I'm counting both PC and Xbox because it's the same game, even Opencritic does this. The PC Metacritic score also has only one Xbox aligned site but has a higher overall rating despite that. Picking one or the other would just be reinforcing a bias. If I would to pick the PC version, not only is it higher rated but it only has the one score from a biased source.
As for the PlayStation side of things, not all PS focused sites are that easy to spot. Play Magazine is one example. I counted ones that do only one platform coverage, be it PlayStation or Xbox (not totally accurate, everyone counts Windowscentral as a Xbox focused site, but it is PC. It gives games like God of War a 10/10 while Redfall enjoyed a 6/10).
The difference in number of focused outlets between the two is academic. Remove three 9/10 scores from almost 160 would not even drop the score by a single point.
Fine. Well, now you are kind of highlighting another problem then when it comes to reviewing MS games, and applies in general, not just to specific sites with 'Xbox' in their name or heavily lean towards Xbox. That problem is the inconsistency in reviews accurately reflective of the platform splits.
Like others have said earlier, the reviews industry as a whole has a problem with reviewers getting versions of games to review, which don't reflect the Day 1 experience paying customers end up getting. That affects online-centric games the most, because reviewers get to play without the real-world server load regular people have to put up with. But now when talking about MS 1P titles, we get review splits that can be on platforms the majority of actual customers don't have, but the reviews themselves don't account for that.
Starfield is, again, a perfect example of this to some extent, both in a good way and a bad way. Good, because we see the Xbox scores and PC scores, and since the game runs better on PC (even if that means just brute-forcing your way to better performance), the score for PC was higher. But there's little in the reviews on Xbox distinguishing between the Series X and Series S, and with many Xbox games this gen the S version has had notably worst performance across the board, when almost all the console reviewers are using the Series X version. In other words, for Series S owners, those Xbox scores are usually not worth what they say they are, and they should probably deduce by 3-4 points to get what that score would've been if the game was reviewed using a Series S.
The reason I was focused on just PS5 and Series X with GOW:R and Starfield, is because that evens out the playing field. GOW:R doesn't have the benefit of also releasing Day 1 on an open-spec platform where you can brute-force results way above the console. Starfield has that advantage, and that advantage can directly result in higher scores, but scores only reflective of the real-world playing experience of a small fraction of customers.
Agreed
Interesting topic!
I think multiple opinions on the big websites would help. It’s absurd to see one person write a review that is supposed to be what a whole gaming outlet think about a game. It’s just one opinion. I can’t even state what my own family think about pizza. It’s all about taste.
No joke, an average score from a group of 100 multi-platform owners on GAF would be a more correct score than any score out there.
Problem is, most people have platform preferences.
How can that be erased from the equation?
No idea.
Maybe a Nintendo fans average can be used for Nintendo games? And an Xbox fans average for Xbox games? And a Playstation fans average for Playstation games?
Would likely inflate scores but would at least be relevant for the people who actually plan to play the games.
A Playstation fan reviewing Xbox games and Xbox fan reviewing Playstation games helps exactly no one. It’s like listening to an atheist reviewing the Bible.
Anyhow!…
On topic, seems like Turn 10 yet again stumble on the campaign. And there is no way a Forza sim game without a VR mode is going to get a high score from me. Oh well I’ll play and see what it’s like once it’s out on Gamepass.
On the multiple opinions stuff...definitely agreed. Gaming magazines used to do that all the time; EGM, GamePro, GameFan you name it. You always had 3-4 people weighing in equally and that would give an overall average. It's just an objectively better set-up than delegating a review to a single individual.
Getting platform preferences out of the picture is almost impossible, but I think it can be minimized greatly. Anyone who's got a history of shitting on one particular platform should probably not be allowed to do any reviews that weigh to any aggregates, for starters. You simply can't trust them. Otherwise, ensure everyone has at least two systems if not more, that's a good way to weed out single-console owners who may as a result have a bias against platforms they don't own.
And then from there, you try getting a mix of reviewers who fit the criteria of whatever the game's marketplace performance goals are. If it's just appealing to hardcore fans, make sure most of the reviewers are hardcore fans. If it's trying to expand out to new audiences, make sure most of the reviewers are new to the IP or genre. Keep a standard, fixed baseline of reviews needed in total, and decide the selection of reviewer types based on it.
It'd require more work, but it would be worth it. And also for getting back on track, I'll also be giving it a try once it's in Game Pass. People are probably thinking I've got some hateboner against the game but that isn't the case. Already said there are things it's doing I feel better than GT7 does (chase cam, rain weather effects, particle effects on the camera in chase cam, fully 3D trackside objects).
Just think overall the claimed massive leap in quality FM was supposed to represent (according to some of the mega-fans) just isn't there. And that's okay.
