Support NeoGAF

[PBY]

There is a difference between a total hatchet job and being critical.

Alot of these reviews are giving scores reserved for fundamentally broken games, which the Order is certainly not.

Who says those scores are reserved for those games?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

That tweet is disturbing, it's not farfetched to believe pubs/devs think this way

Of course most of them think this way. Do you think any publisher would knowingly send out review code if they were sure their game was going to get bashed? Their livelihoods are on the line here. Their job at the end of the day is to try to sell product and make money. They're not going to go out of their way to do things that may cause them to make less money.

At the same time, bad PR can be very damaging, so it's a fine balancing act. Making Tweets like that guy did was definitely a dumb thing to do. I imagine he's going to get a bit of a talking to, and for good reason.

 

[Dragonborn]

Ah, and a Gamergate nut to boot When you make an accusation as broad and vacuous as the mission statement of Gamergate, there may be a problem in your reasoning. If you look back, the tweet you agree with stated the opposite of what you are here.

Um, what?

I don't even know how to respond to that. Reviewers should be as bias free as possible. Having to rely on game publishers (be it ads or whatever) introduces Bias. Have review were buy their own games and then review It. Problem solved

This right here is why I take as much issue with the other side if the gamergate fiasco. And here I thought I could avoid it entirely by ignoring the threads.

You prefer to get all of your news and reviews from the publishers?

"Buy our game, we give it a 10/10!"

Or on an advertisement the following words flash across your screen:

"10/10
-Activision"

"Madden 2016 is a revolution in gameplay
-Electronic Arts"

"Our IT department really loves it!
-343i"

Um, no. How about have the reviewers buy their own stuff?

I still remember that childish tantrum Sessler pulled When Sony didn't give him a PS4 ahead of time

 

[Gestault]

If you quote only a part of my post it kinda looks disingenuous, i have an opinion of something i played to completion, not something i read, huge difference

It seemed like you were reacting to written reviews by people who played the game and thought it was a poor experience, partly by criticizing people who took those reactions at face value. People disregarding reviews on the grounds that they have a pre-conceived opinion to the contrary is basically what people (myself included) are confused by.

 

[WeAreStarStuff]

After having purchased The Order I must say I can’t agree with the reviews of this game at all. I’m currently at the docks, and this game is a solid 8.5 for me so far.

 

[GrandHarrier]

After playing the game, 6/10 would be scraping the bottom of the barrel. 7/10 would be fair. 8/10 for those that are not afraid of a cutscene and invests little to no time on multiplayer.

Some of the reviews though are a complete joke. It almost feels like they heard the game was on the short side and did everything in there power to prove it. All because they had a pre-determination about the game.

I can also see why some, like that tweet doing the rounds, say what they do. These review sites go touting for advertising business, then they do a complete hatchet job which makes little sense and actually tell people not to buy the game.

What makes things even worse, the companies well known to give big money for advertising can get an 8/10 even for the most broken piece of crap going.

Or maybe outside of being a pretty game it's boring with mediocre gunplay, boring weapons, an abrupt ending out of nowhere, no replayability, with somewhere around 6 hours of game play all for the asking price of $60. Truly, the reviewers are just on a collective mission to discredit this game because reasons and we can't dare consider that it's actually a bad game.

 

[Loudninja]

Or maybe outside of being a pretty game it's boring with mediocre gunplay, boring weapons, an abrupt ending out of nowhere, no replayability, with somewhere around 6 hours of game play all for the asking price of $60. Truly, the reviewers are just on a collective mission to discredit this game because reasons and we can't dare consider that it's actually a bad game.

Nah the gunplay is really fantastic.

It really is some of the best.

 

[PBY]

Nah the gunplay is really fantastic.

It really is some of the best.

The guns feel amazing. The encounter design suuuucks tho.

 

[WeAreStarStuff]

Or maybe outside of being a pretty game it's boring with mediocre gunplay, boring weapons, an abrupt ending out of nowhere, no replayability, with somewhere around 6 hours of game play all for the asking price of $60. Truly, the reviewers are just on a collective mission to discredit this game because reasons and we can't dare consider that it's actually a bad game.

Boring weapons........what? Did we play the same game.

 

[WordsintheWater]

They're only a complete joke when they don't fall in line with your personal opinion.

Outside of some extreme examples where you have people dogpiling on a game without even playing because of shady business practices or something, I find the Metacritic user review score to generally be reflective of the sentiments I see expressed here on GAF, for example. There are many instances where the user base rating a game will give it more high praise than the professional critics. They certainly don't always fall in line.



Why? You're pretty much saying that no one's opinion matters, and if that's your argument, then why even comment in a review thread?

haha no I'm not, I'm very respectful of people's opinion just look at all my posts if you want. Anyone can put up a review for games on metacritic, they don't have to have any proof they played the game, don't have to write any details about the game, they can just give it a score. Therefore I think the user reviews are a joke on that site and can't take em seriously, I'd rather look at peoples opinions on here.

 

[mejin]

Nah the gunplay is really fantastic.

It really is some of the best.

It's just like a parrot repeting what it is told. People who didn't play are doing that and that's why some complaints are not really true.

 

[viveks86]

Reviewers should be as bias free as possible. Having to rely on game publishers (be it ads or whatever) introduces Bias. Have review were buy their own games and then review It. Problem solved

Reviewing games you bought introduces bias too. Because you start thinking about value for money, which varies based on how much you earn and how you grew up. It even tempts you to justify your purchase and color your experience. Everything has it's own pros and cons. You aren't solving any problems. You are just creating new ones. There's no such thing as "bias free". The only thing we can hope is that there is no blatant corruption. And if that's what you are accusing reviewers of, then you need proof. Not to mention the fact that most gaming websites and independent reviewers run on average to low income and can't possibly afford all the games to review. This is a necessary evil and we simply have to look past it. Or we send all reviewers to their extinction and rely on strangers on internet forums, whose tastes and bias we don't fully understand.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Anyone can put up a review for games on metacritic, they don't have to have any proof they played the game, don't have to write any details about the game, they can just give it a score. Therefore I think the user reviews are a joke on that site and can't take em seriously, I'd rather look at peoples opinions on here.

Well, that's the same story here on GAF, isn't it? You going to start demanding people post photographic proof that they own the game if they have an opinion about it?

 

[graffix13]

After having purchased The Order I must say I can’t agree with the reviews of this game at all. I’m currently at the docks, and this game is a solid 8.5 for me so far.

That's what I gave it too (got the platinum on it yesterday).

In fact, if it was 3-5 hours longer in gameplay it would have been a solid 9+ for me.

 

[Kinthalis]

Lol.

Lol indeed.

 

[Derpyduck]

Um, what?

I don't even know how to respond to that. Reviewers should be as bias free as possible. Having to rely on game publishers (be it ads or whatever) introduces Bias. Have review were buy their own games and then review It. Problem solved

Yeah, and people who review cars should have to buy each one before reviewing them. Same for thousand dollar electronics, right? Review copies don't introduce bias. And having to buy your own copy of the game doesn't remove bias.

 

[WordsintheWater]

Well, that's the same story here on GAF, isn't it? You going to start demanding people post photographic proof that they own the game if they have an opinion about it?

Please, can you stop taking what I say and twisting it around? They don't even have to write a detailed write up, they can just post whatever and give it a score. Especially when it comes to first party games, fanboys go in there and give a game a 0 for the heck of it. Evolve has a 4.4 user score on there more than likely due to its DLC controversies.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

It's just like a parrot repeting what it is told. People who didn't play are doing that and that's why some complaints are not really true.

How can someone's opinion be "not really true"? Especially on something so subjective as the "gameplay is good".

 

[GnawtyDog]

Reviewing games you bought introduces bias too. Because you start thinking about value for money, which varies based on how much you earn and how you grew up. It even tempts you to justify your purchase and color your experience. Everything has it's own pros and cons. You aren't solving any problems. You are just creating new ones. There's no such thing as "bias free". The only thing we can hope is that there is no blatant corruption. And if that's what you are accusing reviewers of, then you need proof. Not to mention the fact that most gaming websites and independent reviewers run on average to low income and can't possibly afford all the games to review. This is a necessary evil and we simply have to look past it. Or we send all reviewers to their extinction and rely on strangers on internet forums, whose tastes and bias we don't fully understand.

We don't fully understand "professional" reviewers either - that's fairly certain and also ambiguous. But that's not the point - the point is the distinction you are making here. The difference between "reviewers" and your "internet forumner" is the platform in which their words are written - nothing more.

Youtube is a game changer. You have a guy like PewdiePie and other youtube celebrities garner millions of views to each of their videos - marketing should be paying A LOT of attention to them - not so much babying up some random site with a user base getting warped by a single guy on Youtube.

 

[Frillen]

I honestly agree. the game press as is a a complete joke, filled with man children. It'd be great to see them cut off.

Are you fucking kidding me? Please tell me you're joking.

 

[ShutterMunster]

I just don't dig the glee with which game reviewers seem to approach writing negative reviews. I don't think that's all there is to The Order: 1886 reviews. Expectations are a big part of it. I also don't think reviewers talk about developer's intent much, so I decided to write about it.

http://the-optional.com/2015/02/23/cinematic-intent-discussing-the-order-1886/

I started this by calling The Order: 1886 an interactive movie. I then went on to debate the notion that declaring it not a game based on the amount of narrative vs gameplay was a mistake. What I guess I’m fighting against is the belief that just because something isn’t like everything else, just because something isn’t what we expect of it, doesn’t mean the experience it offers isn’t of value. The notion that The Order: 1886 is shit because it sets out to do something different than what we expect is problematic because it narrows the parameters of what interactive storytelling can be. Companies like Annapurna Pictures are starting departments for VR films and flirting with interactive storytelling. We also had experiences in 2014 like Gone Home that challenged the definition of games as well. Do we need to have a discussion about the value of these kinds of experiences? Yes. Do we perhaps need a different category for experiences like this? Maybe. But the glee with which we tear developers down needs to stop. Artists must be allowed to experiment. It is only from that experimentation that we find new experiences to enjoy and move the medium forward.

Would you guys say that this is a tech demo? Worth putting 60 bucks on?

An interactive movie. I'd say 34.99-39.99 would be a perfect price for it. I only paid $16 for it, but if you've got money to burn, you won't regret it.

 

[Lovely Salsa]

Would you guys say that this is a tech demo? Worth putting 60 bucks on?

 

[Dragonborn]

Reviewing games you bought introduces bias too. Because you start thinking about value for money, which varies based on how much you earn and how you grew up. It even tempts you to justify your purchase and color your experience. Everything has it's own pros and cons. You aren't solving any problems. You are just creating new ones. There's no such thing as "bias free". The only thing we can hope is that there is no blatant corruption. And if that's what you are accusing reviewers of, then you need proof. Not to mention the fact that most gaming websites and independent reviewers run on average to low income and can't possibly afford all the games to review. This is a necessary evil and we simply have to look past it. Or we send all reviewers to their extinction and rely on strangers on internet forums, whose tastes and bias we don't fully understand.

And they'd be free to do that. I've no issue with reviewers taking value into account if they're using their own money.

They're businesses, that is what they do. If they can't afford it then they go out of business.

Yeah, and people who review cars should have to buy each one before reviewing them. Same for thousand dollar electronics, right? Review copies don't introduce bias. And having to buy your own copy of the game doesn't remove bias.

I'd say there's a difference between a $60 video game and an electronic that costs thousands of dollars but hey, what do I know.

I'm pretty sure these sites make more than an enough to afford one copy of the game.

 

[Gestault]

Um, what?

I don't even know how to respond to that. Reviewers should be as bias free as possible. Having to rely on game publishers (be it ads or whatever) introduces Bias. Have review were buy their own games and then review It. Problem solved

This right here is why I take as much issue with the other side if the gamergate fiasco. And here I thought I could avoid it entirely by ignoring the threads.

The Gamergate allusion was because your underlying point, that "there's too much inbreeding going on in the games media" is almost exactly the description used in that movement, and without substantiation, comes across just as spurious.

The exchange started because you quoted and cheered the comment from the Sony Santa Monica staffer who suggested developers/publishers should react to negative reviews by pulling advertising and not sending review copies anymore. You're now saying you think review copies and ads should be completely separate from the review process, which we all agree on. Remember when I wrote this? It's because I think review copies shouldn't be determined by the content of a review. Which is why people were so thrown by your original quote and cheer of support toward someone who specifically wanted to manipulate others by abusing that process.

I'm pretty sure these sites make more than an enough to afford one copy of the game.

I think you underestimate the expenses from stocking review titles for many sites, relative to their size and resources.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Please, can you stop taking what I say and twisting it around? They don't even have to write a detailed write up, they can just post whatever and give it a score. Especially when it comes to first party games, fanboys go in there and give a game a 0 for the heck of it. Evolve has a 4.4 user score on there more than likely due to its DLC controversies.

I'm not twisting your words, I'm trying get a hold on your logic.

You said it's a joke. Why? Because anyone can post to it. Same story anywhere on the Internet. But first party games and fanboyism... how is that different than anywhere else?

About Evolve, did you consider that how they locked away content behind grinding and monetary transactions maybe pissed a lot of people off? For a lot of people, a review isn't just about the individual gameplay mechanics, it's about the whole package. I know I certainly wrote off Evolve because of how they are handling the content. I'm not going to go review it, but I certainly won't be giving it the time of day.

Would you guys say that this is a tech demo? Worth putting 60 bucks on?

Definitely more substantial than a mere tech demo. More like a fleshed out proof of concept. A pitch to try and establish a new franchise.

It's hard to say whether it's work 60 bucks. If you're hurting for things to play and $60 isn't a lot of money to you, then go for it. If you're curious, but are happy to wait a while, I'd definitely hold off for a couple of weeks. It's hard to imagine a scenario where this won't be readily available for $40 or less in no time at all.

 

[Derpyduck]

And they'd be free to do that. I've no issue with reviewers taking value into account if they're using their own money.

They're businesses, that is what they do. If they can't afford it then they go out of business.



I'd say there's a difference between a $60 video game and an electronic that costs thousands of dollars but hey, what do I know.

I'm pretty sure these sites make more than an enough to afford one copy of the game.

Wait, so the chance for bias changes based on the price of the item? What's the price cutoff exactly?

 

[Squishy3]

Oh deary me, one of the Sony Santa Monica devs certainly got a bit upset

I imagine this is what was going through Eidos when they pulled the Kane and Lynch ads from Gamespot after Gerstmann's review, causing the new Gamespot management to fire him because he was "unreliable"

 

[Frillen]

Nah the gunplay is really fantastic.

It really is some of the best.

Gunplay is great but not far from the average. Have you actually played an Xbox or Nintendo exclusive ever in your life though? Just wondering.

 

[viveks86]

We don't fully understand "professional" reviewers either - that's fairly certain. But that's not the point - the point is the distinction being made. The difference between "reviewers" and your internet forumner is the platform in which their words written - nothing more.

No. There is more distinction than that. One gets paid to do the job and can be criticized if they don't. The other is not beholden to any standard and can spout whatever half baked crap they want. I can write an utterly crappy review and not be inundated by thousands of comments here and on twitter about how crappy my review is. Because it's not my job. To say professional reviews and user reviews have no distinction is a complete fallacy. Youtube doesn't change anything. The only thing it enables is to allow people to see for themselves. It doesn't magically boost the quality of the actual review. And if you think youtube is all we need to judge if a game is good and someone's opinion doesn't matter, then you are wrong about that too. Look at the amount of dumbass "impressions" we get in this thread based on leaked footage. Watching a game being played can only take you so far.

You have a guy like PewdiePie and other youtube celebrities garner millions of views to each of their videos - marketing should be paying A LOT of attention to them - not so much babying up some random site with a user base getting warped by a single guy on Youtube.

If PewdiePie is your example for the quality of output to expect, then I'm glad that publishers are babying up "random" sites.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

Please, can you stop taking what I say and twisting it around? They don't even have to write a detailed write up, they can just post whatever and give it a score. Especially when it comes to first party games, fanboys go in there and give a game a 0 for the heck of it. Evolve has a 4.4 user score on there more than likely due to its DLC controversies.

The User Score is separate from the Critics score, and the Critics Score is used as the official Metacritic rating, not the User Score.

 

[GnawtyDog]

I imagine this is what was going through Eidos when they pulled the Kane and Lynch ads from Gamespot after Gerstmann's review, causing the new Gamespot management to fire him because he was "unreliable"

More like Gamespot being a sellout. Eidos can do whatever it wants with its money.

 

[WordsintheWater]

I'm not twisting your words, I'm trying get a hold on your logic.

You said it's a joke. Why? Because anyone can post to it. Same story anywhere on the Internet. But first party games and fanboyism... how is that different than anywhere else?

About Evolve, did you consider that how they locked away content behind grinding and monetary transactions maybe pissed a lot of people off? For a lot of people, a review isn't just about the individual gameplay mechanics, it's about the whole package. I know I certainly wrote off Evolve because of how they are handling the content. I'm not going to go review it, but I certainly won't be giving it the time of day.

Anyone can post on it, fanboys go in there and mess up the overall score all the time, people don't even write a review most of the time, they just say something like "this game sucks"

My point with Evolve is if you don't like the DLC situation and without having played the game I can go drop a 0 on it on metacritic, there are some sad individuals that waste their time with that shit. I think it's a joke, you don't, move on and enjoy using user reviews on metacritic as a good indication on the quality of a game.

 

[Dragonborn]

Wait, so the chance for bias changes based on the price of the item? What's the price cutoff exactly?

It understandable if a website can't afford to buy every new thousand dollar electronic or 30,000 dollar car. But I'll say again, it's pretty different from buying a $60 game every other week.

The Gamergate allusion was because your underlying point, that "there's too much inbreeding going on in the games media" is almost exactly the description used in that movement, and without substantiation, comes across just as spurious.

The exchange started because you quoted and cheered the comment from the Sony Santa Monica staffer who suggested developers/publishers should react to negative reviews by pulling advertising and not sending review copies anymore. You're now saying you think review copies and ads should be completely separate from the review process, which we all agree on. Remember when I wrote this? It's because I think review copies shouldn't be determined by the content of a review. Which is why people were so thrown by your original quote and cheer of support toward someone who specifically wanted to manipulate others by abusing that process.

Sure, but that's clearly not what gamergate is anymore. As far as I know it's been taking over by women hating cyber bullies and, frankly, insane people. You can understand why I take huge issue with me being in any way equated to such a thing.

Perhaps jumping on my point from that specific pic of the tweet wasn't the best idea, but my point still stands.

By inbreeding I mean that the game press and game pubs are to entwined. The same people covering games also review them. Many of them end up working with the game developers/pubs. that kind of stuff.

Now, that said, they are free to continue doing so. I stopped relying on review scores ages ago when it became clear that they were useless. Watching gameplay, hearing and reading impressions from frinds and fellow gamers, and if there is one, playing a demo are all better ways to figure out whether or not I want a game

 

[WordsintheWater]

The User Score is separate from the Critics score, and the Critics Score is used as the official Metacritic rating, not the User Score.

I know that, I don't understand why you quoted me to say that. I'm just saying the user score isn't reliable.

 

[Squishy3]

More like Gamespot being a sellout. Eidos can do whatever it wants with its money.

And they can rightfully do so, but I also have the right to criticize them for their decision to pull ad revenue and Gamespot's management for firing someone over it.

I think the more baffling thing is why a senior combat designer would make these statements. He's so far removed from the PR side of things.

 

[Frillen]

Please, can you stop taking what I say and twisting it around? They don't even have to write a detailed write up, they can just post whatever and give it a score. Especially when it comes to first party games, fanboys go in there and give a game a 0 for the heck of it. Evolve has a 4.4 user score on there more than likely due to its DLC controversies.

Just as fanboys from the opposite side go in there and give the same game a 10/10. It works both ways.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Anyone can post on it, fanboys go in there and mess up the overall score all the time, people don't even write a review most of the time, they just say something like "this game sucks"

My point with Evolve is if you don't like the DLC situation and without having played the game I can go drop a 0 on it on metacritic, there are some sad individuals that waste their time with that shit. I think it's a joke, you don't, move on and enjoy using user reviews on metacritic as a good indication on the quality of a game.

I just disagree with calling the whole thing a joke when there are often hundreds if not thousands of individuals posting there. Obviously, the weaknesses in the system mean it shouldn't be used as proof of anything, but that doesn't mean it's completely useless in gauging the overall reception of a game.

Honestly, your appraisal of Metacritic user reviews is just about as nuanced as the "this game sucks" opinions that you seem to be so displeased about.

 

[WordsintheWater]

Just as fanboys from the opposite side go in there and give the same game a 10/10. It works both ways.

Did I say it didn't? That's why I said it's a joke, people go on there give it a 0, then someone else goes in there gives it a 10.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Guys, we need to remove the press from the review system, or at least tightly muzzle them. They say mean things about games I've already decided to hype myself into a state of frenzy over, based on the totally reliable information I've been spoon fed by an unbiased source which wants my money.

 

[viveks86]

They're businesses, that is what they do. If they can't afford it then they go out of business.

They are already doing that. By providing advertising space for content that is relevant to their readers. They are doing what a business does. You are the one asking them not to do it, because of some unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

 

[WordsintheWater]

I just disagree with calling the whole thing a joke when there are often hundreds if not thousands of individuals posting there. Obviously, the weaknesses in the system mean it shouldn't be used as proof of anything, but that doesn't mean it's completely useless in gauging the overall reception of a game.

Honestly, your appraisal of Metacritic user reviews is just about as nuanced as the "this game sucks" opinions that you seem to be so displeased about.

Listen man there are some decent people who write real reviews in there, not gonna dispute that, but I won't use user reviews in metacritic as any type of indication on the quality of the game. I'd rather read user impressions on here with people that have been posting for a while and can give details that give me a better indication if they played the game or not. If you don't understand that, cool.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

And they'd be free to do that. I've no issue with reviewers taking value into account if they're using their own money.

They're businesses, that is what they do. If they can't afford it then they go out of business.

Wait, what?

You're saying two different things there.

At most outlets, the person on staff that was tasked with reviewing the game is not "the business." Are you actually proposing that he or she be forced to spend money on the game out of his or her own pocket and not be reimbursed by his or her employer?

Listen man there are some decent people who write real reviews in there, not gonna dispute that, but I won't use user reviews in metacritic as any type of indication on the quality of the game. I'd rather read user impressions on here with people that have been posting for a while and can give details that give me a better indication if they played the game or not. If you don't understand that, cool.

Talk about twisting words. Read my post again. I said it's not useless as a means to get a gauge on the overall reception of a game. I didn't say anything about a game's objective quality (which can't be reliably appraised by any single person except in very limited terms).

Maybe this is the divider between people like me who don't really care about reviews and those who take great offense at them. On our side, we see the reviews for what they are--opinions about one's time with a game, complete with subjectivity and any number of possible biases or preconceptions. Those who take offense, on the other hand, must be seeing reviews as definitive statements about a game's quality and thus feel the need to lash out when their views don't align.

 

[cool_dude]

some good news. I sold my copy for £35 making a £10 profit.

Any place online to check how many people have returned/resold their copy within a week of purchase? I'm thinking this game will have the record or close to.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

Um, no. How about have the reviewers buy their own stuff?

Most people want a sense of what the game is like before it comes out since many pre-order them. How does needing to buy it yourself help this?

 

[Derpyduck]

Anyone can post on it, fanboys go in there and mess up the overall score all the time, people don't even write a review most of the time, they just say something like "this game sucks"

My point with Evolve is if you don't like the DLC situation and without having played the game I can go drop a 0 on it on metacritic, there are some sad individuals that waste their time with that shit. I think it's a joke, you don't, move on and enjoy using user reviews on metacritic as a good indication on the quality of a game.

Likewise fanboys go in there and say 10/10 this game is amazing! Regardless of having played it. A good barometer for me on PS4 and Xbox are review score averages on the console itself, where the user must have bought the game to rate it. I've found that pretty much any game that doesn't have at least part of the 5th star colored in on PS4 is mediocre and not worth my money at full price. It's weird that 4 out of 5 would be mediocre, but with how people score games on the console, it works out that way(for me. For you it may be different). A turd like Tetris Ultimate is 4 stars for example.

 

[Apath]

Did I say it didn't? That's why I said it's a joke, people go on there give it a 0, then someone else goes in there gives it a 10.

People should always look at user reviews Rotten Tomatoes style, with a 5.0 being neutral and a 7.5 meaning the majority of people liked it.

 

[Welfare]

Oh deary me, one of the Sony Santa Monica devs certainly got a bit upset

Oh no! An above average score! Why do we send review copies? They might hurt our sales!

 

[Apath]

Oh no! An above average score! Why do we send review copies? They might hurt our sales!

In what world is a 6/10 an above average score? When you got a D on a test, did you recline back in your seat and smile, content you did "above average"?

 

[WordsintheWater]

Wait, what?

You're saying two different things there.

At most outlets, the person on staff that was tasked with reviewing the game is not "the business." Are you actually proposing that he or she be forced to spend money on the game out of his or her own pocket and not be reimbursed by his or her employer?



Talk about twisting words. Read my post again. I said it's not useless as a means to get a gauge on the overall reception of a game. I didn't say anything about a game's objective quality (which can't be reliably appraised by any single person except in very limited terms).

Maybe this is the divider between people like me who don't really care about reviews and those who take great offense at them. On our side, we see the reviews for what they are--opinions about one's time with a game, complete with subjectivity and any number of possible biases or preconceptions. Those who take offense, on the other hand, must be seeing reviews as definitive statements about a game's quality and thus feel the need to lash out when their views don't align.

Dude I don't care about reviews, far from it, I play every game I'm interested in despite the scores. The Order has a 65 on metacritic, oh well, I personally enjoyed it more than most, my most enjoyable experience this gen. If I cared I would have been bitching in here about reviews and I haven't, all I've said is that the 2 out of 5's and the 1 out of 5's I don't understand, but it sitting at a 65 is perfectly understandable. I just don't trust overall metacritic user reviews that's all.

 

[Toxi]

Um, no. How about have the reviewers buy their own stuff?

Because what the world needs is reviews coming out days after the game launches.

Let's just go all-in on pre-order culture. No reviews at all, people just blind buy games and hope they don't buy shit.