#metacritic

[benoits-neckerchieves]

Oh dear god what have i started

Ok i am addicted to making these. Look guys it’s everyone’s favourite character… walkway guard !!

[courseyoulovemeyoudontknowme]

Wendell & Wild (2022, Henry Selick)

17/07/2024

[ladyxgaga]

Lady Gaga's new album "MAYHEM" received a universally-acclaimed score of 84 on Metacritic, based on 18 reviews so far

Check out more reviews of the album by clicking this link

Stream “MAYHEM” : Amazon Music - Audiomack - Apple Music - Deezer - iTunes Store - Pandora - Spotify - Tidal - Youtube Music

Buy “MAYHEM” : Official Store - Amazon Music - Target- Urban Outfitters - Walmart

Buy the “MAYHEM” collection at ladygaga.com

[biohazard-4ever]

Again, Metacritic?

Friendly reminder that Metacritic spoiled RE4Remake Gold Edition 2 months before its' announcement by Capcom.

[grongulus]

You can tell a lot about the type of person I am from this post

I'm actually tempted to make an account on one of those film /book/videogame/music review websites where every review is "I really liked when he said it's [character name]in time and [blank]ed all over the place" to add meaningless slop and make actually insightful reviews that people spent time and effort on even harder to find in a website that is probably already full of trolls

[sirensoul-min]

can't remember when i last checked this, but saw this on my TL again, and wow, look at that.

fucking iconic. a gift to my ears whole being.

[maifrenthebesto]

I think I'm pretty tired of talking about the things we've all been subjected to in one way or another, and talk about things that I'm subjected to specifically due to my subjective experience on the subject of today.

Let's talk The Elder Scrolls.

The reason I like The Elder Scrolls is a combination of the timing of first exposure to the franchise at large, the depth of the universe at large, the creative ways in which it approaches metaphysical concepts, and the collaborative nature of the inception of the world, and how that is reflected in the mythos within a world that isn't afraid to show the players how real some of the things you will hear about actually were/are.

With that said, analyzing the producing company is necessary when looking at the direction that the games will take moving forward. As someone who really enjoys the freedom and creativity the sandbox given to the players has offered, it is worrisome to see them doing damage control *prior* to release, especially with no release date on sight for TES6 yet, lowering expectations and justifying having to hit a metacritic quota on release, otherwise their efforts were meaningless is so indicative of the state of games and gaming as a whole. The 'pre-johns' are crazy.

I think "Here at Bethesda..." they are beginning to experience fomo.

I worry that internally, younger devs who have worked in other metacritic hit games are aware of the trends that the games that boast those scores follow, and I see two paths here. They either pushed for certain game mechanics foreign to the franchise or the company and it is having unexpected problems that are baked into the core of the game, or they are trying to make the new generation not hope for all of those things they see in newer games. It really depends on the internal goals, and we are solving for X based on the article.

This is the source.

https://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Elder-Scrolls-6-Spiel-37440/News/Bethesda-rechnet-mit-unzufriedenen-Spielern-1456028/

Thre's a cookie wall on the article and it's in German so don't even bother lol.

And I got it from this YouTube video.

https://youtu.be/ZTWhf24nMD0?si=CQVlunMmkXbpiZZ2

This captures the sentiment behind the article pretty well, and he proceeds to give his opinion. Partly why I felt inclined to do so today.

What happened to the days of Todd Howard lying to us to set expectations so high that they could never be reached? Indicative of low morale.

I was expecting that Starfield would be indicative of TES6's success, and I think they did too, so I was surprised to see that the current score of 83 for Starfield was considered an internal failure.

Something I've noticed is that Bethesda has a facility to maximize asset lifespan, whether this is due to pride or laziness is up to interpretation, but the fact is that you fight the same dragon in Skyrim and in Fallout 76, but it has a bat skin (spooky).

If TES6 is gonna be a pirate skinned version of Starfield then yeah it won't do very good! But I think there's enough senior staff in there that cares about the story being told correctly over maximizing profits considering where they've been leading us to for the past couple of decades.

I care a lot about the story coming out good, that the game plays well, and that I want to play it over any of the prior installments. It doesn't mean it has to do everything the other games did (although that would be nice), but it means that the game has to have a strong sense of self. I don't want to feel like I'm playing Skyrim 2, because I want the Skyrim feel to stay in Skyrim so I can go back to that one too. Unless you just add DLC or a post game way to go into Skyrim, but I'd want to get immersed in the provinces that will be available at the beginning of the game. It is u clear where it will start, but it will take place accross Hammerfell, the Iliac Bay, and High Rock (maybe Yokuda + Skyrim) but as far as how the game is gonna get you started, that's probably gonna be in a boat storm fight to set up the boating gimmick that you'll avoid until the game forces you to do it again, until you get really good at the game and then it's a cakewalk.

I hope that Kirkbride is part of something else, but whenever they do a TES series I hope that he is a consultant at least. He would be if I was involved in that project, but it's not something you can just apply to be a part of, or pitch.

But above all else regarding the next installment, I hope the game is fun to play.

[fandom-official]

We now know where Assassin's Creed Mirage ranks across the iconic Ubisoft franchise

[tranquil-slaughterhouse]

Hmmm... if I should disregard the Tomatometer and the MetaCritic score to the point where I must do the opposite of what they convey then am I obligated to watch this movie (if this town I'm in still had a theater)?

[cold-fire-yo]

@chase-omega

Do you agree?

[courseyoulovemeyoudontknowme]

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (2009, Phil Lord and Chris Miller)

10/03/2025

[denimbex1986]

'All of Us Strangers has been marked as one of the 2024 Oscars' biggest snubs by Metacritic. The movie, which was helmed by Weekend and 45 Years director Andrew Haigh, is based on Taichi Yamada's 1987 novel Strangers. It follows a screenwriter named Adam (Andrew Scott) whose burgeoning relationship with his neighbor Harry (Paul Mescal) comes at the same time that he discovers the fact that the spirits of his long-dead parents (Claire Foy and Jamie Bell) reside in his childhood home.

Metacritic has updated their list of Best Movies with Zero Oscar Nominations in the wake of the announcement of the 2024 nominees. The list, which catalogs the most highly-rated Oscar snubs since 2000, includes titles such as the 2019 romantic drama Portrait of a Lady on Fire and Claire Denis' 2000 Herman Melville adaptation Beau Travail. The drama All Of Us Strangers has now been added at No. 32, thanks to its Metascore of 89 out of 100.

How All Of Us Strangers Compares To The 2024 Best Picture Nominees

The 2024 Oscar nominations were full of snubs and surprises, including neither star Margot Robbie nor director Greta Gerwig being recognized for their work in the much-nominated Barbie. However, the All Of Us Strangers snub is especially unusual, given its early buzz and the fact that ten movies overall were nominated for Best Picture...

Although the 2024 Best Picture nominees were naturally well-received on Metacritic, only four of the top titles either matched or exceeded the score of All of Us Strangers. In fact, the lowest-rated movie, Bradley Cooper's Maestro, came in a full 12 points behind the Haigh drama. However, the movie's performance at other recent major awards shows may have been a portent of its snub.

While All of Us Strangers was nominated for six BAFTAs, it did not fare quite so well at the Golden Globes. Its only nomination was a Best Actor nod for Scott, which he lost to Oppenheimer's Cillian Murphy. That result pales in comparison to the Golden Globe nominations of the majority of the Oscar Best Picture nominees, including Barbie (9 nominations, 2 wins), Oppenheimer (8 nominations, 4 wins), Past Lives (5 nominations), and even Maestro (4 nominations).'

[probablygayattorneys]

Learning that metacritic gave the Apollo Justice trilogy a higher score than the original trilogy has got me like

[slechterick]

ah, the age old game. are news outlets succumbing to the appeal of triple-A trash or does the game acknowledge the existence of queer people?

[blazehedgehog]

What do you think of Metacritic culture?

I think criticism is an important pillar of entertainment culture and society at large. In order for anything to be considered artistic or important, it must be able to coexist with criticism. Note: I don't mean defeat criticism, I mean it has to have critical thought applied to it.

Criticism is subjective. Not only is everyone on earth different and unique, but we're all in different places in our lives when we experience a piece of art. Life itself shapes our view of what we perceive. The me of today and the me of tomorrow are slightly different people, with slightly different views.

Talking about what we do or don't like, and talking about why that may be is absolutely vital to the human condition. It is a core, central idea to ALL culture.

And it's okay to disagree with why somebody is critical of a piece of media you like! Again, we're all unique. Why I hate something doesn't have to stop you from liking it, because you're on a different road than I am, and that road influences your perception in ways that are different than mine. Discussion and even debate about this is healthy!

Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes fill a necessary hole in society where the internet has opened the door to an actually endless number of critics. Anyone can start a blog, write a review, or even just shoot narrated video on their phone. The line between trusted institutions and the common rando have blurred.

Nobody has time to be selective of critics anymore. You might follow a single critic for days, weeks, months or even years, before you hit on something that totally sours your entire view of them. What a waste of time, right? So Metacritic fills a need insofar as you can quickly, at a glance, get a big picture consensus on what's being said about a movie, or a game, or whatever.

But it also kills the nuance of an opinion. You see the consensus, glance at a couple of blurbs that reinforce what you think the consensus means, and make your decision on that. I dunno. That kind of bugs me, I guess? I had some posts about media literacy a few months ago, and this is what feels like it damages media literacy more than anything else.

Yes, for those who still seek out individual reviews and really latch on to a single reviewer as their preferred critic, media literacy is better than ever. But no Youtube review show of anything is ever going to pull in the numbers of, say, MrBeast. The public at large does not select a single critic (or even a single outlet) to hang their hats on, because to them, Metacritic is all they need.

I don't like that but I reasonably cannot stop it. Planet earth is a big place and the internet brings us more uncomfortably close to things we don't like. We're more connected than ever, for better and worse. Everything is the deep end of the pool now and not everybody has the energy required to swim around for very long.