Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Who cares. You can't stop the angry mob anymore, no matter which side you are on.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Metacritic should just remove the user ratings at this point and follow OpenCritic as a Critics Only Aggregate.
- Thread starter MiyazakiHatesKojima
- Start date
- Opinion
Slings and Arrows
Banned
Zog
Banned
Yep, it's ok for the woke side to push their agenda but only that side.
Ten_Fold
Member
I disagree, user score to me is better than seeing ign’s score. If they was to do that I think they should just not even post reviews of any games. Also it’s not just people being homophobic, it’s just not what people expected since the first game is soo different. The first game felt more like a good post apocalyptic story. This one is SJW to the max for really no reason. I don’t think anyone would have a problem with LGBTQ themes in the game, it’s just the way Neil went about it. Lastly if this was a completely new IP ND was putting out I doubt anyone would complain.
GenericUser
Member
Good idea, hide opinions that you don't like. That will do.
synchronicity
Member
The only reviews I give any credence are user reviews. And even with those, you often have to sift through a good number before you are able to get some aggregate quality insight. But if given the choice, I'd nuke the critic side of the site first, lol. It's not even there as far as I'm concerned anyway.
ZehDon
Member
From my perspective, the last thing you want to do is further ostracize the public from discussions about the works of their own culture. There's already an ocean between the Critical Response™ and the actual public - let's not make it a planet-sized one. Why? These critics have positioned themselves as the cultural gate keepers, who determine what "matters" and what doesn't. In film and cinema, they're losing relevancy, as people who actually have educated opinions or who can offer thought-provoking insight aren't the ones doing movie reviews for the BBC or Kotaku. No, they're off on their own YouTube channels or writing for their own sites, making money off of their talent and knowledge. This leaves the second-tier or lower writers to pump out the professional reviews. Gaming "critics" are a rung lower than that, practicing the adage "write for the audience you want" and, essentially, writing for other critics, all of whom seem to want to be writing about something other than the games they have to review.
For me, I want to know when critics call something "the best [thing] ever" while audiences resoundingly respond otherwise. If for no other reason than to highlight that the divisive ocean is fucking real. There's a real, concerted, on-going, multi-level effort to gas-light the shit out of the general audience on some of this stuff.
"Oh, you didn't like [thing]? Everyone loves it! Something might be wrong with you - are you sure you're not [random derogatory term]-ist?".
"Wait, you enjoyed [thing]? Everyone hates it - what's wrong with you?"
Open Critic took the easy way out, because it requires effort and execution to let the audience have their voice, while also ensuring it can't be hijacked by assholes. It's cheaper, easier and more comforting to silence the public, because the same critics who'll come up with gems like "it's a story that NEEDED to be told" to justify an unjustified review, are the same ones who'll pat you on the back for shutting the audience up, leaving their voice as the only ones in the room.
I'm all for additional restrictions for these types of systems, as it means the end result is more meaningful. But remove user ratings all together, to "protect" stuff that people genuinely dislike? Fuck that noise.
For me, I want to know when critics call something "the best [thing] ever" while audiences resoundingly respond otherwise. If for no other reason than to highlight that the divisive ocean is fucking real. There's a real, concerted, on-going, multi-level effort to gas-light the shit out of the general audience on some of this stuff.
"Oh, you didn't like [thing]? Everyone loves it! Something might be wrong with you - are you sure you're not [random derogatory term]-ist?".
"Wait, you enjoyed [thing]? Everyone hates it - what's wrong with you?"
Open Critic took the easy way out, because it requires effort and execution to let the audience have their voice, while also ensuring it can't be hijacked by assholes. It's cheaper, easier and more comforting to silence the public, because the same critics who'll come up with gems like "it's a story that NEEDED to be told" to justify an unjustified review, are the same ones who'll pat you on the back for shutting the audience up, leaving their voice as the only ones in the room.
I'm all for additional restrictions for these types of systems, as it means the end result is more meaningful. But remove user ratings all together, to "protect" stuff that people genuinely dislike? Fuck that noise.
Halo is Back
Member
While I can agree to an extent, you really need to stop worrying about what other people think about the game. There are legit reasons to not like the game and this comes from someone who loved the story from the first game. You make a thread every time people don't like a game you like. Go outside and take a deep breath.
down 2 orth
Member
OP complaining about "toxicity"... you might as well take a jab at human nature.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Preach on it.
Umbral
Member
Well said.
MiyazakiHatesKojima
Banned
Hobbygaming
has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
Yeah, you should at least have to own the game to review it
I would suggest they at least delay the opportunity for users to submit a rating. Since they can't verify whether someone has actually played the game, they need to at least take into account time needed to play a game.
I think a safe rule of thumb would be open up user scores and ratings two weeks after an official launch date. Even a month might be reasonable length of time to wait.
I think a safe rule of thumb would be open up user scores and ratings two weeks after an official launch date. Even a month might be reasonable length of time to wait.
Manwithoutfear
Member
no you're trying to defend the negative reviews by saying it's about something it's not. it has nothing to do with anything other than how poorly they handled a beloved character that most people wanted to play as and then make you play as a character you now hate. absolutely nothing to do with anything other than crap story. halo2 made me play as the arbiter and it sucked. i only wanted to play as master chief. metal gear solid 2 made me play as raiden and i only wanted to play as snake. they advertised and showed trailers with joel that ended up being a completely different character. it was misleading to say the least. nothing to be with homophobic at all.
TLZ
Banned
Maybe for the next game they should just make it an Origins version and just have Joel playable.
DynamiteCop!
Banned
No, you should garner the ability to not care about irrelevant things. You give this score value by placing importance on it.
HaveButOneLife
Banned
User reviews help people who are reluctant to buy a game that the critics can't tell people of, i.e. political bias or straight up poor decisions. Reviewers obviously gave this game a positive rating because the devs pandered to them, when in actuality the plot is trash and the gameplay itself is overly linear.
Manwithoutfear
Member
to me it was more than just joel though. it was a beautiful story about joel and ellie's relationship and growing together. i can't defend negative user reviews without giving substantial spoilers, but playing as joel for 5 minutes in a 25 hour last of us game just feels like a rip off.
karaveo
Banned
I was thinking the same.
Manwithoutfear
Member
yeah same here. he can't actually intelligently defend how poorly they handled the game so instead he resorts to false accusations
VAVA Mk2
Member
Can we downvote your post?
BRZBlue
Member
I would be OK with user reviews if they were actually. reviews. Instead they're usually weaponized to make statements, and don't actually review the relevant material.
"My waifu's boobs are smaller in this game, 0/10"
"This game is fun because the main character is badass, 10/10"
The more a game's user reviews are like this, the more it edges the game towards a 5/10, with people bombing and people trying to boost to counteract, and it isn't really indicative of the quality of the game in the first place.
Rating a game 0/10 because you're a special snowflake that don't like the story of the game... no bueno. Everything has to be either a 0/10 or a 10/10. Everything has to be the most amazing story every created by man to grace this earth, or the absolute worst piece of trash to ever be copied onto a hard drive. It's all hyperbole. People in this thread are going on about how trash the story is, when other people heartily disagree, and everyone is snuggled up in their own little safe spaces, circle jerking about how amazing the game is, or circle jerking about how horrendous it is.
"My waifu's boobs are smaller in this game, 0/10"
"This game is fun because the main character is badass, 10/10"
The more a game's user reviews are like this, the more it edges the game towards a 5/10, with people bombing and people trying to boost to counteract, and it isn't really indicative of the quality of the game in the first place.
Rating a game 0/10 because you're a special snowflake that don't like the story of the game... no bueno. Everything has to be either a 0/10 or a 10/10. Everything has to be the most amazing story every created by man to grace this earth, or the absolute worst piece of trash to ever be copied onto a hard drive. It's all hyperbole. People in this thread are going on about how trash the story is, when other people heartily disagree, and everyone is snuggled up in their own little safe spaces, circle jerking about how amazing the game is, or circle jerking about how horrendous it is.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
I think it'd be cool if someone set up a site where you reviewed games but you were forced to link an account to it whether it be PSN Xbox live or something else and prove you played the game. If you want to be able to review a game than anyone can see what achievements you grabbed and how long you played it and so forth. I think it'd make things a lot better.
Manwithoutfear
Member
to be honest i've played almost 4 hours of the game now. if i knew nothing about the first game, this game is great. it's all because they destroyed crushed gave 0 shits about what fans want from a sequel. their golf game is really good though
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
No, people should just understand what user reviews are and that they are prone to bullshit review bombing. They're still valuable.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
I feel like games like The last of us aren't for people who want sequels that just give you more of the same. when they first announced they were working on a sequel I wasn't even sure it would have Joel and Ellie in it because I wasn't sure their story had more to tell. when I found out it would have them I didn't assume anything conventional like a retread of the first game would be occurring. This is not a cash in sequel this is a work of passion from an artist whether or not you agree with that artist. even though I think for instance BioShock infinite misses the mark of it it's still way more interesting than BioShock 2. The analogy being BioShock 2 was made to just make more money by giving you more of what you already got and BioShock infinite was made from actual artistic inspiration. It was more ambitious but arguably it was an ambitious failure still more interesting to me than just more of the same.
Manwithoutfear
Member
While i don't disagree with you. i feel like they should have been more transparent about that. instead they showed trailers of mid game with Joel when in fact in the game it's actually a different character. very misleading.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
I don't really have a problem with misleading advertising for my entertainment a great example is Godzilla 2014 where the trailer is digitally edit out the other monsters from scenes to make it look like Godzilla is the only monster in the film it was a pretty nice surprise when you got to the theater.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Movies do that all the time. The old bait and switch. Must be marketing's most longstanding tactic going back to the first caveman trying to sell a bear skin. Guy shows him a nice brown pelt, freezing caveman buys it for a bunch of bananas and the the guy slips him a shitty pelt covered in wolf shit.
There was that Will Smith movie with his son where he was tv ads, trailers and posters had him all over it, but the movie had hardly any Will.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
Or the scream posters that have Drew Barrymore front and center but had they not done that you would have already known the outcome of the opening scene
Bkdk
Member
I have to say the user review is kind of accurate usually. The metacritic user score for FF7R, Doom Eternal, Persona 5 royal are all pretty in line with the score I'd give after I complete these games. It's just that for super popular AAA games, a unusually low score doesn't mean the game is this bad, but has major flaws that make it super disappointing. This is quite true for the most part. Games like Bioware's recent titles, some EA star wars battlefront games and now the last of us 2 all have some very major flaws that can't be overlook for most.
Last edited:
So it’s ok for paid biased shill media to give favorable opinions on a product that they’re getting for free and early, but not ok for regular people to give their options on something they’ve all seen or played themselves lmao. I’ll go by user reviews any day over these alphabet media idiots
Isn't it, uh, more than a little pathetic that your ability to enjoy TLOU2 is somehow bound up in the general public's approval of the game? I don't make a habit of using this term but I also don't know of any other way to characterize that specific variety of impotence: it's a cuck fetish. You can't want it unless someone else does first.
Last edited:
MiyazakiHatesKojima
Banned
samporter
Banned
If the shill game journalist weren't so dishonest and crooked, you wouldn't have this type of situation, where users feel compelled to push back against the false narrative. If this game was rated correctly, given 8/10 or 9/10, you wouldn't hear much issues. However, this game was rated 10/10 by almost every shill game journalists, and now that actual players get to see if it lives up to expectations, it does not.
Yea, these 0/10 scores are hyperbolic, perhaps metacritic can correct this by setting the user scale from 5-10. This game was divisive, and to shutdown opposing views or remove means to push back, is simply reactionary, counterproductive, and dangerous.
Yea, these 0/10 scores are hyperbolic, perhaps metacritic can correct this by setting the user scale from 5-10. This game was divisive, and to shutdown opposing views or remove means to push back, is simply reactionary, counterproductive, and dangerous.
If he is trolling I love it. The opposite of love is not hate but indifference.