Support NeoGAF

[Woo-Fu]

If metacritic/opencritic didn't exist something would take their place. There is a demand, it is being filled. You want to change that, get rid of the demand. good luck.

 

[Petrae]

Nah. Games are (at least) $60. Having multiple opinions and reviews to look at as research is a good thing, in my book. I’ve been saved from more than a few purchases that I would have regretted by doing my due diligence— which included reading reviews multiple sources.

It’s not the number. It’s the content—especially in terms of what’s said about difficulty and about how the game performs technically. If I notice a trend about a game being too difficult or about a game having performance problems (slowdown or other graphics issues), I pass. I combine reviews with social media reaction and other sources when I can... but when I’m in a game store and see a game that flew under my radar that I don’t know a lot about, Metacritic gives me quick access to reviews to do some research in a fast manner.

 

[Caffeine]

Opencritic saves you from buying stinkers and I think the aggregated scores are pretty inline with what I would give those titles.

 

[Dontspeakforme]

You are comparing doing serious surgery to video games! Video games are entertainment and just like any medium which one will enjoy or not entirely subjective. I don't understand how can you compare surgery to video games?

"There so many things wrong! nya nya nya." Sorry, I can't take you seriously after that.

 

[Dane]

No.

Why? Because someone else would create a website of the same type.

Obligatory:

Cut down the scale to 1-5, hell, even just 1-3, and it will fix the issue instantly. And no half-steps. Problem=solved.

There are two theories for this

1) Its associated with school grades, a shitty paper can give you the minimum score required to pass, a mediocre one will give you above that.

2) Because 7-8 games can be very ignored if there's a significant quantity of 8.5-10 releases.

 

[The Alien]

I agree with OP's 2nd sentence, not the first .

 

[Ikutachi]

Donkey Kong 64 and Skyward Sword are shit games to me and they're both 90+ on metacritic. I like brief videos to gauge from.

 

[Rean no Kiseki]

Scoring in general is idiotic and you can't put a number on entertainment.
Breaking down a complex game down to a number is idiotic but the
casual audience will continue to eat it up.
What flaws are worthy of a score reduction?
Does the game offending your personal believes somehow makes it worse for everybody?

 

[GreenAlien]

You should be able to rate critics. If they are bad, they should have a weaker impact on the average score..

 

[ethomaz]

Scoring in general is idiotic and you can't put a number on entertainment.
Breaking down a complex game down to a number is idiotic but the
casual audience will continue to eat it up.
What flaws are worthy of a score reduction?
Does the game offending your personal believes somehow makes it worse for everybody?

You can rank and put number in anything you want... that include enjoyment, taste, smell, fun, etc.

 

[EekTheKat]

For me Metacritic is pretty much only useful for driving conversations on boards about games.

If anything companies doing some shady things post launch have pretty much invalidated the usefulness of launch day reviews and to some extent review in general, as stuff like patching in micro-transactions post launch or turning back on a "promise" made to players months down the line are not generally reflected in reviews. The game that was reviewed for launch often isn't the same game as the one players are playing months down the line.

 

[ethomaz]

You should be able to rate critics. If they are bad, they should have a weaker impact on the average score..

It is a great idea but it won't change the average at all (removing few reviews barely chances the avg.) and it will happen the same user reviews where people give 0 or 10 according with their platform of choice.

 

[Rean no Kiseki]

You can rank and put number in anything you want... that include enjoyment, taste, smell, fun, etc.

 

[MayauMiao]

I don't read sites like Metacritic and Opencritic anymore because I get better sense of how the game is like from watching gameplay footage and come to a conclusion on my own. I don't even trust those so called game journos no thanks to their attempt at shoving personal politics down my throat.

 

[ethomaz]

What is the biggest impediment hat won't allow you to rank and score things?

Sorry but you can rank and score your enjoyment just like everything... a game can give you more enjoyment than other so you can say one is 8 and other is 8.

It is perfectly fine, reasonable and practical.

Everything in the world can be ranked and scored.

 

[zenspider]

I agree with your sentiment, but the problem is deeper. Quantifying an experience on a linear scale of bad-good is idiotic. There is no room for nuance, challenging experiences, subversion, etc.

In Slavoj Zizek's new book Sex And The Absolute, he makes the observation that, it's in the gap we see between the flaws and the ideal that perfection exists - and it's the only place it can exist.
Should something 'correct' it flaws, it only becomes ordinary.

Xenoblade Chronicles X, for example, is a deeply flawed game. It's easy to point out where it fails, and easy to knock points. Yet, the experience is transcendent. If it corrected for all it's warts and idiosyncracies, it'd be Horizon: Zero Dawn, or something equally 'good' - and utterly mediocre. As it is, we can see the most rich and ambitious open world game ever made buried underneath the flaws, and in that sense, we grasp perfection, if only in moments.

 

[Deleted member 471617]

I think Open Critic should exist but not Meta Critic for a few reasons -

1. OC includes GamingBolt (which is the only gaming site I care about with ZTGD being my backup for games that GamingBolt don't end up reviewing) and many other sites and youtubers that MC doesn't include.

2. OC overall score IS the overall score. No review is weighted higher or lower. If IGN gives a game a 9.0, it's a 9.0, not a 9.2.

3. OC simply has the game listed once for all platforms. Having it listed for multiple platforms is stupid because it influences the score. Less reviews will always equal a better score.

In general, both sites are basically N4G for reviews. Every review from every site in one place instead of going to every individual website to see the review and rating.

In no way, shape or form should any development studio be paid based on the MC/OC score that their game gets as that's just fucking stupid, an insult to the entire studio that spent years working on the game and only helps the publisher because if they interfere with the development studio and affect the game that's being developed and it turns out bad, it's the developer who gets blamed when it should always be 100% the publisher first and foremost who gets blamed.

 

[Gargus]

I dont see a problem with them. I buy and play what interests me. I don't care about reviews because there are like 7.5 billion people on this planet, why do I care about 1 persons opinion? Or even a couple thousand? Especially a person or persons opinion that I dont even know.

 

[DrJohnGalt]

No, I don't think the overall review situation would improve much if we got rid the named sites. It's just as much the reviewers themselves that are the problem, and with so many journos knocking points off for not having the "proper" (arbitrary) amount of this type of character or that type of character or for not putting forward a loud enough political message, I tend to ignore almost all reviews from the "big game media" outlets altogether. And we have issues like review-bombing and quid-pro-quo to think about.

I'm not saying we need to get rid of them, but people need to start looking at other sources.

I will check out Steam reviews (not the overall score, but individual reviews that outline what they liked and didn't like about the game).

My go-to source for reviews is Karak 's ACG channel. His vids deliver the straight poop and cover graphics, sound, gameplay, fun factor, and the tech and specs. He's fair with his recommendations and explains why he decides the way he does.

For mini-reviews of smaller games I might drop into CornShaq's vids. They're "review-lite" type; not very in-depth but I get to see a lot of games I wouldn't otherwise know about.

I'd rather watch somebody stream the game for a while and make a decision to buy or not based on that than looking up a game's Metacritic score.

But when it comes down to it, I usually try a game if it sounds like something I'd enjoy regardless of any reviews. I've come across a lot of fun stuff that got pretty bad reviews. Maybe I just have low expectations or bad taste in games. Whatever the case, I don't feel like a lot of the reviewers are looking for the same things out of games that I am.

 

[A.Romero]

"Expert opinions"

I knew what the video was before I clicked.



Opencritic, Metacritic, GAF and any other source of information is no more than a tool. You need to be able to apply your own criteria when making pretty much any decision during your life. I can see how people could feel cheated if they let a website make decisions for them but we are not there yet (give it another 50 or 60 years). In an age where you can spend hours looking at other people play with or without commentary, there is no reason why someone would buy something they don't like and even if you do: It's OK.

In general people need to learn that different people enjoy different things because they have different interests. Reading at The Last Guardian OT or any number of threads about Death Stranding you would think that having an opinion about something is like a personal offense for people that think differently.

 

[Shrap]

I agree with your sentiment, but the problem is deeper. Quantifying an experience on a linear scale of bad-good is idiotic. There is no room for nuance, challenging experiences, subversion, etc.

In Slavoj Zizek's new book Sex And The Absolute, he makes the observation that, it's in the gap we see between the flaws and the ideal that perfection exists - and it's the only place it can exist.
Should something 'correct' it flaws, it only becomes ordinary.

Xenoblade Chronicles X, for example, is a deeply flawed game. It's easy to point out where it fails, and easy to knock points. Yet, the experience is transcendent. If it corrected for all it's warts and idiosyncracies, it'd be Horizon: Zero Dawn, or something equally 'good' - and utterly mediocre. As it is, we can see the most rich and ambitious open world game ever made buried underneath the flaws, and in that sense, we grasp perfection, if only in moments.

This post contains potentially lethal levels of pretentiousness. I recommend everyone steer clear of it until we can quarantine it for safe observation.

 

[zenspider]

This post contains potentially lethal levels of pretentiousness. I recommend everyone steer clear of it until we can quarantine it for safe observation.

8.5/10 burn

 

[TLZ]

Yes. We're better off without them now when you have YouTube to see the game for yourself and make up your own opinion.

 

[Dthomp]

I just go with my gut, it has never let me down...(ok maybe State of Emergency was a bad buy). Had I listened to metacritic or sites I'd own way more games I don't love. You know what you like, you don't need others telling you it's the right choice

 

[sid2vicious]

Metacritic rates FF7 as the highest Final Fantasy from both critics and users alike. Seems pretty legit to me!

 

[TUROK]

People on the internet in general seem to suck at forming their own opinions.

The problem isn't Metacritic or reviews, but the mouth breathers that need their opinions dictated to them.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

As the title suggests, this is what I think.

We live in a society that, in a large part of the cases, turns out to be extremely tied to the general opinions of an entertainment product like the video game media.
I think that this attitude has helped to create a status of perpetual violence and war over what should be considered better, and what should be considered worse.
This has done nothing but establish a "relationship" of "guide to the consumer" that must feel called into question to take an interest in something, or that the consumer must be guided towards the "new product of interest".

I find this attitude profoundly wrong and incorrect.
For the creators of the works sold, and also for the consumer.
This "status" of interest is conveyed through an average of numbers that makes it clear to the consumer what needs to be guided to buy, and what he must avoid.
(strongly penalizing all those small productions that do not even have the means to be noticed by the general public)

In conclusion I think that, in this case, it is a situation of strong imbalance of media and monetary value.
And that it would be better if sites like Metacritic and Opencritic ceased to exist, in this market where the war between what is better and what is worse, turns out to be perennial and endless.
And where we have reached the point of seeing some kind of people who despise everything that does not come to be considered as absolute and collective excellence by the whole world.
And people who have the sense of guilt of buying a game that, in the end, turns out to be not particularly loved by the public.
(and therefore not thinking at all about what they really wanted)

My hope is that this situation finds a way to end.
But I already know that, probably, what I desire is something practically impossible.

This and Journalist "Gamers" are the cancer of the industry...not all of course


It is as I said before, in fact I am not interested if an analyst or someone scores a game, even if they put 2, I play it and put my conclusions.

There are analysts with very bad taste or lack of criteria that for their reports users miss games that are really worthwhile.

 

[ethomaz]

There are analysts with very bad taste or lack of criteria that for their reports users miss games that are really worthwhile.

And if it is the opposite?
How do you know the analyst tastes are the bad one and yours the good ones?

An agregation of 80 or more analysts won't be more accurate than your singular taste for most people?

Agregates trend to be more close to accurate than not.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

And if it is the opposite?
How do you know the analyst tastes are the bad one and yours the good ones?

Because they do it for work.

I am a passionate gamer.

I know most of the systems, I criticize the companies equally, besides I do it for passion, not for looking good with someone.

 

[existensmaximum]

I think that players should be allowed to form their opinion in whatever way they want.

I think Metacritic is great! If someone is so stupid that they only look at the score average and don't read a great review, an average review and a bad review to form an opinion.. It's their problem.

 

[existensmaximum]

Oh, and it's such a great tool to find out if there are any (to me) deal-breaking game mechanics, technical issues etc that will really put me off playing. I don't have time to go in blindly in any game that seems a little interesting only to be disappointed.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Not every review is great, but looking at a game with 40 reviews, if the general trend is good or bad, it probably is that..... unless every reviewer is on the take, or has a personal vendetta.

The thing to watch out for is the 6-10 scale which is something reviewers have skewed to the past 15 years, since they don't want to piss off devs. A game getting scores of 65 or less is probably shit, 65-75, meh, 75-85, good, 85+ really good.

Be on the look out for sites that never give reviews below around 60. Warning flag of shill.

Look for those sites that aren't afraid to give a 30/100.

Like everything in life, reviews are good to skim. And they are informative, at least for facts and content. Maybe their opinion on whether a game is good or bad is debatable, but who doesn't want someone in an article telling you the game has 14 acts, 6 different game modes, a shitty save system of "find the checkpoint", no coop, or any other details that are facts and not necessarily told by the dev?

It's like buying car.

Someone on the forum is going to tell me they buy a car strictly on test driving select models and never reading reviews or forums about them?

 

[yodine53]

Reviews don't tell you that a 97 MC game is better than a 75 MC game. They tell you that the first one has quality and if you like this type of game, it's very probable that you will enjoy it. Again, a 75 MC score doesn't mean that you will enjoy this game less than the other, it's an indication if the game achieves it's own objectives.

 

[prag16]

There are shitty games/movies/music that professional reviewers loved, and there are awesome games/movies/music that professional reviewers hated. So fuck'em. I buy what I want to buy. I very rarely put any stock at all in what 'professionals' think except on the margins; very specific situations where I'm truly on the fence.

 

[daninthemix]

Also sites like Eurogamer that have ditched scores are dead to me. It's with incredible arrogance that they assume I have the time to read all their waffle. Back in the days when they had scores, I would glance at the score and use that to determine whether I wanted to read the review.

The reason they gave for ditching scores was something like "we don't like Metacritic and we don't want to contribute to it". Well guess what - I used to hang upon your scores Eurogamer. Now I don't even consider your reviews in my buying decisions at all because you removed them. You drove me further into the arms of Metacritic. Are you happy now?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Also sites like Eurogamer that have ditched scores are dead to me. It's with incredible arrogance that they assume I have the time to read all their waffle. Back in the days when they had scores, I would glance at the score and use that to determine whether I wanted to read the review.

The reason they gave for ditching scores was something like "we don't like Metacritic and we don't want to contribute to it". Well guess what - I used to hang upon your scores Eurogamer. Now I don't even consider your reviews in my buying decisions at all because you removed them. You drove me further into the arms of Metacritic. Are you happy now?

Same here. I never read any reviews with no score.

It's amazing Eurogamer would try to act so righteous in avoiding assigning a number rating to a game.

Considering Digital Foundry's Linneman and Leadbetter like to chastise games based on analyzing specs to the decimal place, you'd think Eurogamer would be fine with giving games scores of 7.460/10

 

[Guardian's Light]

As the title suggests, this is what I think.

We live in a society that, in a large part of the cases, turns out to be extremely tied to the general opinions of an entertainment product like the video game media.
I think that this attitude has helped to create a status of perpetual violence and war over what should be considered better, and what should be considered worse.
This has done nothing but establish a "relationship" of "guide to the consumer" that must feel called into question to take an interest in something, or that the consumer must be guided towards the "new product of interest".

I find this attitude profoundly wrong and incorrect.
For the creators of the works sold, and also for the consumer.
This "status" of interest is conveyed through an average of numbers that makes it clear to the consumer what needs to be guided to buy, and what he must avoid.
(strongly penalizing all those small productions that do not even have the means to be noticed by the general public)

In conclusion I think that, in this case, it is a situation of strong imbalance of media and monetary value.
And that it would be better if sites like Metacritic and Opencritic ceased to exist, in this market where the war between what is better and what is worse, turns out to be perennial and endless.
And where we have reached the point of seeing some kind of people who despise everything that does not come to be considered as absolute and collective excellence by the whole world.
And people who have the sense of guilt of buying a game that, in the end, turns out to be not particularly loved by the public.
(and therefore not thinking at all about what they really wanted)

My hope is that this situation finds a way to end.
But I already know that, probably, what I desire is something practically impossible.

Just switch Metacritic and Opencritic with digital foundry, and I agree with everything

DF made people go full idiotic with the whole technical, graphics and performance craze, is a cancer and the reason people today even counts how many hair a character has on its ass

 

[Virex]

I don't let reviews decide my game purchases. I buy what I want. If I bought games based on reviews I'd never have enjoyed games like Gothic, Risen, Elex and plenty of other non-AAA games. Reviews are a joke these days.

 

[AV]

I use aggregates as one way of finding games that many people consider amazing that I haven't played, but it's far from the only thing that dictates my purchases. I'm still gonna play a game that I personally think looks good even if it's got a "low" Metacritic score or whatever.

 

[ethomaz]

Also sites like Eurogamer that have ditched scores are dead to me. It's with incredible arrogance that they assume I have the time to read all their waffle. Back in the days when they had scores, I would glance at the score and use that to determine whether I wanted to read the review.

The reason they gave for ditching scores was something like "we don't like Metacritic and we don't want to contribute to it". Well guess what - I used to hang upon your scores Eurogamer. Now I don't even consider your reviews in my buying decisions at all because you removed them. You drove me further into the arms of Metacritic. Are you happy now?

EG decision was a big mistake that made them irrelevant.
DF move to video is doing the same thing... they are trying Pateon now but I don't think there is enough interesse anymore.

I can't even remember the last time I read a review from them.

 

[Gen X]

I go to Metacritic but to look for two sources, Edge and GamesTM for their scores and a 7 and above from those is a purchase for me. I can't rely on the Metacritic average as quite a few sites are inconsistent with their scores. I still haven't forgiven IGN for their score for State of Emergency.

 

[checkcola]

If you're getting in on a game at launch, its pricey. So, wanting data is a good thing. A game doesn't have to be 9 or above to get my attention, but If it has problems, I want to know what they are. It matters less if you are buying an old game for cheap. Also, to this day, being stuck with Back to the Future for the NES as a kid hurt my soul. LOL.

 

[Jon Neu]

Why do you care about the logic other people use to buy games?

 

[Saber]

As much stupid as it sounds, I think its a necessary evil.
It opens the door to doubt and discussion.

"Why game X is having a bad time?" Sometimes it may have a reason for it that you may not like in a game. Even if its not true, its enought reason to demand further discussion and investigation.

 

[Lanrutcon]

I don't agree because Breakpoint has a terrible score yet its selling like hotcakes.

In the end these sites arent even that important

I say this as someone who's got like 80 hours in Breakpoint: it's buggy as shit, microtransactioned up the asshole and the McDonalds of open world games. It needs a huge set of bugfixes, and I have no idea how raiding is going to work in a game where the AI is dogshit and you can annihilate a base of enemies with a single clip and basic aiming skills.

 

[Punished Miku]

After Open Critic's redesign they might as well not exist. Can barely even read that abomination.

 

[klosos]

Me i don't read reviews from game critics (lol good one) or the casual gamer . What i do is watch 10-15 minutes of gameplay on youtube (with no commentary) and just from that i can tell if the games my cup of tea or not. no one knows me better then i do, and i don't need some fart sniffing San Francisco hipster telling me how deep of a game like gone home is or telling me i shouldn't play Battlefield 5 because if i do ill turn into a Nazi.

Media have killed them self in my eyes and they wont be getting any redemption from me.

 

[JCK75]

I find them to be valuable tools in getting a general idea on the quality of a product by looking over a wide range of opinions.
I don't trust any one source, I mean lot's of gamers think Death Stranding looks like something worth being excited about.

 

[Bigrx1]

No, the last thing I want is for there to be less ways for the community to have a voice. If all I had to go on was official critic reviews that would be horrifying. Similar to movies and IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes, no way would I want those sites gone and only have critic reviews to go on.

With general user scores I typically can get an accurate average of the quality of the game except for the occasional metabomb or something, which happens way less than people make it out to be anyway. And even when it does happen, it prompts me to look into why, why are people raging and metabombing said game. Then I can decide for myself from there.

 

[PhilipDoesMatter]

I agree cuz they lied to me. FF XV is a not an 81 game by any means. It's waaay worse than that.