89 réponses à ce sujet

[katzenkrimis]

Because the user reviews can't be trusted to give responsible and honest opinion on the 10 point scale.

So let me get this straight.

You're a user, who is telling other users, not to trust users because they are dishonest. If that is true, then nobody should trust you, either. Because we are all untrustworthy liars.

Critics are users, too. They just put more time and effort into their words. Which makes them appear more important than they actually are.

And, they are given a glorified title.  By us. The users.

Titles like Critic, or Herald of Andraste. Which they begrudgingly learn to accept.
 

[Lebanese Dude]

You're a user, who is telling other users, not to trust users because they are dishonest. If that is true, then nobody should trust you, either. Because we are all untrustworthy liars.

 

 

Considering he was being general, I don't think he was targeting "da haters" specifically. No need to get defensive.

[mickey111]

So let me get this straight.

You're a user, who is telling other users, not to trust users because they are dishonest. If that is true, then nobody should trust you, either. Because we are all untrustworthy liars.

Critics are users, too. They just put more time and effort into their words. Which makes them appear more important than they actually are.

And, they are given a glorified title.  By us. The users.

Titles like Critic, or Herald of Andraste. Which they begrudgingly learn to accept.
 

0/10

[RDOT]

That is an interesting idea OP; kind of cool.

 

I find the "professional" reviews much more irritating tho.  Perfect 100's or 95's are just as bad and unrealistic as the 0/10.  Also, there are "professional" reviewers that gave it a great score of like 88, and they go on bashing the game in their review.  As a whole, the reviews for DAI have been odd and not reliable.

[gay_wardens]

i was reading wikipedia earlier and discovered that metacritic is so old that they were around to rate Metroid in the 80s...

 

and they gave it like 66/100... that should tell you something.

[RDOT]

On a personal note, I actually find the user review score of "5.6" a lot closer to the reality than the inflated "87" by the "pros". 

[Degs29]

Sadly there are people who take those metacritics as "fact". For instance, one of my friends always refers to game's "user meta score" to determine if the game is any good, not taking anything else into account. So sad, really.

 

Why user score? Because, and I quote now, "they're more reliable than paid reviews"

 

The sad part is that that doesn't seem to be true! lol

[ZipZap2000]

Simpler solution is to have people link their gamer profiles so they can't review the game until they've actually finished it or at least invested some hours in it. With Inquisition you have first day reviews up on a 60 - 200 hour game within minutes of them unlocking it for review. The current model just caters to fanboys, trolls and like farmers in search of lost validation.

[SadisticChunkyDwarf]

That is an interesting idea OP; kind of cool.

 

I find the "professional" reviews much more irritating tho.  Perfect 100's or 95's are just as bad and unrealistic as the 0/10.  Also, there are "professional" reviewers that gave it a great score of like 88, and they go on bashing the game in their review.  As a whole, the reviews for DAI have been odd and not reliable.

 

Professional reviewers play a lot more games than most people, and have a more realistic view of what we should expect from video games vs what we should get. I honestly don't know what people who rate the game poorly were expecting, but there is a serious logic leap between playing DA:I and honestly giving it a poor rating if you even approach knowing anything about video games. It really has nothing to do with this "opinion" word that gets thrown around. A "professional" review should leave as little room for user bias as possible. It's not possible to eliminate that all together, but it should at least be the goal. The vast majority of user reviews don't even attempt to rate a game subjectively.

 

Maybe I am among the most intuitive gamers who can research a game for a day before it's even out, weed through a lot of the BS and find out whether I should be hyped for a game or not, and what to expect. I can't recall a single time that I've put something on and been like "wow this is totally different than what I was expecting". It's always what I thought it'd be for the most part. Maybe those people who rate a game poorly just don't have that ability and buy games they shouldn't be buying, and those who enjoy and are happy with games that they play have realistic expectations.

 

I think user reviewers should be required to post the amount of games that they've bought that did not meet their expectations. I'd happily post mine as 0. Once guys give 5 or so bad reviews they should be blocked from posting on the site at all because they're clearly just as terrible at being consumers as the games are "failures" and probably need a financial adviser to watch over their money to make sure they don't spend it all on things that they hate.

[Influ]

Going with ignoring metacritic altogether as the best option

Word.

 

Or we could just forget about the scores. Maybe focus on reading the reviews, as in the bits that actually tell something about the product? Yeah, that'll happen.

[Lebanese Dude]

The vast majority of user reviews don't even attempt to rate a game subjectively.

 

 

This was meant to be "objectively" right?

[tmp7704]

Because the user reviews can't be trusted to give responsible and honest opinion on the 10 point scale.

The critic rating scale is effectively limited to 7-10, so what does it tell you about their ability to rate things responsibly?

Like the others said you're much better off ignoring it altogether, and anyone who thinks these scores count for anything.

[Unreal Warfare]

Metacritic should just ditch the score system for user reviews entirely.

[Indoctrination]

Metacritic should ignore people who take Metacritic very seriously and emotionally invest themselves into the average user scores of their favourite games.

[Darkly Tranquil]

If you read what people have said in their reviews, many of them make legitimate criticisms of the game and explain their reasons in detail. It's just that when it comes to giving a score at the end of all that, they drop a zero or one for minimum effect, even though their review would be more consistent with a 5-7 rating.

[frankf43]

Well no, I disagree.

 

Because, while many of these people are trolls, there are people who genuinely really dislike the game enough to give it a very low score, an opinion they are entitled to. You can't just ignore peoples opinions just because they don't conform to what the majority of other people think. 

 

Yeah you can. Everybody is entitled to their opinion but I am also within my rights just to ignore that opinion.

[Back Lot Basher]

The biggest problem, if you ask me, is that people have forgotten how to actually read the more in-depth reviews.  Almost everything about the way we respond to a creative work is subjective.  Games are no different.  It depends on things like personal taste and our tolerance for what some people perceive as flaws.  Poor graphics in a game have never bothered me much, but awkward controls will destroy my interest in a game almost immediately.  Some people might be the opposite.  A review of games with these issues will not translate the same for those two types of people.

 

The one thing I use metacritic for is establishing some kind of baseline for whether I need to start looking at a game.  If it flops with average ratings in the 10 to 30 range, there's little doubt I'll give it a pass.  But after that, I do still look at games to see what it was that reviewers and users didn't like.  If they tend to focus on negatives for aspects that don't really bother me, it helps me figure out if I might still like a game that others didn't.

 

Society seems to emphasize condensed versions of everything.  I always laugh at people who post TL;DR after forum posts, mostly because they are simply admitting that they have the attention span (and most likely, intelligence) of a flea.  To get the most out of a serious review, you must employ some reading comprehension skills and dig deep into what is being discussed by the reviewer.  After a while, you'll find a few that you trust, whose tastes align with yours, and use them as a good reference point in the future.  It's an art I fear is being lost to time as our world embraces the digital age.

[Back Lot Basher]

Professional reviewers play a lot more games than most people, and have a more realistic view of what we should expect from video games vs what we should get. I honestly don't know what people who rate the game poorly were expecting, but there is a serious logic leap between playing DA:I and honestly giving it a poor rating if you even approach knowing anything about video games. It really has nothing to do with this "opinion" word that gets thrown around. A "professional" review should leave as little room for user bias as possible. It's not possible to eliminate that all together, but it should at least be the goal. The vast majority of user reviews don't even attempt to rate a game subjectively.

 

Maybe I am among the most intuitive gamers who can research a game for a day before it's even out, weed through a lot of the BS and find out whether I should be hyped for a game or not, and what to expect. I can't recall a single time that I've put something on and been like "wow this is totally different than what I was expecting". It's always what I thought it'd be for the most part. Maybe those people who rate a game poorly just don't have that ability and buy games they shouldn't be buying, and those who enjoy and are happy with games that they play have realistic expectations.

 

I think user reviewers should be required to post the amount of games that they've bought that did not meet their expectations. I'd happily post mine as 0. Once guys give 5 or so bad reviews they should be blocked from posting on the site at all because they're clearly just as terrible at being consumers as the games are "failures" and probably need a financial adviser to watch over their money to make sure they don't spend it all on things that they hate.

 

Good point.  I've always thought that for anyone to legitimately pass off an opinion on a game, they should be required to prove how much of it they have played.  For instance, having them post under a gamertag or PSN ID that shows the amount of progress they've had would be a good start.  If someone is just commenting on their initial thoughts on graphics, voice acting, gameplay, that's fine.  But it really helps if they've actually finished a playthrough, as far as giving their professional opinion some credibility.  

[RVallant]

I disagree with this on the basis that user scores for DA2 are for more indicative of the actual quality of the game than the review scores.

The way I'd change it is to create a 3 point scale for users. Users can say it's bad, average, or good. That's it. Similar to Steam ratings, we'd get "Mostly Unfavorable" and "Mostly Favorable" types of scores. Someone who doesn't like the game will rate it a 1, whether they're prone to hyperbole or not.

 

Agree with DA2 point, but have you SEEN Steam reviews? They're as much a joke as metacritic; "10/10 this game gave me an orgasm!!!! LULUZ!!!"

 

How is that remotely useful? What baffles me is those type of reviews get a 90% helpful rating and decent reviews get pushed in the maelstrom and never seen again. It's stupid.

 

That's assuming the critics scores are even non bias as in no one is paying them to write something good about the game and ignoring the defects.

 

Until this becomes true, user scores are necessary. 

[Ganen]

since I got my eyes opened by several scandals like gamergate (if you dont know what Im talking about and you are a genuine gamer who cares about gaming quality and values reviews and previews in his community you should def. google it and check it out) I have close to zero respect for mainstream gaming journalism.

I get my information from reputable independent youtubers and bloggers mostly, favorite among them Total Biscuit in youtube.

 

as to the scale being varied, I also believe that people should be given leeway, because the 1-10 scale is mostly arbitrary in what is actually being evaluated, and while like a poster suggested personal fun is a factor in the scale, I think it is actually a counter-factor for the scale and something actual objective critics try to avoid in their reviews (even if impossible to be completely unbiased by personal tastes and perceptions ofc)

but some people give lets say 1-5 points to gameplay alone, and the remaining 5 distributed to factors like story, animations music, aesthetics, effects, controls etc, while others give much less weight to gameplay and more to others, for example while some games have good or even rich gameplay, bioware usually atracts the more story oriented crowd, so you will see alot of 9+ reviews to games like mass effect that really dont have much in terms of gameplay in their favour, but do have alot on other aspects, while you will get 9+ scores to games like Skyrim who have alot in gameplay but much less in the other aspects.

 

personally I trust reviews that vary 3 points or even more to the "average" than I do reviews that just "follow the hype crowd".

the actual review article where things are explained or compared to other games, is where I pass judgment on if a review is good or bad, the score is just a guideline to how good or bad the reviewer considered the game based on his perspective of what makes a good game (and that is what usually varies the most, or is supposed to)

[Petedj06]

Problem with user reviews:

Only 2 kinds of people (for the most part) take the time to review a game. People who are really upset/have an axe to grind, and people who are over the moon happy with the game. Neither group is subjective. Most people who would rate the game a 5-9 (i think what most would consider a realistic score for this particular game) won't take the time to write the review because they simply don't have strong enough feelings about it.

Edit: also, angry consumers are much more likely to be vocal than happy or satisfied ones, part of being human.

[Maverick827]

You're a user, who is telling other users, not to trust users because they are dishonest. If that is true, then nobody should trust you, either. Because we are all untrustworthy liars.

 

I am a knight, the OP is a knave.

[Takeva_]

Best thing to do is to ignore it all. Critics don't always tell the truth. Some get paid to write good reviews.

 

Test it yourself and see how you like it. Unless you think you don't have a mind of your own and rely on other people to decide for you.

No one is telling you, you have to get the game now. If you aren't sure, move on to a game you are sure about and then test these waters later.

[StingingVelvet]

I find the idea that people have to agree with critics to be worth listening to rather laughable, honestly. I'd give DA:I a 6 probably, but I can understand why some would give it a lot lower. You have to keep in mind not everyone likes the same things. If you forced me to rate Destiny I would give it a 0, because I dislike loot grinding and online play. My 0 would be 100% valid, as would someone else giving it a 10 out of 10 because they love loot grinding and online play.

 

Everyone is different.