like it could be very useful to many folks out there.

      So, let's get to it. Those are easy ones to "clean-up" (more on that later):
      Batman Arkham Origins. Had a multiplayer mode, servers are down. Delete one folder and the install size goes from 27.06Gb to 18.1Gb. 9Gb (33%) saved Final Fantasy XIII. Well documented, check the PCGW entry for it, you can remove ~20Gb if you don't want the Japanese audio. 57.6Gb to 37.7Gb. 19.9Gb (52%) saved (!!!) Doom 2016. Do you really play the MP or Snapmap modes? That's ~15Gb (11Gb if you only delete the MP) saved. From 69.68Gb to 54.68Gb. 15Gb (21.5%) saved Here's the problem. I can manually delete all localizations, "deluxe edition content", Readme/Support and redists safely from most MT_Framework, UE3 and Ubi games just fine because they use the same naming conventions. All I have to do is search in the root folder for any file with the _ita. suffix for instance and delete it - but that's because I know what I'm doing and I'm willing to take the time to locate and delete those files. 
      Listing that would massively bloat any page of course, and not many users would do it anyways. 

      The best way I can think of to implement a reliable and simple method to delete files that we're absolutely sure are safe to delete goes something like this:
       
      Add a "debloatable" boolean to the Other Information infobox, If True, how much can be shaved-off at best. Users like myself could build a database of games we know we can "shave" (much like SK/ReShade compat, with a dedicated page) The end user would download a batch file, hosted here and verified by members based on a template which would include one option for each localization, and a "clean-up" option (remove Readme, Deluxe content, redists if safe) So for instance, I can flag all the localization for Resident Evil 6 and write them down in the dedicated page. I don't have any experience making modular batch files like that however, so someone else would have to make a template. I can then edit that batch to point it to all the files we want to delete. The end user launches the batch file, delete all locales but the one he's/she's using and boom. That's money saved right there.
      I know there are programs that are much better than Win Explorer's Search feature - if we can feed such a program with a config file it should do the trick too. We'd still need to build a database though. 

      I do realize that I make it sound much easier than it may be, or that it may sound overkill if we're talking about a Gb at best. But for extreme cases like Doom 2016, Far Cry 3/4, FF XIII, the Arkham series, The Evil Within - huge games basically, it would be very helpful and hey, I'm already doing it anyways so might as well share it. There's also games like Battlefront 2 (2005) where you can cut the install size in half. It's about 5Gb (vanilla) if memory serves, about 2-3Gb when cleaned. 
      With that said, if anything I hope that this thread at least brings more attention to this issue. 

      Last but not least, to everyone: Happy holidays! I hope you're all doing well, and ready for more PCGW grunt work for this year to come.
      "Keep on keeping on". 
    • By mrrobertman
      Proposal to show support of Steam Family Sharing on the Wiki pages, as some games do not support Steam Family Sharing (this is the most recent list I could find) and this could be useful information to be recorded.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 387 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    1,501
    Total Topics
    8,134
    Total Posts
×
×
  • Create New...