Jump to content
Andytizer

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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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/

Share this post


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 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 SirYodaJedi
      This seems like an important setting, especially with the prominence of high-PPI UHD monitors.
       
      True: Has option to change scaling settings. May or may not automatically scale based on selected resolution. Example: SWTOR
      Always on: Is automatically scaled based on resolution, but has no manual setting. Example: Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga
      Limited: Only scales certain elements (ex: graphics but not text), or cannot be scaled beyond a certain percentage of the base resolution. Example: Half-Life 2
      False: Is not scaled and does not have an option to scale. Can't think of an example off the top of my head.
      Hackable: Hackable. Example: Quake
       
      This could go in the video settings table, or it could go in a potential accessibility table. I think probably wait until a dedicated accessibility table is made and put any info in 4K for now.
    • By Andytizer
      In the beginning, PCGamingWiki shied away from including classification of games because we were focused only on fixes - we weren't interested if a game was a 'third person shooter' or a 'first person shooter' - we just wanted FOV fixes, widescreen fixes, etc.   However I think things could be improved - taking a queue from Wikipedia:   Modes: Firstly with the way the tables work, some genres don't require 'FOV' fixes for example 2D games. Or an 90s adventure game doesn't need an 'Inverted Y-Axis' option etc. A mode property would allow us to restrict certain tables so that this makes more sense. This would include things like: VR, 2D, 3D, 1st person, 3rd person, touchscreen, VR etc. Furthermore, in the future we could use this to categorise other features like microtransactions, lootboxes etc.   Genres: Genres are a great way of listing games. We could make lists of Puzzle games on Uplay, RPGs fan translated into Russian, etc. How great would it be to see all the Local co-op games that are 2D rather than 3D (my wife can't play 3D games as she gets motion sick!).      In terms of implementation, this could sit in the proposed Overview section as well as the Infobox itself.
    • By SirYodaJedi
      Example of where it would be useful: https://pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_III%3A_Morrowind&type=revision&diff=716310&oldid=716303
    • By Andytizer
      Proposal to remove wikis from General information and the Editing guide.
      Wikis were included because generally speaking there was 'the one' wiki everyone used. However with the advent of massive wikifarms, a single game could have several wikis associated with it.
      Problems:
      Inconsistencies with 'community wiki' / 'official wiki' terminology - meaningless as all wikis are community wikis Wikis don't offer technical information If a wiki contains a good technical page, this could be linked to separately Proposed solution:
      Remove any game wikis from General information Time limit: 7 days (14th June 2019)
    • By Aemony
      Support for batch uploads could improve the speed of which users upload multiple screenshots for use in the articles. This seems at first glance as a relative easy feature to implement, as the functionality is already provided through extensions to MediaWiki: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Bulk_upload
       
      Possible concerns:
      How does this relate to the new backend for images and thumbnails? Does the extension need to have support to make use of the DigitalOcean Space? A few months ago when I tried to do something similar using multiple tabs I would often hit an error similar to a  429, Too many requests, and have a few of the uploads cancelled until I let the current ones finish. Is this something that would occur, and if so, do we need to increase the number of allowed connections per user on the backend?
  • Who's Online   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 307 Guests (See full list)

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    1,326
    Total Topics
    7,212
    Total Posts
×
×
  • Create New...