<!--quoteo(post=2023291:date=Nov 14 2012, 11:39 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Nov 14 2012, 11:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2023291"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like metacritic, I can get a general feel for the score and then look into things further.
If you have issues with scores being under 85 and those in the company not getting their bonus, that is completely on god awful practices of the publisher/company.
The only thing you should be doing is e-mailing metacritic so we can have that Gamespot score removed, rather than ranting on here.
I have sent a message to their Facebook account, hopefully they check that more often.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's a good idea, and a necessary service. The issue is that it feels like we needed an oven in our kitchen, so we installed an foundry furnace. It's not built for what we need, it's not being tweaked by the people who installed it to work better for us, and it's burning the hell out of all our stuff.
Can someone better explain 'critic protection' to me? From the comments section in the GS post, most GS readers only remember one other review being pulled and rewritten. That one, plus NS2, are the only re-rewrites for a massive organization that likely publishes hundreds of reviews in a single month.
So if in GS history they've only ever re-written two reviews, which critics are they protecting? The incompetent ones? I like Cory's response.... "what about consumer and developer protection."
The power yielded by Metacritic <a href="http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/the-power-of-review-scores-why-critics-have-more-control-than-we-think1" target="_blank">cannot be overstated</a>, especially with its integration into Steam. They are willfully publishing incorrect data and refuse to take corrective action. I won't pretend to be a legal expert and the last thing anyone wants to do is engage in a legal battle, but here are a few cool definitions:
<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel" target="_blank">Libel</a> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1. Law a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. b. the act or crime of publishing it... 2. Anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defamation" target="_blank">Defamation</a> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny: She sued the magazine for defamation of character.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In UWE's situation, they have someone intentionally publishing financially damaging information that misrepresents their product. Again, I'm far from a legal expert (and the last thing I want to do is start a legal debate with other arm-chair lawyers) but I can't imagine the average reasonable person thinking this kind of behavior is okay from Metacritic.
Imagine if Borderlands 2 received an initial score of 6.0, was re-reviewed, and re-issued an 8.0. I'd like to see Activision's response to Metacritic's willful disregard to remove/correct financially damaging information. I'm pretty sure an injunction to remove the score would be filed the day they learned of Metacritic's policy.
------
edit;
To be clear, I'm not referencing 'a bad review score' or 'this happens to every game.' I'm referencing the fact that the organization which issued this score apologized to their customers for their lack of quality control, admitted they made a mistake, pulled their prior review, and issued a new one. <i>This</i> doesn't happen to most games; infact I'd wager it happens to an extreme minority.
Lol this is like the game with best graphics i have (atleast fps, NFS shift 2 are better IMO) but well, as the performance is terrible, i use it on low-middle settings, with the classic infestation...... so yeah
"I'm explicit about this policy with every new publication we agree to track. It's a critic-protection measure, instituted in 2003 after I found that many publications had been pressured to raise review scores (or de-publish reviews) to satisfy outside influences. Our policy acted as a disincentive for these outside forces to apply that type of inappropriate pressure."
Comments
If you have issues with scores being under 85 and those in the company not getting their bonus, that is completely on god awful practices of the publisher/company.
The only thing you should be doing is e-mailing metacritic so we can have that Gamespot score removed, rather than ranting on here.
I have sent a message to their Facebook account, hopefully they check that more often.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a good idea, and a necessary service. The issue is that it feels like we needed an oven in our kitchen, so we installed an foundry furnace. It's not built for what we need, it's not being tweaked by the people who installed it to work better for us, and it's burning the hell out of all our stuff.
It was very vague.
new GS review. NS2 = 8.0
So if in GS history they've only ever re-written two reviews, which critics are they protecting? The incompetent ones? I like Cory's response.... "what about consumer and developer protection."
The power yielded by Metacritic <a href="http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/the-power-of-review-scores-why-critics-have-more-control-than-we-think1" target="_blank">cannot be overstated</a>, especially with its integration into Steam. They are willfully publishing incorrect data and refuse to take corrective action. I won't pretend to be a legal expert and the last thing anyone wants to do is engage in a legal battle, but here are a few cool definitions:
<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel" target="_blank">Libel</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1. Law
a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b. the act or crime of publishing it...
2. Anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defamation" target="_blank">Defamation</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny: She sued the magazine for defamation of character.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In UWE's situation, they have someone intentionally publishing financially damaging information that misrepresents their product. Again, I'm far from a legal expert (and the last thing I want to do is start a legal debate with other arm-chair lawyers) but I can't imagine the average reasonable person thinking this kind of behavior is okay from Metacritic.
Imagine if Borderlands 2 received an initial score of 6.0, was re-reviewed, and re-issued an 8.0. I'd like to see Activision's response to Metacritic's willful disregard to remove/correct financially damaging information. I'm pretty sure an injunction to remove the score would be filed the day they learned of Metacritic's policy.
------
edit;
To be clear, I'm not referencing 'a bad review score' or 'this happens to every game.' I'm referencing the fact that the organization which issued this score apologized to their customers for their lack of quality control, admitted they made a mistake, pulled their prior review, and issued a new one. <i>This</i> doesn't happen to most games; infact I'd wager it happens to an extreme minority.
"I'm explicit about this policy with every new publication we agree to track. It's a critic-protection measure, instituted in 2003 after I found that many publications had been pressured to raise review scores (or de-publish reviews) to satisfy outside influences. Our policy acted as a disincentive for these outside forces to apply that type of inappropriate pressure."
Source: <a href="http://kotaku.com/5960657/metacritic-refuses-to-pull-negative-review-that-gamespot-admits-was-factually-inaccurate" target="_blank">Kotaku</a>