• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Do you care about Metacritic?

I do use Metacritic quite a bit, but I use a blend of 75% public opinion-25% professional. There have been times when the general public places high marks on a game when the professional reviewers don't, and it turns out the general public was right. So if I see a game get like a 70-75 on Metacritic, but the user review scores it an 8.0 or higher, for example, I may be more inclined to try the game out.
 
Not at all. Only visiting it when people link to it through some "this game is the best now because it have passed OoT on it".

If it disappeared tomorrow I would not even notice.
 
Yes but I also pay attention to the user score as well which is usually a good indication if the metacritic score is agreeable with actual players or not. I also presume western outlets overscore western games and underscore Japanese games so factor that in as well.
 
I only really pay attention to MC when the score is abysmally low, like less than 60. If a game is in the red, that probably means there's something fundamentally wrong with it, especially considering how inflated game scores are.

I don't even care much if a game has a really high metascore anymore; Uncharted 4 being the highest rated game of 2016 pretty much confirmed to me that I'm on a completely different wavelength than mainstream critics. Doesn't help that a lot of mainstream publications will refuse to give certain IPs (Mario, Zelda, Uncharted, Rockstar Games in general) less than a 9 out of fear that fanboys will send their families death threats.
 
Yes, because there is hardly demos anymore and games are expensive.
If you dont look at the reviews, its a big risk to buy. Games that get low scores i usually buy in sales.
 
No, not at all.

I worked at GameStop for 8 years and paid a lot of attention to Metacritic scores in order to sell certain games. Somewhere along the line, I realized that it was only very rarely that my own tastes aligned with that of official reviews. Was kind of a bummer recommending games that I knew I personally would never play myself or tell any of my friends to. I got a real bad case of "stop liking what I don't like" for some of it. Now that I'm free of GS, I find some peace in being able to ignore critics and do my own thing.
 
I use it sometimes.

Pre-release I tend to follow impressions threads and get a general idea of whether I want the game or not. There are then review threads on here.

I will tend to go to meta critic for games that are already out or that I have missed, like some of the PS+ games and things like that. I will use it as a guide. If something is in one of my sub packages and I know nothing of the game, it generally doesn't look too interesting and has a meta of 60 or under I won't touch it. I apply this rule due to the limited gaming time that I have.
 
It could sell me on a game I'm not sure about, like Nioh, but if I'm hyped for a game it has to get like below 60 on metacritic with a lot of reviews to deter me from at least trying to the game. Form your own opinions everyone!
 
I don't care about the metascore. I still use the site because it shows you who gave it a low score so that I can go read about the possible negatives I might have with the game.
 
I've checked it maybe 6-7 times ever, so no not really. I rely FAR more on youtube gameplay vids and reviews, and what's being said here on Neogaf.

Plus, I'll generally know if I'm going to like a game or not anyway. Youtube and Neogaf is just a comfirmation,
 
I use it to ponder how mediocre games get such high scores.

Partially serious note, I don't care at all for metacritic or review scores in general because a number isn't insightful to a game's quality.
 
Only check it for games I have absolutely no clue about especially if it's on sale somewhere and I need to check how it reviewed at a glance.
 
Buttonbasher said:
Lord no. I always think it's wild to see people trying to guess the number in advance too. Review scores mean very little to me, and to see people get so invested in guessing them, and the metacritic number always really rubs me the wrong way.
Click to expand...

I find guessing the score a concern because I wonder if this mentality bleeds into reviewers scores

They might think a game is a 9/10 to them, but they might predict the meta will only be 80, so maybe they'll give the game a 10/10 as they want to move the meta closer to what they believe it's rightful score is
 
I do to some extent. If a hyped game from a top studio starts getting 65 on Metacritic as opposed to the usual 80+, I'm almost certain to stay away.

Generally, I know what series I like, so I don't check reviews. But for something new, then yes, I use Metacritic.
 
I don't look at Metacritic often. Only on occasion to see how a game I'm curious about did. It carries little weight in my decision making when it comes to purchases as I don't care about the majority of the sites that contribute their reviews.
 
franklyshankly said:
Is Roger Ebert's opinion about a movie worth more to people than mine? Of course it is even though we are both just one person. There's an obvious reason why people value of the opinion of an outlet like IGN over the opinion of biogamergirl. But like I said the end result is 1 or 2% difference anyway so who really cares.
Click to expand...

Its fine if people do that themself. But a site that collects all reviews shouldnt put up a extra multiplier on that.
 
Not at all.

Games don't have to be 9/10 for me. Some 7/10 games can be a great experience if they do a certain thing really well or unique. I don't mind if a game has a few faults.
 
I don't obsess over it, but I think it's a handy tool, an easy way to gauge the temperature as it were.

I'll open up a game on metacritic, and open any reviewers I'm familiar with, as well as a selection from the upper and lower bounds just to get differing opinions on a title. I think the industry overvalues it as a whole, but I feel like that's scaled back a bit in recent years.

Theorry said:
Its fine if people do that themself. But a site that collects all reviews shouldnt put up a extra multiplier on that.
Click to expand...

Why not? There's so many fly by night or borderline shill sites out there, they either need to be ignored or have their weights adjusted. Whenever a new AAA game gets released I feel like the initial reviews that hit are all from smaller outlets and almost exclusively very high scores.
 
Yes. I'd rather not spend time and money buying a game I have a low chance of enjoying. At least if the game has a high critic and user score and it looks good to me I haver a much higher chance of not wasting time and money.

There are some exceptions though like franchises I've been invested in for years like Halo, I will buy it regardless.
 
Don't think I've checked scores on Metacritic in over 5 years, and even then I was barely skimming just for curiosity's sake. I tend to see the temperature of a game I'm interested in based off the response on GAF and others whose game tastes are similar to my own and then make my judgement off that.
 
No lol. Aggregations of opinions of people who I care very little about. There are a few reviewers who's opinions align with mine, so I tend to go to them, everyone else is pointless.

It's like asking 100 people how many jelly beans there are in a jar. They'll all guess, but that doesn't make the average of their guesses meaningful.
 
It is just another datapoint to use when deciding if I should play a game or not. Time is precious and I want to spend my limited time playing games I enjoy, preferably with friends.
 
Yes.

Metacritic average score is the closest you will get to an objective appraisal of a game. I'm not saying that critic reviews are objective but the collated, aggregrated scores from reviewers is in my experience more useful as to the indication of a games quality than for example the consensus here on Neogaf. Don't get me wrong, I still value the views of people on this site, just that I come across too much much subjectivity at times. People who play a game for 1 hour, discard it and fail too mention it before proclaiming said game too be 'crap', that kind of thing.
Outside of Neogaf it's much, much worse - look at Metacritic, Amazon and other user ratings to see what I mean.
 
oni-link said:
Does a games Meta score ever inform your decision to buy a game, or do you use it mainly as a point of reference, or as something to gauge a games general reception?
Click to expand...
As something to gauge a games general reception. Only affects my decision to buy if I'm not very hyped about the game, it gets very low metascore and I have other recent games to play that I know I'll like.

oni-link said:
Do you take any pride in seeing a game you enjoy get a good Metacritic rating, or do you get annoyed when a game you enjoy ends up with a disappointing score?
Click to expand...
Both
 
Cleve said:
Why not? There's so many fly by night or borderline shill sites out there, they either need to be ignored or have their weights adjusted. Whenever a new AAA game gets released I feel like the initial reviews that hit are all from smaller outlets and almost exclusively very high scores.
Click to expand...

Like that doesnt happen with big sites. He people even dont take a review serious if its from Gies over at Kotaku. Or didnt take it serious after they saw him play Doom. Giving a multiplier to "big sites" is just wrong. And what qualifies as a big site.
 
I haven't looked at a review score for any game in the last two years. I generally rely on giantbomb/gaf for opinions and videos.
 
Metacritic is just what the industry as a whole thinks about a game and that can be useful at times. Though games shouldn't be defined by a single number. Just because a game receives an 80 doesn't mean it's nowhere near as good as game that receives a 90. Especially from any review site that I don't recognize. Seriously I didn't even know half these review sites existed.

People should read the content of the reviews, find reviewers they trust, and make more informed decisions. Based on what they have read. Honestly I don't trust most reviews because I don't really know the reviewer's tastes. It's why I find Giantbomb reviews trust worthy because they are so candid about their likes and dislikes and try to play games that they are almost specialized in.

Though there will always just be a demographic that will pick up a game/movie/book based on aggregated score alone.
 
I use it religiously for purchases that I'm interested in. It never really fails me. I don't follow it in a sense where I believe 1 game is better than the other because it scored higher, but if it scores well in general then that's a blatant sign of the games quality in my opinion.
 
ITT everybody proclaiming they couldn't care less about Metacritic while the aggregates are obviously very closely followed by all.

It's a good site when you acknowledge its limitations
 
Honestly? I do, mainly because I like to see good games rewarded with good critical reviews. It is not a the be all end all though by any means.
 
Sometimes.

I usually read the reviews from reviewers I like, look at averages, look at gameplay, and take that all into account. One significant thing is that it's quite obvious that people do care about reviews, maybe not specifically metacritic, but the reception of a game clearly influences its success, therefore if a game is multiplayer focused the metascore can be useful to estimate whether people will be playing it in the months to come.

Generally speaking if a triple A title has less than 75 or so on metacritic, it's unlikely to have a healthy online population. Of course there are some exceptions, some genres have lower critical standards, some games have appeal outside of the actual game content (like Starwars Battelfront, or Destiny). So the scoring influences new or lesser known IPs much more than others.

64bitbros said:
Not at all.

Games don't have to be 9/10 for me. Some 7/10 games can be a great experience if they do a certain thing really well or unique. I don't mind if a game has a few faults.
Click to expand...

I think between 10 and 7 out of 10 are the range in which games can still be successful. So saying you don't look at critical averages yet saying you play games ranging from 9 to 7 out of 10 comes across as quite contradictory. Even metacritic itself doesn't say that 7/10 games are bad.
 
Yep, it's a useful tool for gaining a quick snap shot of a game's general reception amongst reviewers and users. Look to those review sites you respect, and read the user gripes and it's very handy.

Its certainly no more fallible or irrelevant than forum feedback on Gaf or the like.
 
I don't care for reviews and they have no say in my purchase. I come from an era where, looking at the back of the box was your only clue about the game. Streaming doesn't help the reviewer either, it only hurts them as you see 90% of these reviewers really can't play the game they are reviewing. I don't even read reviews, I only check out previews of the game.
 
I couldn't care less about it when making buying decisions- an average of all outlets is worthless to me when most of those reviewers I have no time for, I only really give credence to the few reviewers I've generally found to have similar tastes as me.

However, Metacritic does have it's specific uses when referring to what the general critical reception of a game was in a discussion on here. Someone can't really claim a game was a critical failure if Metacritic says the opposite, and vice versa.
 
I'll give it a quick look as a starting point when looking at a game. I'll read over the high reviews and the low ones then go from there, usually to GAF threads. When a game comes out and GAF obsesses over its fluctuating meta score, like "IGN's late review can bump it to 85 guys!", I find that a bit disturbing.
 
I used to a lot back when more games were coming out that interested me, but for the last several years I've pretty much already known what I want to buy. I have used it a couple times recently to make a purchase decision but they were games I didn't know much about and was only buying since I had Gamefly $5 coupon. In one case I wanted to make sure I wasn't buying a broken piece of garbage (Legend of Kay) and in another to see if it was different enough from other games in the franchise that I might like it better (MH: Generations).
 
Review scores have zero influence over whether or not I buy a game.

Having said that, I know the exact metacritic of like a hundred games because I've spent so much time in GAF's hilarious metacritic meltdown threads. If a highly anticipated console exclusive gets low scores it's like watching people react to 9/11 all over again.
 
I always check MC before buying a game. It helps a lot. But I do more research than just checking the average score of a game, which also helps!
 
I care about some reviews and it's nice to see a game you highly anticipate get very good reviews in general but I laugh hysterically at those that follow it so closely to the end or care that much what it finishes at as if it's a score of a game their favorite team is involved in.
 
I used to check Metacritic in the past to have an idea but for a long time now, no, I don´t care. Many of my favorite games were around 60 while a lot of 85-90´s I didn´t enjoy at all.

In fact I don´t even care for professional reviews anymore. If some game interests me, I usually check for some impressions here on GAF just to see if there are glaring issues with the game and that´s about it.

Metacritic has zero weight in my buying decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

What do you prioritise the most about gaming?
2
71
1K
taylorr56 replied
What Do You Love or Hate About Indie Games?"l
Opinion  2
54
568
Guilty_AI replied
  • Locked
  • Poll
Predict Resident Evil Requiem Metacritic Score
4
446
Roman Empire replied
  • Poll
What do you think about Metcacritic?
2
72
1K
PlayStaytion replied
MetaCritic removes AI written Resident Evil Requiem Reviews
News 
14
539
simpatico replied
Top Bottom