Support NeoGAF

[danielJackson]

I dont even remember when I have checked game reviews, I just buy the game if it sounds interesting.

Some people are sheeps, they like things only if others like them

 

[GametimeUK]

1. People like to see their favourite games get the recognition they deserve.

2. People like to celebrate the failure of games they dislike.

3. People want ammo to use in platform wars.

4. People like to use the scores to validate their own opinion.

I personally use it sometimes as a quick way to see if a game is worth my time, but it's not necessarily a correct way of doing things. One of my fave games is Skater XL and the metacritic score for that game is trash.

 

[phil_t98]

I think the main problem is people review bomb any controversial game (or movie etc.) without playing it on user review sights. Be it something for social issues or plot dislikes like TLOU2 or the buggy mess Cyberpunk was on consoles etc. Conversely, you have fanboys 10/10ing exclusives for ”their” platform on user review sites. Reviewers, at least for major sites/outlets, you can be sure have at least played the game.

That said, I don’t give professional any more credence than say a GAF poster who’s clearly played the game and takes the time to write out some lengthy and articulate thoughts on what they liked and disliked. In general I don’t pay too much scores, be it user scores, critical scores or forum posters tossing out scores. I want to read longer form reviews/impressions and offers good detail on likes and dislikes that I can read and see how those mesh with my preferences and pet peeves.

As above, I don’t see much utility for meta scores other than something surprisingly high or low likely making me want to read more reviews and decide whether I want to check it out myself and/or whether it’s worthy paying a premium to check out myself at full price vs. waiting given how fast prices drop and how many games hit Gamepass and other services eventually.

well said, as you pointed out the fanboy reviews will always counter the troll reviews, I never use Meta for any game purchase. if I like the look of a game I get it if I dont I leave it alone.

yeah I have bought a few bad games here and there but you have to play them to realise how good the good games are.

on a side note how many people use IMDB to look at reviews before watching a movie? kinda the same thing

 

[Arkam]

People like MetaCritic because it is simple. Many people out there have no interest in reading reviews and having to think critically. They want a number that just says "good" or "bad". Its the same way the masses obsess over tech specs yet do not understand hardly any of them. they just know bigger numbers are "better". We see it here all day with console specs.

Of course it all boils down to purchase justification. People make a purchase and want to have a data point that screams "I was right!" Often skewing reality to support this farcical narrative.

So is MC bad or flawed? Not really. The consumer of that data is where the flaw is IMO.

 

[uncleslappy]

I care only because I'm in a fantasycritic.games league this year!

 

[InfiniteCombo]

Looking at the Medium reviews I’ve noticed a lot of toxic gamers

That's your problem right there. Don't pay attention to "toxic gamers."

I don't much care, on a personal level, for Metacritic scores. However, they are a very useful, 2-second look at the general consensus for a game, and infinitely better than some random forum poster's hyperbolic "this game is shit"/"this game is the best thing since sliced bread" drive-by stuff that I see all the time.

At the end of the day, if I'm curious enough about a game I will read my own trusted sources. And my own experiences can sometimes be very different. To me personally, Super Mario Odyssey is not a 97 (more like an 80), and Resident Evil 3 Remake is not an 84 (more like a 95). But the fact that they're 97 and 84 in Metacritic does not bother me one bit, since I can objectively accept that as the critical consensus.

 

[Concern]

Looking at the Medium reviews I’ve noticed a lot of toxic gamers taking about how important a stupid score is for a game and how it reflects on their lives, I’m sorry for being dramatic but if you on Twitter and YouTube (where 90% of toxic gamers are) you’ll see tweets like this. I don’t know if I’m the only one but I find this to be obnoxious and want to know why people find this obsession with some fucking score on a website? Can anyone give me an explanation. Because damn I’ve never seen so much cringe.

I bet you that champ had no issue paying $50 for an 8 hour standalone dlc .

But to be honest whether i disagree or I agree with dumb posts like this. I don't mind them, especially towards Microsoft. It'll make them step up harder.

 

[Moogle11]

well said, as you pointed out the fanboy reviews will always counter the troll reviews, I never use Meta for any game purchase. if I like the look of a game I get it if I dont I leave it alone.

yeah I have bought a few bad games here and there but you have to play them to realise how good the good games are.

on a side note how many people use IMDB to look at reviews before watching a movie? kinda the same thing

People are just always going to have their own budgets--both money wise and time wise--that impact how much vetting they want to do before buying/playing a game, watching a movie etc. People with tons of time and money are probably more apt to just try things themselves and those lacking either or both are probably going to seek out more reviews, impressions etc. to guide them. If someone can only afford a few games a year, they need to make their purchases count, someone that struggles to find a break to watch movie a week is going to want to avoid things they end up not liking vs. someone who does Netflix and chill most nights etc.

For me, I have plenty of time and money, but as I've decided to be more frugal I'm much more selective about what I buy, especially for full price at or near launch. So I'll read up a lot before a day one purchase, unless it's a sequel to a favorite game/franchise from a trusted developer etc. as those are pretty safe bets for me in my experience. For things on Gamepass, or dirt cheap in sales when I'm considering them? Those I'll likely just take the chance.

 

[packy34]

They use it to validate their own tastes and opinions. It doesn't help that the industry also uses it as a barometer for success, still frequently tying bonuses to MC scores.

 

[Topher]

There is metacritic the buying guide and there is a metacritic the scoreboard. The metacritic buying guide is a useful tool. The metacritic scoreboard is just a tool for bragging and trash talk.

 

[NullZ3r0]

GamePass has made Metacritic useless to me. There's no longer any risk to just playing videogames.

 

[Topher]

GamePass has made Metacritic useless to me. There's no longer any risk to just playing videogames.

Which works fine if you only play games available on Game Pass.

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

There is metacritic the buying guide and there is a metacritic the scoreboard. The metacritic buying guide is a useful tool. The metacritic scoreboard is just a tool for bragging and trash talk.

I only use it to know what games do release to stay up to date. Sadly, a lot of older systems are missing.

 

[Saber]

Can't say I'm obssessed, but I use scores to create a base for the game so I can question the results. Mainly a follow up questions with research after:

Why the game score so low? I find myself the answer by seeing gameplay/walkthrought videos, commentaries for why people disliked this game and then decide myself if its bad or not

Why the game score so high? This one is trickier, because instead of looking for why its good, its better to find any dirty on those games. Never know the game has a terrible mechanic or anything and people are just faking it.

 

[ACESHIGH]

Metacritic is not a problem. Reviewers are. Most game reviewers are hollywood rejects that long for the day where videogames are as "respected" as movies.

One of the platform holders makes games that cater to these type of reviewers.

Review scores are just a guide but nowadays it's better to watch gameplay.

 

[nikolino840]

 

[Dunki]

Because it influences game developers and Publishers in Their contract you often have a average metacritic score to get a bonus etc. The most famous one was Fallout New Vegas which was promised to give the Developer a Bonus if it reaches a score 0f 85. In the end some reviews were terrible and some did not even play the actualy game or at least you can assume that when you read their reviews. The game got a 84 average. No bons. people had to leave the company and a big AAA title was cancelt as well because of it.

These so called "critics" have way too much influence on these things even though they are becoming less and less important for sales of games.

 

[MeteorVII]

Because human beings as a species are fully braindead and desperately need the validation of others in order to survive.

If their favourite product isn’t as loved by others, then they’ll denounce their own individuality and love for that product in order to fit in with the rest.

 

[Kumomeme]

like people obsessed with smartphone's megapixel number and ram size. peoples especially casuals love simple number despite in reality there more to that.

 

[Rambotito]

I don't place too much importance on Metacritic. Honestly, all of my favorite games get scores in the 70s. Most game reviewers spend a small amount of time with the game before rushing to publish their score. Sometimes I will parse through the reviews looking for mentions of performance issues, and then I will check out a gameplay video on Youtube. If you are getting a new system, it might be worth it to check out the top 10 games with the highest Metascore but other than that I don't pay too much attention to what they say.

 

[JLB]

Masculinity crisis. Same thing that happens with kids when they start measuring their dicks.

 

[Sander Cohen]

Because I really really don’t wanna spend my hard-earned money on trash, average, below average, mediocre and most of the time above average games. Only really quality AAA stuff for me. Since I buy physical, sure, I could always resell them but I also don’t have time to play average stuff, only 85+.

PS Plus is there to try games I would never in my right mind buy.

 

[CitizenZ]

Are you new to Neogaf? In laymens terms, and i do emphasis lame, its is the end all crowning benchmark for Corp slaves to discuss a game that will be more likely dead in a week.

 

[Corgi1985]

Ever since the shills at ign gave pokemon sword a fucking 9.3, scores have been meaningless.

 

[DrumNBassDanTTV]

i decide myself if i like a game or not, i dont take notice of any types of reviews.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Small penis.

 

[Futaleufu]

Console wars ammo

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Because grown up men are insecure as fuck and want to warant that their video game purchase was a good investment.

First post dropping truth bombs.

 

[Outlier]

Because man people (in one way or another) are size queens/kings.

The bigger the number on our team (compared to the other team), then we think we're happier.

 

[Umbasaborne]

It all boils down to console wars, which further boils down to tribalism. People always seek out a rival, or a counter in society. Good vs bad, black vs white, dems vs republicans, us vs russia, films vs books, and most pertinant to this, the product i like vs the product you like. When some people buy a console, they feel they are on a team because of the admittedly toxic rhetoric around these boxes online. So for exclusive games, a bad or a good metascore could be viewed as a “win” or a “loss” for your favorite team. Sports fans, and comic book fans do the same thing. So when an xbox game has a lower metascore than a playstation game. Ps fans celebrate, because it means there team is still winning, same when the sitatuation is flipped.

i hope that explains it well. I honestly think console warz, and tribalism in general is sort of fascinating. Most adults know the behavior is pointless and stupid, but for some sub conscious reason a lot of people engage in it anyway, myself included.

 

[HeresJohnny]

People put way too much stock in metacritic and corporate reviews in general. I think word of mouth and you tubers are far better sources for deciding on what to buy.

 

[Evren01]

I don't care metascores if I like it. Quantum Break's meta was 66 on pc yet I enjoyed playing, for example.

There may various reasons of meta obsession, a console or pc fan may want to take advantage of low meta scores against other systems fans for example, or their ideas may be effected by other people scores/comments etc. I think we can't stick to a spesific reason about that.

 

[THEAP99]

Because metacritic is the best way to aggregate vetted reviews into an objective number

 

[Forsythia]

I've never looked at metacritic, I don't need it to know if a game is fun or not. I rather watch people play and form an opinion of my own. The score is irrelevant. In my eyes metacritic is for fanboys and that's it.

 

[Mozzarella]

Its used to own the other in arguments lol, nothing else.
Metacritic is more a marketing than actual quality, they dont use the full 1-10 scale anyway so anything that gets below 80 should immediately be alarming and im not meaning it that its 100% bad but usually there is some big issues here, but some rare cases the game is just too deep for causal journalists with no eye for ART.
Metacritic cherry picks reviews, some are legit and some are written by clowns.
The user score used to be good but recently it has become a place to whine about anything, like for example if Fromsoft makes Elden Ring and it turns out to be bad, the users of Metacritic will go to every game made by them to tell us how Elden Ring was bad, so its actually meaningless lol, the review context is also rarely worth reading, most of the time its copy pasta and dumb shit only morons will say.

 

[Null Persp]

I only check steam reviews and read impressions online, a lot of games with high metacritic are usually overrated.