Support NeoGAF

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

Game Reviews are more reliable than Movie Reviews in general. Maybe not in some cases *cough*Days Gone*cough*.

However if we can try every AAA game that comes out for 2 hours on PS+++, reviews will mean less cause you or someone you trust can try them first hand.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

I use reviews to know if a lesser-known game I’m interested in is shit or not.
Highly anticipated games have their score already decided some time before release. I’ll always take a 10/10 with a grain of salt. Elden Ring is proof enough that hype, developer shills and fanboys, and a long honeymoon period can skew scores all too easily and drastically. BTW, there‘s virtually no difference between a 9 and 10 with the scales used by modern games critics, so the 10s are mostly fanboy war fuel anyway.

 

[Roberts]

There are so many reasons why a game succeeds or fails. Obviously high metascore helps a great deal, but it is not the ultimate defining criteria. Didn’t Sea of Thieves score sub-70 at launch? Somehow people stuck with it and Ms/Rare continued to support it for many years now. And it is a huge success.

 

[Tomi]

Tell that to Elden Ring

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

Not always, which is exactly
the point. mid AF games can get crazy word of mouth and great ones can get none

Its not the ONLY factor, just a factor. Valhalla will sell millions if it got a 7.5 or a 8,5...but if it got a 10 it would sell better because review aggregates do give an indication of the games quality and good games just usually do better. But a great score helps the word of mouth.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Its not the ONLY factor, just a factor. Valhalla will sell millions if it got a 7.5 or a 8,5...but if it got a 10 it would sell better because review aggregates do give an indication of the games quality and good games just usually do better. But a great score helps the word of mouth.

If that were the case, TLOU2 and Halo Infinite would be considered some of the greatest games of all time. And yet, they aren’t. At *best* they are incredibly divisive.

I have stated it time and again - the only people who actually take stock in review aggregates and review scores in general are mentally ill console warriors.

 

[Ezquimacore]

It matters when you have two big games like Elden Ring and HFB, for example.

 

[remember_spinal]

Metacritic absolutely does drive and deflate hype on games

 

[Calverz]

but. But apparently it means everything when there’s a Microsoft or Sony first party title released!!

 

[Verchod]

Well the point of a review or critique is to give you some insight of the product prior to you buying it, therefore helping you get something you want to play. Whether that's a YouTube video or traditional gaming journalism is irrelevant as it's the same thing really. If you can find either that help you out share a similar opinion then that's what you should follow.

 

[kingfey]

Yes. Most people aren’t fucking retards

Narrator: Yes they are.

 

[kingfey]

Metacritic absolutely does drive and deflate hype on games

Metacritic does jack shit.
All it does, is promote stupid people ego, and console war.

Games are to be enjoyed as they are. Not by some shitty score, from regular people, who base their opinion on those scores.

 

[Nydius]

Unfortunately I know far too many people who decide whether they'll buy -- or even play -- games based on Metacritic and OpenCritic aggregate scores.

I haven't given a damn about the actual score given to a game in many years, ever since score inflation became blatantly apparent (especially when said score inflation coincided with large marketing budgets). If it's a game I'm interested in, I'll wait for both critic and user reviews to drop, read the actual text of the reviews and see what things are common among them before making my decision. {Edit: That said, there are a handful of properties that earned my trust and I buy them regardless of the reviews, but that list is dwindling.]

Trek to Yomi's reviews are a good example of this. Many professional (and quite a few user) reviews point out the flaws with the combat, the laggy input, the sluggish animations, and the performance problems but then turn around, ignore all these issues, and give it an 8+ because of the art style alone.

 

[kingfey]

Well the point of a review or critique is to give you some insight of the product prior to you buying it, therefore helping you get something you want to play. Whether that's a YouTube video or traditional gaming journalism is irrelevant as it's the same thing really. If you can find either that help you out share a similar opinion then that's what you should follow.

The problem with that, is scoring.
Anything below 80 is considered meh.

If your game has a yellow score, good luck selling it very well.

At least, casuals don't view the scoring that much, which is the only saving grace those devs have.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

If that were the case, TLOU2 and Halo Infinite would be considered some of the greatest games of all time. And yet, they aren’t. At *best* they are incredibly divisive.

I have stated it time and again - the only people who actually take stock in review aggregates and review scores in general are mentally ill console warriors.

TLOU2 is considered to be one of the best games of all time. Also Halo in has an 87 on Metacritic, which isn't in the best games of all time tier...what are you getting at? That barely has anything to do with my point that good scores will only help a games sales which is true. Even if it helps sell just one copy no one goes "this has a 95 on metacritic imma skip it".

 

[Dr. Claus]

TLOU2 is considered to be one of the best games of all time. Also Halo in has an 87 on Metacritic, which isn't in the best games of all time tier...what are you getting at? That barely has anything to do with my point that good scores will only help a games sales which is true. Even if it helps sell just one copy no one goes "this has a 95 on metacritic imma skip it".

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Guilty_AI]

TLOU2 is considered to be one of the best games of all time.

...by the journalists who gave it a high metascore

 

[March Climber]

What's up with the insistence on binary viewpoints? it's not an either-or.

Unfortunately this is going to keep happening more and more and it sucks.

 

[Dr. Claus]

...by the journalists who gave it a high metascore

And meanwhile everywhere else, you see highly divisive thoughts. People either love it or hate it. Same thing with Halo Infinite. Got really good reviews and was lauded as a “Game of the Year/generation!” For like a good month.

Reality is, most people don’t give two shits about reviews and meta score aggregates are about as accurate about a game’s quality as a blind man is at sniping.

 

[Fuz]

Game reviews are irrelevant? Why didn't anyone send me a message on my fax machine to tell me?

Fun fact: Italian government still uses, and wants, faxes.

 

[The artful mincer]

Yes they do....

Steam Gauge: Do strong reviews lead to stronger sales on Steam?

High review scores are better than low ones, but reviews don't determine sales destiny.

arstechnica.com

This dude just make that statement based on one game?

 

[Beer Baelly]

Thats because casuals only play GTA5 and Fortnite.

 

[TonyK]

Since I buy based on Metacritic I played and enjoyed a dozen of indie games I never would have played without those scores. That's also true for AAA games. Any western AAA game I played with less than a 90 metascore has ended boring me. Games like Horizon or Cyberpunk, for example.

What I discovered with Metacritic is that an indie game with 80 or more is a great game, but an AAA needs more than a 90 to be good.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Yes they do....

http://[URL][URL]https://arstechnic...rong-reviews-lead-to-stronger-sales-on-steam/

[/URL][/URL]

This dude just make that statement based on one game?

Apparently no they really don't. Not to mention matters of correlation x causation.

 

[remember_spinal]

Love how gamers here act like they dont use metacritic as a consumer guide but review threads blow up the second they’re posted.

Games scoring in the mid 90’s are guaranteed best sellers of the year.

 

[Fake]

If that were the case, TLOU2 and Halo Infinite would be considered some of the greatest games of all time. And yet, they aren’t. At *best* they are incredibly divisive.

I have stated it time and again - the only people who actually take stock in review aggregates and review scores in general are mentally ill console warriors.

Console warriors are dumb from whatever the side. TLOUS2 is a very very divisive game no question, with a company that don't reveal sales anymore and are even remake the first one BECAUSE, but people here not only get attached to the Metacritic Scores, but if you look some members here in this forum you gonna check that sometimes metascore matters and others times don't.

I not even saying the game is bad, in fact is not bad at all. Graphics are top and the gameplay is good, but the story is not great at all.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Love how gamers here act like they dont use metacritic as a consumer guide but review threads blow up the second they’re posted.

Games scoring in the mid 90’s are guaranteed best sellers of the year.

Considering you are a massive console warrior, you should know the reason *why* those review threads ”blow up”. Almost always by the same handful of 20-30 warriors bickering back and forth. You being one of the more common sights within them.

 

[Saber]

I would say its a mix bag.

There are instances when Metacritic reviews(from actual gaming people, not retarded gaming reviewers) can be usefull to tell that something is off to the game. Is not an indicative though, but something to make you check yourself with videos if theres something wrong with it.

But on the other hand it can be manipulative by fans from both extremes. Fanboys who defend them(worse of the bunch for the amount of toxicity and lack of coerence) and fanobys who hate the game.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Games scoring in the mid 90’s are guaranteed best sellers of the year.

Man, remember when House in Fata Morgana with its 96 metascore topped charts everywhere across the globe?
Oh, what about Celeste? It even made to the GOTYs with its amazing 94 metascore, pretty sure it did much better than Halo Infinite with its measly 87 points.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Console warriors are dumb from whatever the side. TLOUS2 is a very very divisive game no question, with a company that don't reveal sales anymore and are even remake the first one BECAUSE, but people here not only get attached to the Metacritic Scores, but if you look some members here in this forum you gonna check that sometimes metascore matters and others times don't.

I not even saying the game is bad, in fact is not bad at all. Graphics are top and the gameplay is good, but the story is not great at all.

Yep, those are my points. If Metacritic and review aggregate sites in general mattered and were actually capable of indicating a game’s quality, then TLOU2 and Halo Infinite would be as genre defining and amazing as the warriors like to point out with little in the way of divisive posts. However, that is *not* what we see. There‘s at least 40 times the amount of normal, average gamers on GAF that don’t give two shits about any particular box. They just want to play good games and you see them as critical of these two examples as you see them loving them.

Metacritic and review aggregate sites have *never* been indicative of a game’s quality. Reviews in general have always, since the earliest days, been highly questionable. Unlike the 80s, however, we actually have ways to get information on the pre-release of games to see if they are worth playing without relying on such idiotic Gaming “journalists”.

 

[01011001]

The folks that do tend to put the most stock in “reviews” are console warrior retards.

you can strike that console warrior part

 

[EverydayBeast]

I don’t understand buying games based off reviews especially in todays world where there’s console war strategies.

 

[Dr. Claus]

you can strike that console warrior part

Lol, true.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Absolutely, because From Software has an established fanbase(Dark Souls 3 sold more than 10 million) and George Martin's name helped sell Elden Ring.

A better example would be Demon Souls or Dark Souls.

Sony had little faith on Demon back on PS3, but critical acclaim helped it to gain attention and become a cult hit, then Namco got interested and released Dark Souls to commercial success(though much more modest than today) review scores helped FROM become the monster that its today.

Established series can drop their review scores and still sell, and a good/fun idea can elevate a game to sell far above the 'value' labeled by game critics, but they still serve a purpose, they aren't completely worthless

The bigger problem with aggregates like MetaCritic are that, there's almost no consistency in metric standards carried between games, even within the same genre. It's a crapshoot if a publication puts the person who enjoys open-world RPGs on an open-world RPG for review, or if they put them on a visual novel game to review instead. That alone can skew the score for that game from that publication, which can skew the average.

Then there's the fact that reviews are weighed based on the website, so not all outlets have the same weight into the aggregate as others. An IGN review will have more weight into the overall aggregate average than one from, say, WePlayGames! or some other website you've never heard of. Problem there is that it's a system open for being gamed, and it's not like most journalists are paragons of journalistic integrity and virtue in the industry as-is. In fact, we've had instances where some reviewers clearly did reviews on games to purposely run contrary to popular opinion simply to stand out and get clicks, not because those reviewers GENUINELY believed what they thought to score the game the way they did.

Probably the most egregious recent example of this was Stevivor, not just with their HFW review but also their reviews for Demon's Souls Remake AND Bloodborne scoring well below the MC average while somehow, all of their other Soulsborne reviews were in line with the MC average or even slightly above it. And when the only common link between those and the two which scored well below is that the latter just happened to be exclusive to specific consoles from a singular platform holder....eventually that tendency is going to be spotted and you're going to be held accountable, hence them getting blacklisted.

I definitely think there's a way to codify the review process industry-wide among the different websites and aggregates like MetaCritic, and with the platform holders as well, but it'll require a lot of work.

Man, remember when House in Fata Morgana with its 96 metascore topped charts everywhere across the globe?
Oh, what about Celeste? It even made to the GOTYs with its amazing 94 metascore, pretty sure it did much better than Halo Infinite with its measly 87 points.

I think they meant more for AAA games, where the review scores are a bit more a factor. A big AAA game netting below 85 on MC will probably be hampered in total sales potential compared to games that clearly get above that mark.

There's a tendency, unfortunate or not, where a lot of hardcore/core gamers consider any AAA game getting below an 85 (or in some cases, below a 90) a "failure". It's BS, but that's the environment these days.

 

[Unrivaledx88]

i for one never cared for reviews if i was interested in a game.... unless i heard reviews were realllllllly bad that different

 

[remember_spinal]

Considering you are a massive console warrior, you should know the reason *why* those review threads ”blow up”. Almost always by the same handful of 20-30 warriors bickering back and forth. You being one of the more common sights within them.

 

[Guilty_AI]

There's a tendency, unfortunate or not, where a lot of hardcore/core gamers consider any AAA game getting below an 85 (or in some cases, below a 90) a "failure". It's BS, but that's the environment these days.

According to the data posted here, an 83 score game will, for some reason, sell more than a 92 game.

I think its far more likely for already popular games to receive high scores, the few ones usually getting those 95+ are almost always, "coincidentally", the TLoUs and Zeldas and GTAs.

 

[22:22:22]

Another result of internet toxicity. Such loss

 

[Crispy Gamer]

It's complicated...reviews still kinda matter it builds hype or it could deflate sales performance of a title but in alot of cases the fan base wouldn't care what the reviews are they're too invested into the franchise to give a hoot.

 

[Kssio_Aug]

Elden Ring hitting a new sales milestone after a high metacritic score suggests otherwise.

It's probably true that sales are a mix of what he's listed and metacritic as well.

It sure is related to the score, but I guess in a more indirect way.

Since the game was so well received, every major gaming website (and social media) was talking very positively about it. This and the fact that From Software has become more and more popular after each game, are probably the aspect that made it sell so well. Not exactly the congregated values in Metacritic.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

According to the data posted here, an 83 score game will, for some reason, sell more than a 92 game.

I think its far more likely for already popular games to receive high scores, the few ones usually getting those 95+ are almost always, "coincidentally", the TLoUs and Zeldas and GTAs.

Yeah for established big franchises reviews will only have one effect, and that's a negative one, IF they are unanimously terrible. Otherwise, even if the scores are lower than the previous entry, they won't actually impact sales if it's only by a small handful of points.

But very high scores for relatively unknown games, especially smaller ones, can really help them with sales. That was something which benefited Hades recently, for example.

 

[Guilty_AI]

But very high scores for relatively unknown games, especially smaller ones, can really help them with sales. That was something which benefited Hades recently, for example.

Thats more of a steam reviews thing. Usually steam games with "overwhelmingly positive" user score sell a lot (at least exceed the developers expectations), many of those games not even having a proper metascore.

Beamng drive for example has a total of 0 metacritic reviews, but is one of the most highly reviewed games on steam, also happens to be one of the most popular driving games of the platform.
Factorio only got 8 metacritic reviews, and that was after it left early access in 2020, it was already hugely popular before reviews came in when it 'released'.

 

[ReBurn]

Did metacritic ever really determine how well a game sells? I rarely read it so I don't know.

 

[Filben]

Elden Ring hitting a new sales milestone after a high metacritic score suggests otherwise.

Correlation doesn't imply causation. Disco Elysium has 91% and most certainly didn't sell as much as Elden Ring.

I don't think the average Joe who's buying games consults Metacritic before doing so. It does help though when every outlet and YouTuber the kids these days are following are waxing about a game. That and, of course, if it really lives up to the hype.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I agree for the most part. I think YouTube and Twitch are more important now.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

...by the journalists who gave it a high metascore

My brother in christ, if you think only journalist liked TLOU2 you need to get out of your own echo chamber. It's a beloved game.

 

[Dr. Claus]

My brother in christ, if you think only journalist liked TLOU2 you need to get out of your own echo chamber. It's a beloved game.

And if *you* think it is a beloved game, you need to get out of your own echo chamber. It is an incredibly divisive title. That is reality when you take off your console warrior lens.

 

[MHubert]

And meanwhile everywhere else, you see highly divisive thoughts. People either love it or hate it. Same thing with Halo Infinite. Got really good reviews and was lauded as a “Game of the Year/generation!” For like a good month.

Reality is, most people don’t give two shits about reviews and meta score aggregates are about as accurate about a game’s quality as a blind man is at sniping.

This is just blatantly false. Take a look at any top 20 from any console generation on metacritic and show me just 1 game that is generally percieved as bad by gamers.

 

[Astral Dog]

The bigger problem with aggregates like MetaCritic are that, there's almost no consistency in metric standards carried between games, even within the same genre. It's a crapshoot if a publication puts the person who enjoys open-world RPGs on an open-world RPG for review, or if they put them on a visual novel game to review instead. That alone can skew the score for that game from that publication, which can skew the average.

Then there's the fact that reviews are weighed based on the website, so not all outlets have the same weight into the aggregate as others. An IGN review will have more weight into the overall aggregate average than one from, say, WePlayGames! or some other website you've never heard of. Problem there is that it's a system open for being gamed, and it's not like most journalists are paragons of journalistic integrity and virtue in the industry as-is. In fact, we've had instances where some reviewers clearly did reviews on games to purposely run contrary to popular opinion simply to stand out and get clicks, not because those reviewers GENUINELY believed what they thought to score the game the way they did.

Probably the most egregious recent example of this was Stevivor, not just with their HFW review but also their reviews for Demon's Souls Remake AND Bloodborne scoring well below the MC average while somehow, all of their other Soulsborne reviews were in line with the MC average or even slightly above it. And when the only common link between those and the two which scored well below is that the latter just happened to be exclusive to specific consoles from a singular platform holder....eventually that tendency is going to be spotted and you're going to be held accountable, hence them getting blacklisted.

I definitely think there's a way to codify the review process industry-wide among the different websites and aggregates like MetaCritic, and with the platform holders as well, but it'll require a lot of work.



I think they meant more for AAA games, where the review scores are a bit more a factor. A big AAA game netting below 85 on MC will probably be hampered in total sales potential compared to games that clearly get above that mark.

There's a tendency, unfortunate or not, where a lot of hardcore/core gamers consider any AAA game getting below an 85 (or in some cases, below a 90) a "failure". It's BS, but that's the environment these days.

Yeah, the most important thing is how you personally value a game, Metacritic is just an useful guide to 'help' gamers find the best designed among the bunch , at least in principle. as flawed as it is,we can't get rid of this system yet.

below 85 will get a lot of complaints and bad reputation among the 'hardcore' fans on the internet, but it doesn't affect the overall sales potental of a game as long as its still above an 80 companies can rest another day, for example, Resident Evil, Pokemon, Kirby and many others. On the other hand series like Metroid depend more on their prestige to move units, since its not a mass market game

 

[Dr. Claus]

This is just blatantly false. Take a look at any top 20 from any console generation on metacritic and show me just 1 game that is generally percieved as bad by gamers.

Ignoring your petty and infantile Strawman attempt, I literally did prove that one of the supposed “greatest games of the generation” as many like to claim here, and one rated highly on Metacritic is a highly divisive title. If it was truly so great, it wouldn’t be divisive.

Now take off your little warrior glasses, mate.