http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim

I did a search but couldn't find a topic discussing this.

Before it was pc elitists on metacritic [censored]ing about the UI and slight improvements in graphics from Oblivion. No PS3 players are making themselves heard.

Wait, you care about the people who post on Metacritic?

1284 user ratings for the PS3version and 2127 user ratings for the PC version.

Metacritic? One moment I thought you were serious.

I thought metacritic was still relevant

Whether or not it's respected by gamers, is it respected by potential purchasers?

If these reviews came out near launch, could've cost Bethesda/Zenimax millions.

EDIT: Depending on metacritic's relevance, it could still potential mean millions of dollars lost in sales.

There is nothing wrong with Meta critic. It offers a balanced set of professional reviews and allows gamers to voice their opinions too. Yes, people use it to protest from time to time; however, for every game that finds itself on the bad side of that site there are many that benefit from it. This is the main reason that game developers take the site rather seriously.

As to Skyrim's PS3 reviews they are understandable given the issues that have been proven on that platform. The PC and Xbox versions are holding up rather well.

Metacritic is still relevant, yet flawed, but the user reviews are something everyone should disregard. An example being the PC version of the game Modern Warfare 3. The overall rating was 1.7 because the PC players hated not getting dedicated servers. Now MW3 isn't that great of the game, but I think it deserves at least an 8.0 and not being the 3rd lowest rated game in history (comparing with IGN scores).

Is it Bethesda's fault that the PS3 doesn't provide the developer tools that Microsoft does? PS3 may have lagged a little behind the Xbox at the beginning in sales, but the PS3 is NOT a console Bethesda would intentionally negelct.

EDIT: Maybe the backlash should be directed at Sony.

A discussion on PS3 issues, on cue i see Seti18 is viewing:)

EDIT:

1: A console is a console... a static piece of hardware that is either properly developed for or not. It's not a PC, it doesn't have variability. There is no excuse for releasing a broken product on a console because it is a standardized, single commercial platform and development architecture that the developers either develop for properly or not... no variability, no excuses. If a game doesn't run well on a console, changes need to be accommodated or the game needs to not be released on a console in the first place, otherwise the developers are just knowingly releasing a broken product that steals millions of dollars from consumers.

2. Up until release, Bethesda did nothing but hide and lie about the PS3 version. They knowingly scammed their consumer base and therefore committed corporate fraud.

3. Most developers don't seem to be having problems with the PS3. Sony have updated their SDK tools and developers have done what any self-respecting developers do... they understood the basic tenets of console game development. Bethesda provided a broken product far beyond the range of poor function ever seen in most of the industry. Skyrim is the year's most broken PS3 game and I dare anyone to contest that fact with any evidence. Metacritic scores aren't [censored] for all PS3 games or anything close, just those of Skyrim and games of a few other select developers that don't seem to know how to code... or should I say port. Yes, port... the PS3 version was a haphazard port of the 360 version and that is not the PS3's nor Sony's fault no more than GTA IV's crappy optimization on the PC were the fault of any PCs. Poor coding/bug-testing = poor bug-testing or perhaps it was just poor, greedy publishing = poor, greedy publishing. I can't quite point figures on the coders, for certain, but someone is to blame here and it is not Sony or the PS3.

The XBox rating for MW3 is currently at 3.2 so it's unfair to point to PC players as the main source of discontent.

metacritic has it's uses. user reviews are probably not one of them though. i remember reading an article about metacritic about 2 years ago, and the fear was game developers would pay too much attention to it. most people laugh when someone mentions X review, but you better believe publishers care. if they didn't they wouldn't send 100's of copies for free to be reviewed.

You would need to demonstrate that the fault with this game is with the PS3 and not the developer. Having tracked this argument I have not seen sufficient evidence to support either side.

Wrong!

Microsoft apparently releases tools to developers that are very useful in developing games for the Xbox. Sony apparently lags behind this aspect of support to developers. These tools affect the quality of the games that run the respective consoles.

John Carmack quote below

Can't comment, never played the PS3 nor payed attention to any announcements concerning Skyrim except through reading your posts on this forum:)

Initially, yes, Microsoft had quite a lead on that. The result were better graphics on 360 games... not broken crap with PS3 games. Sony have only improved their SDK tools immensely since then. Is it true that Microsoft still have an edge with certain SDK tools? Yes, to a minor degree, it is. They're a software company, what do you expect? Software companies understand software development and are typically pretty good at providing software development kits. Sony are more of hardware company, but that certainly doesn't mean their SDK is garbage and they've, in fact, been pretty adamant about better understanding developer needs following the PS3's difficult launch. Most developers now have a grip on the system, Sony improved on their SDK drastically, and as seen with the Vita, they've taken the lesson to heart with the very concept of newer platforms. In this blatant example of poorly accommodating for the PS3's memory architecture, SDK tools are not to blame. Rather, basing too many development choices exclusively on the 360's architecture and then attempting to make the same design work on a completely alien machine after the fact are to blame. It's not a fault of Sony or the PS3 that the PS3 isn't an Xbox 360 and doesn't utilize the same architecture it does. If we're going to start blaming the PS3's SDK tools, we should have done that about 5 years ago... although 5 years ago, when Oblivion was ported to the PS3 by an external company (4J Studios), the results were actually really good... better than the contemporary 360 version, even, yet here's Skyrim reigning as a contending champion for the most broken PS3 game ever award... hmm...

People would much rather use a review system like meteoritic to complain than praise... all the people who like the game are playing it... not writing reviews...

People use meteoritic to vent

And the difference between GAMERS and POTENTIAL PURCHASERS is?

metacritic's user ratings are useless, everyone votes either a 10 or 0. they just should put a thumbs up/down rating. the comments are pretty intriguing though. ps3's issues must be very bad.

In Bethesda's defense, it may impossible for anyone to build a jack of all trades game and try and port it simultaneously towards three separate systems. It'd make more sense for them to focus on one.

The PS3 is slightly more powerful, so anything built for the PS3 may have to be downgraded to play on the xbox. Better to build for the least powerful console.

And PS3 users seem to shun Bethesda games according to any sales chart i've seen. PS3 sales figures may be boosted by sales in japan, so western RPG's may not do so well on the PS3 even putting port issues aside.

Respected by informed gamers then.

Am I the only one wondering how a website that welcomes everyone and anyone to post a review about a product they've purchased could be seen as non-relevant?

People voice their opinions there, and the opinion of Skyrim for the PS3 is less than impressive, what, given that it barely functions on the PS3.

I have and will use it to help inform me about a potential purchase. Keeping in mind i will research more to make sense of the scores. Best to know the Dragon Age 2 controversy to understand its metacritic user rating for example.

Wouldn't be so quick to dismiss one groups opinions over anothers, they are still people. Take for example the huge difference between the UK and US official Playstation magazines, UK give it just 71 for its flaws but do say a perfect game is in there, they also make the fair point that they don't want to blindly encourage people to spend ￡40 for a game that may or may not work. The US gives it 100, so perfection was achieved for the US version I guess.

If video game companies look at ANY feedback AT ALL, I'd figure Metacritic is one of them.

metacritic is very useful for the comments. i agree that a thumbs up or thumbs down approach would be better since people either give games really low scores or super high scores and not so muchin the middle.