Is MetaCritic 'that' powerful?

[Badnik Mechanic]

A long time ago, Sega Europe president and COO Mike Hayes spoke to... someone... about the importance of MetaCritic and hinted that it was an influence over development.

Remember a few months ago how it was rumoured that Sega was discontinuing Sonic titles that had an average or poor score on MetaCritic?

Well... a few days ago something very interesting happened on metacritic a rather interesting 'user' review appeared on the Dragon Age 2 list, it caught the attention of some people due to how well written it was and how much it praised the game... after investigation it turned out that the review was actually written by someone in the development studio and not by someone who had bought the game

Today, MetaCritic is back in the news and it's quite dramatic for the reasons why.

For the best part of a year THQ's Homefront has been looking to be the next epic game, it's had a lot of hype and recieved a lot of publicity, most of it has been very positive, in fact it's looked so good that THQ reported recently that it was the most pre-ordered game of it's entire history.

However...

It turns out that Homefront isn't that great a game, it's not a bad game, but it's just not as good as the hype train made it out to be. In fact, Metacritic gave it a score of 70%.

As a result, on the day of Homefronts launch, THQ's stock price fell by 25% The game isn't even out in Europe yet, and theres no way they could judge if it's sold well that quickly in the US, but based on the collected reviews and Metacritics rating THQ's stock price dropped by a rather shocking figure.

How many people here pay serious attention to Metacritic? I'm just genually curious as to if Metacritic is such a powerful force as these devs and the stock market make it out to be. Whilst it comes to no suprise really that devs are 'pro reviewing' their own games, I'm a little suprised at how much they fear metacritic that they've actually set out time to boost the user score.

Should it be that powerful? Whilst it's a collective of some reviews, does it really paint a true picture of a game? Most of the user reviews on it are a load of bollocks in all honesty, mind you, I can't think of many professional reviews that don't make my eyes roll, a lot of the ones for Metal Gear Solid 2 really do question the point of videogame reviewers in all honesty.

But have we ever seen this before? One single site being such an influence that devs are halting support on games? That they're actively trying to boost the ratings on it? That their stock prices are now vital to what it says?

Edited March 16, 2011 by Hogfather

[Glenn]

I don't care for critics in general. A collection of all critics is, therefore personally to me, like the Seventh Circle of Hell.

After all, critics are individuals. One man's garbage is another man's gold, and critics are paid to voice such variable opinion as fact. And sure, some things can be said for definite as the facts they are (like "this game doesn't have as realistic a graphics engine as this game", or "this loading time is longer on this console than on that console", etc. etc.) but overall it depends on the user, not the critic. After all, that's why videogames released alongside major animated blockbusters sell by the truckload, even if the guy reviewing it didn't care for the film or the videogame. It isn't meant for him. Rather his ten-year-old son, who'll play it until his fingers are raw. And that's just one example.

Hogfather mentions that MetaCritic was infiltrated by a developer's own positive media. All systems are open to corruption, and what's to say the reviews collected by MetaCritic are totally above board? And even if they are, they're hardly a majority, are they? Because even if you collect one hundred reviews from one hundred critics, and a videogame sells a million copies, who would you say the majority are, eh?

I was deeply disappointed to hear of the older Sonic the Hedgehog videogames being delisted thanks to MetaCritic. It truly is a sad day for any artistic medium (videogames or otherwise) when a handful of elitist critics can decide the fate of a title. As we prove, fans can be wildly different people. SSMB is proud enough to boast at least one fan for every single Sonic videogame, I'd say, and in a franchise as diverse in quality and style as this... well, that's damn-near remarkable. And yet we're almost being told that we "shouldn't" like certain titles, and having them delisted, because of critics? Because of somebody who's paid to voice their opinion? Somebody who'll most likely bend to current trends, rather than be entirely honest? No. No thank you. That is just plainly wrong.

Critics and reviews of all things should come with a disclaimer: "The opinion of the author is but one of hundreds of personal takes upon the product in question. Certain viewpoints should not be accepted as fact."

[BlazingTales]

One thing about games that differs from other media is, generally, quality=/=enjoyment. In films, if the acting is bad, the viewer will not be able to take the movie seriously. Likewise, in novels, if the plot is not well constructed, the reader will notice. But with games, the player can have a perfectly fun experience even if there are flaws. Take, for example, Sonic Unleashed. It has plenty of glitches and design flaws (even in the daytime stages), but many of us are able to overlook them and see a very, very enjoyable title. This is why I almost never let reviews sway me into purchasing a game or not.

[Blue Wisp]

Reviews, in general, ruin all the games.

One example that happened to me is Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon for Wii.

Most had average rating, so I wasn't sure if I would like it.

SO I went and bought it, and I LOVE it.

The only things reviews do are control your opinion on X thing, another example is Guitar Hero Warriors of Rock, underrated.

[Doctor Sοnic]

I really don't think MetaCritic should have that much power. Like Glenn said alot of it comes down to opinions. The opinions of their reviewers aren't really anymore valid than anyone elses.

[Velotix von Skruviktorrius]

It's just an aggregate of consumer reviews. Consumers are frequently dumb. Unfortunately they're also the ones buying your stuff.

Metacritic is a handy tool to gauge the perceived quality of your game product. If you invest a lot of money into a project and the final results are a resounding "meh", shareholders will get disappointed.

There's not really a problem here, this is more a clash of technology's desire to simplify and unify wherever possible with society's desire to air multiple viewpoints freely.

[Glenn]

Consumers are frequently dumb.

That's quite a horrible generalisation to make, Velotix. By what standard are they deemed as such?

[Velotix von Skruviktorrius]

*sigh*

Let me try this from another angle, disregarding my previous post for the moment.

From the perspective of a business, almost all game companies are publicly owned and subject to the will of their shareholders. Shareholders are by no means guaranteed to be informed or even enthusiastic about the subject of their investment, they just want to reliably make money. To appease a shareholder, you need to satisfy three conditions: your products must be of a high quality, your products must be successful and your products must not lose money. Demonstrating success is simple: show your shareholders big sales figures. Demonstrating a profit is as simple as projecting your sales figures and comparing them to your budget.

Demonstrating quality to people who may have never played games is a much bigger problem. Metacritic is the only site to provide an aggregate of professional opinion on a product for the games industry, and this is why it holds so much sway. If it or equivalents were to be ignored as people are suggesting, game companies would not be able to demonstrate quality through professional opinion and the quality of the product would have to be demonstrated through sales alone. Naturally this is a bad idea and most shareholders have also noticed that fact ("shovelware", anyone?). If anything is to be done about this situation, a method to assess the opinion of the general public in a meaningful and quantifiable manner needs to be implemented.

A pre-emptive note: whilst I, and you, are well aware that the only difference between a professional game critic and a member of the gaming public is an A-Level in English (or the local equivalent) and a formal press job, most shareholders probably don't bother researching the integrity and validity of the professional critics.

That note follows into a point that apparently I need to elaborate.

Consumers are frequently dumb.

Let me be frank: the quality of ICT and Computing education internationally is beyond pathetic, and whilst right now I have no clue how to resolve it one of my lifetime goals is to bring the standard of teaching of computer science and all related fields up to at least the standards of the general science fields, which right now it doesn't even come close to. People treat computers as a specialist subject even though they're a vital part of our daily lives and have been for some time. Once upon a time, teaching science in schools was considered unnecessary. That changed, and so should this - nay, it must.

The general public should be fully capable of purchasing, assembling, using, modifying and maintaining their own computer systems as basic general knowledge in the field, with more detailed knowledge of how a computer works (especially a CPU) equating to a higher grade. Your average primary school graduate should know what an operating system is and the difference between Windows, Linux and Mac OS, and should have experience with using all three to a comparable level of competence. By these standards, the current average member of the public today is a fucking moron, so to class them as "dumb" I was being quite restrained.

(Mathematics is almost as bad by the way, but there the problem lies in the teachers knowing what they're talking about but being totally unable to teach the subject to people who don't naturally grasp Maths.)

So how does this relate to games specifically? Well, we've established that the general public are grotesquely uninformed about the technological aspect of the industry to the point that sometimes they hold unrealistic standards of what is possible, or believe it science fiction what has been reality for years. We've also established that most professional games critics are not former industry professionals, and so whilst professional critics have played more games and established a personal standard of what is "quality", they'd never take into account the actual technical competence of the work nor its realistic limitations; they are essentially the general public with a press hat on. So then, it is fair to draw direct comparisons between how the press and the public see a game.

The common trap today is that modern consoles are wonder-machines that can do everything, but that's far from the truth. Most games aren't even native 1080p yet, they have to be upscaled by the console. Bigger screen size per frame = more grunt required. Hell, 1080p isn't even the maximum possible screen resolution available. Google 30" PC monitors and see for yourself. On top of all that, half of all programming is getting your compiler to stop being a dumbass and actually accept the code you're feeding it that there's nothing wrong with - bar the occasional dopey typo. Sometimes that wonderful feature that "any retard in a cubicle could see is needed"* isn't in there simply because the code compiler wouldn't stop throwing its toys out of the pram for one hour and behave itself. Deadlines are a bitch.

Returning specifically to games, consumers know what they like but they often don't know what they would like if they'd heard of it which is the fault of modern games marketing, but could also be an argument to refer to the general consumer as "dumb". I'm reminded of how Fox had a superb show in Futurama but their marketing department had honestly no idea how to market it to the intended audience and so the show bombed in the ratings for no reason - if people don't know something exists, they can't be expected to want to buy it. Similarly, if they don't know how something is supposed to work, they can't be expected to like it either. Developers frequently overestimate how easily people will be able to pick up and understand their games from scratch. To put it another way...

Consumers are frequently dumb. So are marketing departments.

Finally,

"But Velo, how can you say that people don't know anything about what is actually possible with modern technology? I mean, everyone knows that you can't buy flying cars---"

Well, actually, it's not that far off... ...as these two links help demonstrate.

*I wish this was an actual quote from somewhere because it's so delightfully stupid but doubtlessly you've heard similar remarks around the Internet.

[Glenn]

*sigh*

My apologies. I was merely curious, and didn't mean to touch a nerve.

From the perspective of a business, almost all game companies are publicly owned and subject to the will of their shareholders. Shareholders are by no means guaranteed to be informed or even enthusiastic about the subject of their investment, they just want to reliably make money. To appease a shareholder, you need to satisfy three conditions: your products must be of a high quality, your products must be successful and your products must not lose money. Demonstrating success is simple: show your shareholders big sales figures. Demonstrating a profit is as simple as projecting your sales figures and comparing them to your budget.

All fine. All commonly known facts. Slightly quizzical as to why you're laying such basic groundwork, but okay.

Demonstrating quality to people who may have never played games is a much bigger problem. Metacritic is the only site to provide an aggregate of professional opinion on a product for the games industry, and this is why it holds so much sway. If it or equivalents were to be ignored as people are suggesting, game companies would not be able to demonstrate quality through professional opinion and the quality of the product would have to be demonstrated through sales alone. Naturally this is a bad idea and most shareholders have also noticed that fact ("shovelware", anyone?). If anything is to be done about this situation, a method to assess the opinion of the general public in a meaningful and quantifiable manner needs to be implemented.

Indeed. Nobody said the world of business was perfect, and neither did my original query even address MetaCritic (perhaps a fault on my part, for which I apologise, as this topic is about MetaCritic and not the videogame business in general). Still, a valid point, and one which I accept. It only adds fuel to my argument that all professional reviews should come with a disclaimer, which would serve to clean up the waters of the videogame business and perhaps hone the objective of the medium.

A pre-emptive note: whilst I, and you, are well aware that the only difference between a professional game critic and a member of the gaming public is an A-Level in English (or the local equivalent) and a formal press job, most shareholders probably don't bother researching the integrity and validity of the professional critics.

With all due respect, this is where I start to have a problem. Not with you personally, I hasten to add, and none of what I say is ever meant as a personal attack. But you're saying "probably" and making a lot of assumptions, the first of which is here. Do you know these shareholders? Do you know whether they have knowledge of the videogame media? It might well be widely deemed as such that they don't, but to paint all shareholders as mindless, money-grabbing and ignorant of the business in which they participate is somewhat unfair... not to mention inaccurate and difficult to quantify. So while I have no evidence to the contrary of your claim, you neither have proof to validate it. That is where I found fault with your original accusation.

Let me be frank: the quality of ICT and Computing education internationally is beyond pathetic, and whilst right now I have no clue how to resolve it one of my lifetime goals is to bring the standard of teaching of computer science and all related fields up to at least the standards of the general science fields, which right now it doesn't even come close to. People treat computers as a specialist subject even though they're a vital part of our daily lives and have been for some time. Once upon a time, teaching science in schools was considered unnecessary. That changed, and so should this - nay, it must.

Total agreement with you, my friend. I am quite ashamed to admit my own knowledge is seriously lacking in matters of technology. I'm scared to upgrade my mobile phone for fear of getting lost in a sea of applications; running this laptop on which I type is a straightforward affair of Word, Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. Put simply, if you asked me to install something or fix a problem, I'd look at you wearing an expression akin to being asked the meaning of life. And yet...

The general public should be fully capable of purchasing, assembling, using, modifying and maintaining their own computer systems as basic general knowledge in the field, with more detailed knowledge of how a computer works (especially a CPU) equating to a higher grade. Your average primary school graduate should know what an operating system is and the difference between Windows, Linux and Mac OS, and should have experience with using all three to a comparable level of competence.

Many issues to disagree with here. The first of which is "modifying" in an age where opening up and tinkering with the inner workings of one's computer usually voids the warranty. If everybody could fix their own computers, hundreds of thousands... no, millions of jobs, worldwide, would be lost in the technical support departments of many a business and/or workplace. Computers have become incredibly simple to use, with most software pre-installed. Heck, when I got this laptop over two years ago, all I had to do was turn it on and pick a desktop background. Perfect, especially for somebody with limited time (like myself back then... indeed, even now, although lengthy posts like this one are evidence to the contrary).

Second is an objection towards your assertion that everybody should know the difference between Windows, Linux (whatever that is) and Mac OS. Then again, I was about to counter with an assertion of my own, saying "yeah, but everybody uses Windows as standard", but I have no evidence to support such a claim and so would be somewhat of a hypocrite to do so. My apologies for considering making such a point.

Lastly, overall, I again call into question the basis upon which you make the claim that the general public "should be", etc. etc. This is a personal belief of yours, and I'm glad you have such strong personal beliefs. Makes you a man of integrity, something to be respected in a modern age where the word "meh" is all too common. To make widespread judgements and assertions, however, which include harsh language and broad generalisations based on such personal beliefs is what I had an initial problem with. To blanket all consumers as "dumb" for the simple reason that "I think they should know better" is a dangerous tightrope upon which to walk. You're a reasonable chap, and I know you're not some kind of extreme nutcase with such views, but... well, nevertheless.

By these standards, the current average member of the public today is a ******* moron, so to class them as "dumb" I was being quite restrained.

Well, then I thank you kindly for your restraint.

(Mathematics is almost as bad by the way, but there the problem lies in the teachers knowing what they're talking about but being totally unable to teach the subject to people who don't naturally grasp Maths.)

Again, very much agreed that mathematics standards in the United Kingdom are shameful. No argument from me.

So how does this relate to games specifically? Well, we've established that the general public are grotesquely uninformed about the technological aspect of the industry to the point that sometimes they hold unrealistic standards of what is possible, or believe it science fiction what has been reality for years. We've also established that most professional games critics are not former industry professionals, and so whilst professional critics have played more games and established a personal standard of what is "quality", they'd never take into account the actual technical competence of the work nor its realistic limitations; they are essentially the general public with a press hat on. So then, it is fair to draw direct comparisons between how the press and the public see a game.

I can't fault your logic, buddy. This was a particularly clear paragraph, and a nice way of looking at my main problem with professional critics (that they're just one opinion in a world of billions, given a soapbox upon which to shout by their newspaper, magazine, website, radio or television programme). That said, I call into question the fact that you say "we've established" that the general public have no idea what happens in the creation of a videogame. Not only did I have an initial problem with the measure by which you make your assertions (see above, with no offence intended to your personal beliefs) but again you're making a blanket judgement. Indeed, high-end videogame magazines such as Edge, and GamesTM, seem rather informed about the medium and have a wide circulation. Of course, not all videogame players read such magazines, but then neither does everybody dismiss them.

The common trap today is that modern consoles are wonder-machines that can do everything, but that's far from the truth. Most games aren't even native 1080p yet, they have to be upscaled by the console. Bigger screen size per frame = more grunt required. Hell, 1080p isn't even the maximum possible screen resolution available. Google 30" PC monitors and see for yourself. On top of all that, half of all programming is getting your compiler to stop being a dumbass and actually accept the code you're feeding it that there's nothing wrong with - bar the occasional dopey typo. Sometimes that wonderful feature that "any retard in a cubicle could see is needed"* isn't in there simply because the code compiler wouldn't stop throwing its toys out of the pram for one hour and behave itself. Deadlines are a bitch.

To that last sentence in particular, I find myself nodding in agreement.

Returning specifically to games, consumers know what they like but they often don't know what they would like if they'd heard of it which is the fault of modern games marketing, but could also be an argument to refer to the general consumer as "dumb". I'm reminded of how Fox had a superb show in Futurama but their marketing department had honestly no idea how to market it to the intended audience and so the show bombed in the ratings for no reason - if people don't know something exists, they can't be expected to want to buy it. Similarly, if they don't know how something is supposed to work, they can't be expected to like it either. Developers frequently overestimate how easily people will be able to pick up and understand their games from scratch. To put it another way...

Consumers are frequently dumb. So are marketing departments.

We're getting back to the crux of the topic, namely MetaCritic and publicity for a product (in this case, specifically, a videogame). Putting aside a detailled business plan of target audiences, ongoing franchises, etc. etc. I will just say that marketing departments meeting the expectations of developers is indeed a rare occurance. But again, using MetaCritic as a simple bypass of public relations fluff and making snap decisions about a forthcoming product is deeply flawed. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, *insert recycled personal opinion about critics voicing personal opinions* and, not only that, many magazines receive early review codes of videogames which are often different from the final release product.

But, look... I didn't mean to call into question your own personal opinions in detail. I was merely wondering why such a morbid generalisation of the general public, and videogame consumers more specifically, was something you believed in. I am sorry you have such a jaded view of the situation, and agree with you regarding educational standards. But we're in a funny, mid-generational time period where computers and technology are ever-evolving and ever-invading new aspects of our life. I'm sure, in time, your wishes will become fulfilled. There remains, however, a large portion of society who regard computers as something for the rich, or for the educated, or for those with power. I'm having dinner with my father and grandmother tomorrow and at that table will sit the three different tiers of this case.

Thank you kindly for your response, Velotix. No hard feelings?

Oh, and flying cars rock.

[Velotix von Skruviktorrius]

None at all.

I've been told before (by my Nan no less, bless) that I have a habit of being very forceful with my opinions. I don't apologise for that, simply because if I you don't believe your opinion enough to defend it with vigor there's not much point having one.

I'm also prone to strong language, however that runs in the family who all seem to use swear words like punctuation. I'm too used to it to notice, and whilst I apologise if it offends, I don't apologise for using them.

So first, thanks for giving my lengthy post such attention. It's duly appreciated - the SSMB seems to be full of skim readers these days.

Let's get to it. I apologise in advance for the rant, but as someone who has grown up fighting against the tide and practically forcing computers into the family home from an early age, I know that it's totally possible to teach people how to use a computer properly as I taught myself, so this is a sensitive subject for me when I see so many people baulk at what to them seem impossibly high standards for competency when it's So. Damn. Simple.

All fine. All commonly known facts. Slightly quizzical as to why you're laying such basic groundwork, but okay.

You'd be surprised what people don't know, as evidenced by a later quote of your very own. It's best to assume no knowledge and work from there; indeed we're taught this as standard academic practice.

With all due respect, this is where I start to have a problem. [words implying I missed the key word "MOST" in the argument]

The key word being "most"; although as a culture we seem to have knee-jerk reactions to generalisations these days, the fact remains that if you are to discuss a large and varied group of people with little proven in common, you're forced to generalise or add a storm of ceveats to the point of meaninglessness. Naturally not everyone who invests in the games industry is uninformed as to the details of its operation, and indeed I do not have evidence to present, just observations on my part. I feel comfortable making this assertion though because I've not encountered evidence to disprove it whilst finding circumstantial evidence over time to back it up.

Many issues to disagree with here... [oh dear God these three paragraphs make me weep for humanity why God why!!]

;_;

Thankyou for providing an excellent basis to demonstrate just how bad computing education is. I'll need to obliterate this in detail.

The first of which is "modifying" in an age where opening up and tinkering with the inner workings of one's computer usually voids the warranty.

The PC is an open-hardware platform; you have full control over what parts to install in it and remove. If your supplier doesn't allow you to do this without voiding your warranty, your supplier sucks. May I suggest Novatech? The individual components all have independent warranties of their own, usually three years, which incidentally is the average lifespan of a computer assuming 24/7 use.

Modifying the individual electronic boards without a masters degree in electronics is profound idiocy on the other hand.

If everybody could fix their own computers, hundreds of thousands... no, millions of jobs, worldwide, would be lost in the technical support departments of many a business and/or workplace.

For the sake of argument, let's say no-one knew how to fix their own bicycles when they got damaged. Your bike gets damaged and gets sent in for repair. Turns out the bolt holding the saddle secure came loose. The repair man tightens it up and sends it back to you - along with a £75 labour charge.

Would you rather leave an entire industry based on exploiting stupid people stand, or would you endeavour to educate the populace so they can perform basic maintenance on their bicycles?

You appear to be arguing for the ripoff merchants, because THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT 90%+ OF PC ISSUES SENT TO CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENTS ARE.

Normally I'd not be a fan of making people lose their jobs, but when their job boils down to exploiting the stupids and making money, then I object loudly to them having a job at all.

Besides that, legitimate technology professionals would have more time to resolve genuine problems than worry about issues one level above "derp my PC won't turn on should I plug it in?"

Computers have become incredibly simple to use, with most software pre-installed.

Nope, they haven't, but the Windows interface has become more intuitive over time, and Mac OS especially has made it easy to feel like you're in full control of your PC when you actually don't have the first damn clue what you're doing on it.

Microsoft often talks about the "Virtual Machine": setting up an environment that to the end user looks simple and common-sense, appearing to perform tasks in a simple and human-intuitive manner but underneath it is the real system which is to the user's impression of the virtual machine what an ant is to the Empire State Building. You probably have no idea what the registry, system backup, file system, COM interface, Win32 API or even the system idle process do, how important they are or what you need to do to maintain them correctly, or if you need to maintain them at all (there's a couple of red herrings in there ). Clearing out the backlog of crap monthly is absolutely essential for PC performance efficiency but most people don't have a blind clue how to do it.

But yes, it is very simple to load up Internet Explorer, visit a web-page and then two weeks later wonder why everything's loading slowly after I installed all those cool things I found on the Internet. Then eventually the PC kills itself, you call it stupid and complain to the supplier when it's all your own damn fault.

For a start, don't use IE. Ever. It has direct access to the file system and is the largest backdoor into a system ever devised. Use a web browser not directly tied in to the thing that knows how to access, read and write all the data on your hard drives, USB sticks and DVDs.

Second is an objection towards your assertion that everybody should know the difference between Windows, Linux (whatever that is) and Mac OS. Then again, I was about to counter with an assertion of my own, saying "yeah, but everybody uses Windows as standard", but I have no evidence to support such a claim and so would be somewhat of a hypocrite to do so. My apologies for considering making such a point.

Well, most people do use Windows, bu---

Linux (whatever that is)

HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG WHY GOD WHY

*ahem*

The simple way to address this is with a link to the Wikipedia but I'll summarise...

Windows - designed for the common technologically retarded oik, entirely the property of Microsoft, costs money, not as shit as technology enthusiasts would have you believe but has its moments (paging the swapfile from 0 RAM usage WHYYY MS WHY)

Linux - runs pretty much every decent server on the Internet, does a damn fine job of serving as an OS for home PCs too, entirely the property of the general public as it's open-source, costs literally nothing, awesome across the board BUT *

UNIX - old-skool server OS, miraculously still in use despite being about 30 years old, Linux is based on it (and much better), and so is...

Mac OS - a bastardised-by-Apple version of UNIX, also nicks stuff wholesale from Linux, entirely the property of Apple, costs nothing technically as it's always pre-installed, piece of shit as soon as you try to do anything remotely technical with it

*BUT as it is the property of the general public they're free to modify and implement it however they want and the implementations vary wildly from version to version. A nice entry-level, newb friendly version of Linux is Ubuntu, which is completely free.

I'm sure that sounds like a biased viewpoint but I could prove this objectively were it not way outside the scope of this topic, I'm already pushing it as is.

To blanket all consumers as "dumb" for the simple reason that "I think they should know better" is a dangerous tightrope upon which to walk.

Yes, but by now hopefully you're starting to see how dire this issue is, how difficult it'll be to do anything about it without throwing a lot of brute-force weight behind it, and why I'm so pissed off. The hard part is getting people to realise there's a problem to begin with. because they're so dumb gawd

Finally back to the original point: yes, most people use Windows... on desktops. On servers the ball swings so far into the Linux court that the rope snaps, and as Windows was pushing 100% desktop market share at one point, it can only go downhill from here, and it is.

Moving right along...

Indeed, high-end videogame magazines such as Edge, and GamesTM, seem rather informed about the medium and have a wide circulation. Of course, not all videogame players read such magazines, but then neither does everybody dismiss them.

Indeed, there are always outliers in any generalisation. GamesTM I've not read before but Edge I can certainly vouch for, having frequent developer contact, advertising developer jobs and also being one of the rare few to include former industry professionals on the team.

Now if every game magazine had Edge's journalistic integrity we'd be getting somewhere.

Finally...

[words in which MetaCritic is discussed]

Yeah, it's a flawed system, but it's the only one in existence.

As I said, if this is going to improve businesses need other, easy-to-digest, methods to assess industrial and public critical reception of the products. Until then all they have is MetaCritic and sales figures, and they'll use them as much as they can.

[Glenn]

Okay, going to avoid a mess of quote boxes, if you don't mind...?

First of all, very briefly, I will just thank you kindly for your personal family background. While it was entirely unrequired (as I just respect the fact that some people are passionate about some subjects) it was also a thoughtful touch.

I'm sorry to hear you've encountered enough evidence to make negative assumptions about the consumer base of the videogame market. I do understand that such encounters can sour an individual's viewpoint but, even so, the very act of generalisation in itself is one I frown upon. That said, I would never expect to apply my own personal standards to other people, so I'll just repeat the fact that I'm sorry to hear you've been met with consumer-level frustration in the past.

Now, to the technical stuff, some of which I'll address only briefly, if that's alright (should you want to discuss more technical detail, I suggest a PM, as you're right, we're kinda pushing our luck with the topic of MetaCritic when discussing the inner workings of Internet Explorer and the like)...

As I said, I'm the layman here. I make no apology for having little technical experience, and often confuse technical terms. With respect to the voiding of the warranty, I did a little head-scratching and realised I was thinking of my recently-crippled PlayStation3. In all the paperwork and instruction manuals, Sony are keen to stress that any user exploration of her inner workings would null many a consumer right and, indeed, there are stickers with such plastered all over the casing seams (as there was on my old PlayStation2, as well). We're meant to be discussing videogames, we moved to computers, the wires in my head crossed... apologies. And thank you kindly for correcting me.

Regarding your comments about technical support, I'll just repeat exactly the same argument, only replacing "technical support" with "medical doctors". Most people (there was a statistic in The Daily Telegraph, a few weeks ago, but we recycle here) go to their doctor saying "I think I've got a cold," to which they are diagnosed with "Yep, you've got a cold, go home and drink lots of fluid." Should we therefore get rid of the NHS? I mean, they could have done that themselves, and many do, but there's always a better-safe-than-sorry mentality. Because a small percentage of people who go to their doctor and say "I think I've got a cold," will actually get "Nope... this is much worse, I'm glad you came in..." as a reply instead. The same with computers and videogame consoles. I know that my laptop has a few glitches that are probably nothing, but what if one such glitch crashes the whole system? I'd lose everything. And just as with my own body, I'd rather an expert opened it up and tinkered with the components, rather than holding a guidebook in one hand and a screwdriver in another (mostly because I wouldn't have a hand free to drink tea, but that's beside the point).

There's also the question of need, but that'll involve more generalisation. I'll use myself as an example, therefore, and say that all I need from my laptop is Word, the ability to surf the interweb, and... well, I don't need a music player, as I always buy stuff on CD when I can. So while I respect there's so much more I could do, what's the point, if I don't need to? I don't play videogames on it, I don't install any programs whatsoever... I just write and browse. And it does those things rather well.

Again, I apologise for my own shortcomings in the field of computer operating systems. Thank you kindly for the details and information you provided to correct that, and sorry if my ignorance caused a little stress (which it appeared to)!

I really appreciate that your arguments and viewpoints come from a good place, my friend. You'd like better standards of education in technology and like a future where computers and science are used to their full potential... that's awesome, and I respect that. I guess what triggered all this was my disappointment at A: seeing consumers written off with a blanket, derogatory term, and B: seeing yourself in such a position where you'd use such a term. Now that you've explained, I see why, and I am grateful for such a detailled answer (as opposed to a "because they are" answer). But we're wildly in danger of forgetting what MetaCritic even is, so to end?

We agree that MetaCritic is flawed. So we agree on this matter! Cool!