Rotten Tomatoes sucks for meta reviews on games
#1
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Rotten Tomatoes sucks for meta reviews on games
I've noticed in the past that Rotten Tomatoes metareviews always seemed unusually harsh for games. I was just skimming through some right now and noticed that Hotel Dusk has a 57% (rotten) score on RT. It has an 80% average on Gamerankings.
I read recently that Rotten Tomatoes requires and 8/10 score in order to qualify it as a "Fresh" rating. This seems awfully high, even considering the high average on game reviews (I think 6.5/10?) But if the average is 6.5 or even 7, then shouldn't a fresh rating be anything at or above a 6.5?
So here's a good example. They show IGN's rating as rotten and take a critical (instead of praising) quote from the review. However, IGN gave Hotel Dusk a 7.9
A 7.9 is rotten (and therefore a bad review) in RT's mind. How silly is that?
I love RT for meta reviews on movies, but I don't if anyone would trust their game reviews until they change their system.
I read recently that Rotten Tomatoes requires and 8/10 score in order to qualify it as a "Fresh" rating. This seems awfully high, even considering the high average on game reviews (I think 6.5/10?) But if the average is 6.5 or even 7, then shouldn't a fresh rating be anything at or above a 6.5?
So here's a good example. They show IGN's rating as rotten and take a critical (instead of praising) quote from the review. However, IGN gave Hotel Dusk a 7.9
A 7.9 is rotten (and therefore a bad review) in RT's mind. How silly is that?
I love RT for meta reviews on movies, but I don't if anyone would trust their game reviews until they change their system.
#3
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by KurrptSenate
honestly, i think people rate games too high for the most part
like in real life, perfect 10s don't exist
like in real life, perfect 10s don't exist
Even if that's not true though, a 7.9 is no doubt a good score in IGN's mind, but it's a bad score in Rotten Tomatoes mind. How does that make sense?
In my own view, I tend to not be interested in a game unless it scores about a 70% on Gamerankings (unless I'm otherwise interested in the title -- but I'd still rent before buying). I wouldn't blind buy a game unless it had a 80% or higher.
#4
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by KurrptSenate
honestly, i think people rate games too high for the most part
like in real life, perfect 10s don't exist
like in real life, perfect 10s don't exist
#7
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i read reviews as well... not just the number, but most games i own are either i know the title via popularity or good art work (different from graphic) at discounted prices. However, the game rating numbers do play a big part for me, i.e. i tend to read on for higher number and skim quickly for lower scores...
Also, a number of times i don't agree with the rating number. Like the Raving Rabbit (Wii) on this site, that game is below average. Fun? Yeah, first couple of hours, but that's it...
Also, a number of times i don't agree with the rating number. Like the Raving Rabbit (Wii) on this site, that game is below average. Fun? Yeah, first couple of hours, but that's it...
#8
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ratings are really BS in the first place. Sure, they can help to push you over the edge one way or another, but its completely subjective. I mean, it would be like them having me rate RPGs, and me saying
"I hate this game"
40 times in a row
"I hate this game"
40 times in a row
#9
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by KurrptSenate
ratings are really BS in the first place. Sure, they can help to push you over the edge one way or another, but its completely subjective. I mean, it would be like them having me rate RPGs, and me saying
"I hate this game"
40 times in a row
"I hate this game"
40 times in a row
I pay attention to scores because I find them easier to track. I'm much more interested in looking at the average meta review score. Then, if it gets good reviews (or it's a game I was otherwise interested in), I'll read a review or 2 to see why they liked it.
I do the same with movies. I'm not going to spend $20 (my wife and I) on a movie that's got a 10% on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm sorry. I'm also not likely to waste $50 or (or even $5-10) or time on a game that averages 50% on Gamerankings.
To me.. Reviews and scores absolutelty matter.
#10
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by KurrptSenate
I mean, it would be like them having me rate RPGs, and me saying
"I hate this game"
40 times in a row
"I hate this game"
40 times in a row
#13
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 9,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DodgingCars
I usually use Gamerankings. Metacritic has a pretty nice interface though.
And the pretty colors.
#14
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by lordwow
I used GRs forever, but the one thing I really like about Metacritic is the way they organize the reviews and give a brief snippet from each.
And the pretty colors.
And the pretty colors.
#15
Retired
Originally Posted by DodgingCars
Look, I may not agree with Gamepro's bad review on Title X. But I'm also not going to waste my time and money on a game that's been universally panned -- because there may be a small chance I disagree with their reviews. This is especially true when you get later into the consoles life and you have have hundreds of games available.
I pay attention to scores because I find them easier to track. I'm much more interested in looking at the average meta review score. Then, if it gets good reviews (or it's a game I was otherwise interested in), I'll read a review or 2 to see why they liked it.
I do the same with movies. I'm not going to spend $20 (my wife and I) on a movie that's got a 10% on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm sorry. I'm also not likely to waste $50 or (or even $5-10) or time on a game that averages 50% on Gamerankings.
To me.. Reviews and scores absolutelty matter.
I pay attention to scores because I find them easier to track. I'm much more interested in looking at the average meta review score. Then, if it gets good reviews (or it's a game I was otherwise interested in), I'll read a review or 2 to see why they liked it.
I do the same with movies. I'm not going to spend $20 (my wife and I) on a movie that's got a 10% on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm sorry. I'm also not likely to waste $50 or (or even $5-10) or time on a game that averages 50% on Gamerankings.
To me.. Reviews and scores absolutelty matter.
But otherwise, I absolutely do. If I have an interest in a game and see it is getting universally panned, I won't bother with it nor even read the text of reviews.
If I have an interest in a game, and see it is getting good reviews across the board, I'll read some reviews on it to see if it sounds like my cup of tea. Also, sometimes I get interested in a game because of the stellar reviews, and look up more info and get turned on to games that way.
So I agree, reviews are very important for games outside of the known series that I know I'm going to enjoy.