[Tain]

ahahahah

my taste is so much better

[Hot Coldman]

ahahahah my taste is so much better

Bullshit, I question your opinions

[Myriadis]

I like to read it and many times I agreed with the metacritic score. But that doesn't mean that a game that has a bad metacritic score doesn't mean that I don't like it. I just like different things about it.
And that said, I even trust them more than some GAFers here. I can't take them seriously when we have cases like Anihawk giving Metroid Prime a 4/10.

[Interfectum]

Child of Eden - Joystiq: "The music was swelling to a crescendo and I was literally doing everything I could physically to save a girl that, for the moment, was the only other person in the universe. And then, just for a second, right there in my living room, I teared up."

lol

[jaypah]

Nope. Reason being I either have the best taste in the world or the worst, depending on who I'm talking to and what I'm talking about. My favorite band of all time is the Beatles. My favorite song of the moment is "call me maybe". My gaming taste is just as ridiculous.

[Bentendo]

Gaming press buying into marketing hype is what bothers me. It sounds hilarious months after the fact though... G4TV Portal 2 Review Finisher: "I am honored to have reviewed Portal 2, and look forward to playing it again tomorrow." lol

Yeah that's what I meant. I remember the last time I visited IGN was when I was linked to their Mass Effect 3 review and, right there was a massive advertisement for the game plastering the page. It was unlike any ad I'd ever seen before, and it almost looked like it was made by IGN but was ACTUALLY an ad by EA. Blech.

[Interfectum]

my god... I forgot what a goldmine GTA4 was on metacritic:

After more than 40 hours Rockstar's most ambitious game to date was over and left me wondering if I'll ever be able to look at 'normal' video games in the same way again.

I now know how film critics felt after screening "The Godfather." It's been days since Grand Theft Auto IV's credits rolled, yet I can't seem to construct a coherent thought without my mind wandering off into a daydream about the game. I just want to drop everything in my life so I can play it again. Experience it again. Live it again...Grand Theft Auto IV doesn't just raise the bar for the storied franchise; it completely changes the landscape of gaming.

An absolutely essential landmark title for the games industry. In terms of the sheer scope, emotion, ambition, and the stupidly high fun factor it offers, there is no better available in the genre today. In fact, no one else comes anywhere near.

[TheLucifer]

No, never.

[Reuenthal]

My experience so far:

If reviewers love a game and several loudly in gaf hates it then it is probably not as bad as those who hate it claim but not as good as reviewers think. So the game has some negatives but there is excessive hatred for some reasons that can be related to other factors such as too high expectations and overreactions, being tired of that genre. Also despite some particularly high rated reviews you usually will find some reviews that also mention its negatives, even if many in the press overrate the game.

If gaf loves a game but reviewers don't, then it is probably either just a good game that not sufficient attention was payed to it or a really good game.

Generally speaking usually reviewers do provide useful information and so do forum members but the popular ratings about either group does not have to be the same as how much I like a game. And I don't question my taste when there are differences.

[Palette Swap]

Not really, Alpha Protocol is 60 something and Dragon's Dogma 75 and they're both awesome. As is my taste.

[Wonko_C]

What do you guys do when your gaming tastes are openly questioned by your friends or relatives?

It gets to me when someone I know starts spewing BS about how can I like "games for retards" like Batman: Arkham City or Virtua Fighter 5 Final Showdown. How do you deal with situations like that? Anger takes over and I can't think of a good counter-argument because I'm using all of my willpower to hold back my urge to punch him in the face.

[Derrick01]

Why would you ever need Metacritic? You're at Neogaf.

Gaf's overall opinions aren't much different than metacritic if goty threads are anything to go by.

[redcrayon]

I don't look at metacritic scores, and wouldn't count most of the reviewers as credible anyway- there are a limited handful of publications/sites I trust, factoring in tens of websites I've never heard of seems like a waste of time for me. Besides, I just read forums first to see exactly what I'll be getting for my money, people who actually pay for their games tend to be far more critical and observant of the stuff that matters to me, rather than warbling on for two-thirds of a review about what they put on their toast that morning or whatever new games journalism is about these days.

Also, I don't play online or buy much DLC so anything marked down for the poor quality of either just doesn't bother me at all.

[Reuenthal]

What do you guys do when your gaming tastes are openly questioned by your friends or relatives? It gets to me when someone I know starts spewing BS about how can I like "games for retards" like Batman: Arkham City or Virtua Fighter 5 Final Showdown. How do you deal with situations like that? Anger takes over and I can't think of a good counter-argument because I'm using all of my willpower to hold back my urge to punch him in the face.

When someone is a complete idiot like the one who says that those games are for retards then there is no reason to provide a good counterarguement against him. He has already lost the argument.

[redcrayon]

Yeah, it's not exactly a statement that requires a response.

Anger won't help, they are just trying to get a rise out of you. Let it go, smile, and go play cool games instead. Arguing with dicks is a waste of your free time, it's something I wish i had learned when much, much younger. :-)

[ReaperXL07]

I don't look at metacritic scores, and wouldn't count most of the reviewers as credible anyway- there are a limited handful of publications/sites I trust, factoring in tens of websites I've never heard of seems like a waste of time for me. Besides, I just read forums first to see exactly what I'll be getting for my money, people who actually pay for their games tend to be far more critical and observant of the stuff that matters to me, rather than warbling on for two-thirds of a review about what they put on their toast that morning or whatever new games journalism is about these days. Also, I don't play online or buy much DLC so anything marked down for the poor quality of either just doesn't bother me at all.

Correct me if i'm wrong here, but wouldent the sites you've never heard of be the ones most likely to be unbiased as if publishers are really paying for good reviews they would probably only focus on the places where the most eyes would be.

I find the smaller sites to be more reliable overall in terms of "professional" reviews. I've noticed player reviews are becoming less realible overall aswell since there is often some sort of heavy bias against things that have very little to do with the actual game overall.

[ironcreed]

What do you guys do when your gaming tastes are openly questioned by your friends or relatives?

I just tell them that opinions vary, and if I wanted to, I could be a critical ass-hat and find some games in their collection that I personally thought sucked as well. But I realize that, like me, they are entitled to their own opinion and am secure enough to accept the fact that they might like something that I don't. If they can't do the same, then that is their affair. If they insist on pressing the matter further, I promptly tell them to fuck off and that's that.

[Meccanical]

Hell no.

Nobody knows what's good like I do.

According to me at least.

[Interfectum]

Correct me if i'm wrong here, but wouldent the sites you've never heard of be the ones most likely to be unbiased as if publishers are really paying for good reviews they would probably only focus on the places where the most eyes would be. I find the smaller sites to be more reliable overall in terms of "professional" reviews. I've noticed player reviews are becoming less realible overall aswell since there is often some sort of heavy bias against things that have very little to do with the actual game overall.

Even smaller sites do it. Sometimes you are given free games to review from a 3rd party marketing company that isn't directly tied to the publisher. The better you review the game the more likely you'll get more free games in the future.

[gurasa]

I question other people's taste.

There ya go.

I love your avatar.

[shagg_187]

I question other people's taste.

Pretty much. My taste is delicious!

[grimshawish]

I tend to view all reviews these days as complete bullshit. Once reviewers have rode the 'hype storm' they then ride the 'angry storm'.

Mass Effect 3/Diablo 3/Uncharted 3 are perfect examples of this.

[redcrayon]

Correct me if i'm wrong here, but wouldent the sites you've never heard of be the ones most likely to be unbiased as if publishers are really paying for good reviews they would probably only focus on the places where the most eyes would be. I find the smaller sites to be more reliable overall in terms of "professional" reviews. I've noticed player reviews are becoming less realible overall aswell since there is often some sort of heavy bias against things that have very little to do with the actual game overall.

Sure, but it's the answers in the text of reviews I'm interested in, 'how does it play?', 'does it make sense?', 'is it boring?' etc, not the arbitrary number at the end. if every site marks something down for an aspect of the game that doesn't bother me at all, and thus the game might well be interesting to me even if not to most other people, the only way I can find that out is by reading the reviews, and I only have so much time for reading about games.

...even less since starting to post on a computer games forum ;-)

[Dusk Golem]

Heck no, I love the survival-horror genre. Do you know that some amazing survival-horror games only do alright to bad on Metacritic?

There are some games that didn't do well with critics that are amazing in their own right. If I listened to critics all the time I would of missed out on some amazing games.

[pa22word]

Game reviewers have proven themselves to be untrustworthy at best and incompetent at worst time and time again, so why in the hell would I value their opinion over mine just because a website aggregates them onto a normalized scale?

Hell, if you asked me the metacritic or gamerankings score of my top 10 favorite games I wouldn't be able to tell you simply because I do not care.

[DoctorBanjo]

Nope.

Dynasty warriors FTW!

[Mr. Poolman]

my god... I forgot what a goldmine GTA4 was on metacritic:

Oh dear... I didn't care about GTAIV (since I had no way of playing it), but are those "reviews" are real? Those guys could write the best poetry ever. Their women would be proud.

[Canis lupus]

I only buy games that are rated 90 or higher.


AAA gamer for life.

[Palette Swap]

I tend to view all reviews these days as complete bullshit. Once reviewers have rode the 'hype storm' they then ride the 'angry storm'. Mass Effect 3/Diablo 3/Uncharted 3 are perfect examples of this.

In the case of Uncharted 3, the backlash here against the 8 from the Eurogamer review puts this whole thread into perspective.

[barrin87]

I honestly don't care about ratings at all. I would rather enjoy the game I am playing whether it got a 90 or a 20. I will read reviews to see how a game is but I trust my own judgement for video games that I like more than some random person I don't know.

[Heavy's Sandvich]

God no.

I wouldn't put an ounce of trust in many of the reviewers out there in all honesty. They all mean well but many seem to share the same background/mindset in these matters which tends to differ from mine.

[Ventilaator]

Nier wants too much and therefore fails. The gameplay is not challenging, the graphics are below standard and there is no originality whatsoever. So, just don't buy this game.

This person is talking about a game I find to be the greatest game this generation, so there's just no way I can seriously look at Metacritic even if I want to.

[DarkCronos]

no, i question the reviews system

[cheststrongwell]

Review sites like metacritic and rottentomatoes are garbage. Kinda off topic, but look at the fucking score:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/boondock_saints/

Bullshit!

[ironcreed]

This person is talking about a game I find to be the greatest game this generation, so there's just no way I can seriously look at Metacritic even if I want to.

I hate the excuse, "It tries to do too much" or "has too much variety and tries too hard, therefore, has no identity." I mean, would it be better if a game did too little and did not try at all?

To me, this old excuse is a sure fire sign of someone who is just jaded to hell and back from playing so many games for a living and can't stand it when a game has too much for them to take in. Every time I hear this I tend to avoid the review like the plague.

[Wiz]

Not really. I know what types of games I like. I trust word of mouth a lot more than score aggregators.

[G0523]

To be fair to Lollipop Chainsaw (360), its average score on Metacritic is damaged by that one "games" site "Quarter to Three" which is the only site to give it a negative review. Take that out and the average score gets raised from a 69 to a 72. Feel better now?

[ReaperXL07]

Nope. Dynasty warriors FTW!

indeed Gundam 3 is so much fun.

[smothpocket]

People have terrible taste in games. That's why the market is saturated with nonsense.

[Dragonzord]

I buy games that I want to play. I've played enough games at this point that I have a general idea of what I want, and I'm able to tell by gameplay videos and previews how well the game plays.

The only thing metacritic related that I look at is what the length of the game is, and I rarely buy super linear games anymore anyhow, so that doesn't really matter

[legacyzero]

I question other people's taste.

Holy shit. Thread was over before it began.

Junior pulls no punches!

[herod]

Metacritic isn't a measure of taste, but of PR $.

[Teppic]

I question peoples interest in videogames when they base their purchases on review scores.

[SafeinSound]

Most OTs these days seem just a step down from developer PR.

They aren't as bad as they used to be.

[parathod]

I feel like reviewers this generation take games down one grade if they're made in Japan (and not by Nintendo) and bump things up a grade automatically if they come from a developer with a strong track record like rockstar, blizzard, etc.

[2+2=5]

Metawhat?

[Astery]

Not really. Taste is often subjective. For most, I generally do not decide to buy a game based on it's reviews unless I'm not sure if the game is worth my money or not. That rarely happens.

Here's a question for anyone here, really: when you play and enjoy a game that's not generally well-received, do you ever try to get to the root of why you liked it, and others didn't? Or try to learn something about yourself, instead of just shaking your head and thinking, "People have terrible taste." Do you ever question your taste? This isn't a veiled defense of popularity, or Metacritic. I'm genuinely curious. A foundation of art and cultural appreciation is trying to to figure out why something you don't "get" resonates with others.

As a game designer myself, yes I certainly do so, trying to understand what others don't like about it. Sometimes I get useful insights, sometimes I don't since people generally just don't understand why they don't like a game. ie. Response of "this game sux because it's not fun". Surely there are also times that I would think "people have terrible taste" but I wouldn't be bothered much.

[Shiggy]

I question the tastes of others when they praise pure borefests.

[Dire]

I feel like reviewers this generation take games down one grade if they're made in Japan (and not by Nintendo) and bump things up a grade automatically if they come from a developer with a strong track record like rockstar, blizzard, etc.

It's no secret that many of the major western developers do whatever it takes to ensure they get positive review scores, even when that goes beyond you know - just making good games, so the blame doesn't rest solely with the reviewers. And what are the review sites really supposed to do? The only way they survive is through prerelease copies of games and breaking stories. If they get on the bad side of a major studio they could find themselves in a world of trouble; suddenly they're no longer getting prerelease copies to say nothing of inside scoops. That said I think you can still get a lot out of main stream review sites. But it involves actually reading the reviews. If you read between the lines many reviews are actually rather harsh on the games, but of course still give out the 4 out of 5 at the end. Reading the review and not just looking at the score is critical.

Outside of that there's also a problem that many games are just incredibly difficult to review. For instance, how could you possibly review Diablo 3? I've been very critical of the game but it's certainly a very decent game when taken as a standard 40 hour pump and dump experience. But taken as a sequel with the name Diablo I think it's a complete failure. Does that make it a 2/5 or a 4/5? It depends on who's reading the review and what they want out of the game. I think it's impossible to give it a single number that accurately quantifies its 'worth'.

So no I definitely don't question my tastes when games I enjoy aren't revered by metacritic. There's just too much politics and subjectivity involved in the whole process for what eventually comes down to a single number to mean all that much.

[theCHENRY]

Metacritic is a joke.

it's not metacritic that's the problem.