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

Looks like Metacritic is starting to delay user reviews

So.. the main question is, do people need to play a game to be able to vote accurately?

or is the fact that I don't want to play a game, as a matter of fact dislike it enough to use time and effort to vote.. not also a valid opinion?

If a game actively disgusts me and I give it a 0.. isn't that a true and honest representation of what I feel about it? A game can't be any worse than making me go "I don't want to play this".

Why do I need to play something I don't want to play, just to be able to give my opinion on it? If it's so bad for me, I don't even want to spend the time to try. Why is it not ok to express that?
 
Last edited:
Echelon said:
"censor"

transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable


This action is clearly being undertaken to suppress voicing negative opinions, which may or may not be justifiable prior or shortly after the release of a game. The definition and the word fit the bill. So it seems we do know what we're talking about, but maybe you need to look up bootlicker when you have a chance.
Click to expand...
Is this being used to "suppress negative opinions", or, prevent review bombings - if only for the opening or early release period - from people who have never buy/play/watch the product in question?
Given that this process would impact positive user reviews as well, I'm not so sure that it's former. This is intended to represent the reviews from average people - it's not an expression of interest. It's intended for people who've experienced the thing and would like to express their opinion.
 
Last edited:
I think it would be a good idea to don't open the user reviews until a week after the game's release. In that way people would have time to play it, they buzz of the game due to launch and reviews would be off so the majority of the fanboy trolls who typically reviewbomb exclusives would be out of the question because they would be somewhere else.

It also would be great -but I think it may be too hard or not possible- to have to link your Steam/PSN/etc account to your metacritic user account to verify automatically that you completed the game though the typical trophy, or that you played it or X amount of time or at least (this is the most realistic one) that you own the game.

Another good idea would be to remove the average score of the user reviews because often is full of retarded fanboys giving 10s or 0s for games that clearly don't deserve them.

GreenAlien said:
So.. the main question is, do people need to play a game to be able to vote accurately?

or does the fact that I don't want to play a game, as a matter of fact dislike it enough to use time and effort to vote.. not also a valid opinion?

If a game actively disgusts me and I give it a 0.. isn't that a true and honest representation of what I feel about it? A game can't be any worse than making me go "I don't want to play this".

Why do I need to play something I don't want to play, just to be able to give my opinion on it? If it's so bad for me, I don't even want to spend the time to try. Why is it not ok to express that?
Click to expand...
You also could give a 0 because you don't like videogames and never played one. Same goes with people who don't like certain genres and never played them. So if you didn't play the game your opinion isn't relevant.

Reviews are supposed to be the opinion of the people who played the game, and if possible complete. To tell people who may be interested on them an idea of what people who played it thinks about the game on average.

It would be stupid and useless if I make a review of a golf club because I never played golf, or to make a review if I'm a golf player but never tried it. The people who should make reviews about golf clubs must be people who play golf and played with that club.

OutRun88 said:
"The only opinions you should care about are ones we have paid for" - Game Publishers
Click to expand...
An opinion is one thing and a review of a product is another one. You're free to post in social media, forums and so on your opinion of a game you never played. But I think that to review a game should be for the ones who played it.
 
Last edited:
ZehDon said:
Is this being used to "suppress negative opinions", or, prevent review bombings - if only for the opening or early release period - from people who have never buy/play/watch the product in question?
Given that this process would impact positive user reviews as well, I'm not so sure that it's former. This is intended to represent the reviews from average people - it's not an expression of interest. It's intended for people who've experienced the thing and would like to express their opinion.
Click to expand...

So what if people get their hands on copies of a game early? It happens pretty frequently. Should professional reviewers be banned from posting their opinions to so as not to influence a game unfairly in either direction before "normal people" have a chance to share their thoughts? How long should you be prevented from reviewing it? What if the game is only a couple of hours long? What if it's multiplayer only like Overwatch and you decide after a few matches that you completely hate it and want to share that opinion? Why prevent people from doing that other than the obvious, insidious answer?

I don't have a problem with review bombing. At worst, it's a bunch of useless noise that everyone will ignore anyways, at best, it draws attention to an issue with the game, whether it be the game itself, the studio, publisher, etc.
 
Last edited:
If the delay is for a full day, then I'm not super opposed to it. It does make me wonder if that duration will increase the more companies complain about the user reviews to Metacritic. (assuming that was what happened).
 
yurinka said:
You also could give a 0 because you don't like videogames and never played one. Same goes with people who don't like certain genres and never played them. So if you didn't play the game your opinion isn't relevant.
Click to expand...

I could also go "I don't like spiders, this games has spiders, saw it in a trailer 0/10".
..and someone interested in the game might read it and be like "Shit, I don't like spiders either. Thank god for that review."
---> Useful information was transmitted, despite not having played the game.
"This game has transphobic slurs in it 0/10"
---> ....
"SJW shit"
---> ....

Basically, if you are a fan of trigger warnings, allowing reviews for people who have not played the game makes a certain amount of sense...
 
Last edited:
Shouldn't there be some metrics that allow algorithms to clear out the shit reviews?

1) Spelling and grammar.
2) User history and score distribution.
3) Review length, vocabulary, and writing complexity.
4) User verification.

You don't need every users input.
 
If you were to take what Alanah Pearce has said about game reviews then most review sites are genuinely reliable, but she has addressed Metacritic which she said doesn't even factor in all critic scores, and is mostly based on biased opinions of both the fans, and the haters. She did a video about this on her channel, and I would recommend everyone give it a watch.
 
Echelon said:
So what if people get their hands on copies of a game early? It happens pretty frequently. Should professional reviewers be banned from posting their opinions to so as not to influence a game unfairly in either direction before "normal people" have a chance to share their thoughts? How long should you be prevented from reviewing it? What if the game is only a couple of hours long? What if it's multiplayer only like Overwatch and you decide after a few matches that you completely hate it and want to share that opinion? Why prevent people from doing that other than the obvious, insidious answer?

I don't have a problem with review bombing. At worst, it's a bunch of useless noise that everyone will ignore anyways, at best, it draws attention to an issue with the game, whether it be the game itself, the studio, publisher, etc.
Click to expand...
You're painfully focused on only negative reviews, which in itself demonstrates your inherent issue with this. "Insidious answer" also implies mal-intent - which you've failed to demonstrate, infer, or describe, given that positive reviews are also impacted, a fact that you laughably ignored. Twice.

Metacritic are potentially delaying user reviews until the thing has been out long enough for people to actually use the thing, in order to lower the impact of false reviews - positive or negative. They're not stopping user reviews. They're not cancelling user reviews. They're not halting negative reviews. They're not only allowing positive reviews. They're not forcing you to write something you don't agree with. They're not "bootlickers". They're not Nazis. They're not communists. They're not operating at the behest of China. They're not on the take from Donald Trump. They're not infected with "woke". They're not alt-right. They're not auth-left. They're not burning books. They're not murdering babies.
They're making you wait a day before you can post "Didn't like [thing] 0/10" or "Reddit told me to post 10/10" so that it carries marginally more meaning. How very "insidious".
 
yurinka said:
An opinion is one thing and a review of a product is another one. You're free to post in social media, forums and so on your opinion of a game you never played. But I think that to review a game should be for the ones who played it.
Click to expand...
You've completely missed the point of my post.
 
Last edited:
Just shows how fragile some of these developers and publishers and professional critics really are.

Oh no! The plebs are giving the newest critically acclaimed AAA title negative reviews! We must put a stop to this!

Fuck that. I see no reason to take user review SCORES seriously. Though I will often have a look to see what people are actually saying about a game.

Also if I see a big discrepancy in scores between users and reviewers I might have a look to see what drama has gone on there.

This "delay" system is bullshit because it gives the first "take" on a new game exclusively to paid critics who most likely got a free copy of the game.

Let the people post their reviews FFS.

All this because one game was heralded as the best thing ever and the scum wouldn't play ball and gave it a few zero out of ten reviews.

Wouldn't want to hurt that bottom line now, would we?
 
Echelon said:
Bwaaaaaaaahahahaha. Owned by CBS interactive, which owns GiantBomb, and Gamespot. Keep trying to censor the internet, Sony/Naughty Dog, see how that works out for you.
Click to expand...
It's not about censoring anything, it's about review bombing. Pipe down.
 
User reviews shouldn't be allowed for at least 2 or 3 days, if there hasn't been enough time for someone to play and complete the game why should they be allowed to review it?
 
Btw, looks like the hardworking ND bots and their brothers in arms have succeeded in bringing up user reviews from 3.3 to a whopping 5.3 already

good work, everyone
 
JerryinSoCal said:
User reviews shouldn't be allowed for at least 2 or 3 days, if there hasn't been enough time for someone to play and complete the game why should they be allowed to review it?
Click to expand...

Nah. It's bullshit.

Paid reviewers already get exclusive preview access, event access and then get to put their review out before launch to maximise traffic to their outlets and put themselves front and center.

Us mere mortals need to wait 2 or 3 days before we are allowed to express any kind of opinion. (Regardless of how utterly dumb and unreasonable those opinions may be.)

The same cunts who are crying that high difficult is "gatekeeping" and who want more accessibility and inclusion and diversity are also first in line to moan when us lowly customers get a bit rowdy.

Fuck that.

Its up to the people reading the reviews and user scores to apply common sense.

If TLOU2 gets a shitty user review score then too bad.

The game was released to the public. Let the public have their say.

How long before the "hate" and "harassment" cards are played to get rid of user reviews entirely?
 
Echelon said:
I don't have a problem with review bombing. At worst, it's a bunch of useless noise that everyone will ignore anyways, at best, it draws attention to an issue with the game, whether it be the game itself, the studio, publisher, etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly. People getting upset because their favourite was review bombed.

It just seems a step too far and looks like an attempt to control the message on newly released games.

It's even worse if this is being done at the behest of developers and publishers.

What if review bombing drew attention to bad business practices or crunch or microtransactions?

Nobody gave a damn when EA and Star Wars Battlefront 2 were getting the treatment and for sure that was not a 0 out of 10 game either.

Seems like review bombing only matters when it's a media darling that's getting shit on.

"Tee hee EA got the most down votes ever on Reddit over SW Battlefront 2 LOL so funny."

"Reeeeeeeeeee! The racist sexist gamer gate trolls gave the most emotionally devastating and deep and beautiful and meaningful game ever Last of Us 2 a zero score on Metacritic Reeeeeeeeeeee!"
 
yurinka said:
I think it would be a good idea to don't open the user reviews until a week after the game's release. In that way people would have time to play it, they buzz of the game due to launch and reviews would be off so the majority of the fanboy trolls who typically reviewbomb exclusives would be out of the question because they would be somewhere else.

It also would be great -but I think it may be too hard or not possible- to have to link your Steam/PSN/etc account to your metacritic user account to verify automatically that you completed the game though the typical trophy, or that you played it or X amount of time or at least (this is the most realistic one) that you own the game.

Another good idea would be to remove the average score of the user reviews because often is full of retarded fanboys giving 10s or 0s for games that clearly don't deserve them.


You also could give a 0 because you don't like videogames and never played one. Same goes with people who don't like certain genres and never played them. So if you didn't play the game your opinion isn't relevant.

Reviews are supposed to be the opinion of the people who played the game, and if possible complete. To tell people who may be interested on them an idea of what people who played it thinks about the game on average.

It would be stupid and useless if I make a review of a golf club because I never played golf, or to make a review if I'm a golf player but never tried it. The people who should make reviews about golf clubs must be people who play golf and played with that club.


An opinion is one thing and a review of a product is another one. You're free to post in social media, forums and so on your opinion of a game you never played. But I think that to review a game should be for the ones who played it.
Click to expand...

I hear you but I think it gets to a point where you could ask if we are maybe taking these user reviews too seriously.

Its basically an open forum for anyone to say anything they like about a game (assuming some rules about common decency are in place) and give it whatever score they want.

This has been fine for years and years. No big deal really.

You could take your best game every and check the 1 star reviews and get a chuckle at the stupidity and leave it at that.

Now it seems like companies with some financial clout have gotten the idea on their heads that the rotten public will take a dump on their shiny new product and they won't tolerate it.

Why now? After all these years.

Why not just continue on with "meh, it's harmless and nobody cares about those scores"?

It seems to me that you have a few high profile cases where the general audience is in some kind of open revolt against paid reviewers and now moves are being made to shut that down.

There's something comical to me that you can have a pretentious fart huffing critic review on the left side of your screen and on the right side you've got Joe Public saying "it's fucking shite mate".

Why not just allow it?
 
ZehDon said:
You're painfully focused on only negative reviews, which in itself demonstrates your inherent issue with this. "Insidious answer" also implies mal-intent - which you've failed to demonstrate, infer, or describe, given that positive reviews are also impacted, a fact that you laughably ignored. Twice.

Metacritic are potentially delaying user reviews until the thing has been out long enough for people to actually use the thing, in order to lower the impact of false reviews - positive or negative. They're not stopping user reviews. They're not cancelling user reviews. They're not halting negative reviews. They're not only allowing positive reviews. They're not forcing you to write something you don't agree with. They're not "bootlickers". They're not Nazis. They're not communists. They're not operating at the behest of China. They're not on the take from Donald Trump. They're not infected with "woke". They're not alt-right. They're not auth-left. They're not burning books. They're not murdering babies.
They're making you wait a day before you can post "Didn't like [thing] 0/10" or "Reddit told me to post 10/10" so that it carries marginally more meaning. How very "insidious".
Click to expand...

You're welcome to pretend that this isn't blatantly about one thing: TLOU2.

The reason this happened is because publishers want reviewers to publish all of their bullshit puff piece 9 and 10/10 reviews, "masterpiece" this, and "greatest thing since forever" that. The hope being that a bunch of easily influenced morons look up what their distraction for the week should be, find the highest rated new game they know nothing about, and drop $60 on it. Sony got butthurt, Sony bitched to CBS, and here is your result. This delay isn't going to prevent review bombing from simply happening a little later, or from sycophants praising trash (sick strawman, about the positive reviews, btw, very clever). The only thing it allows is for the gatekeeping media to tell you what to think before the public has a chance to do so.

Rotten Tomatoes does this now as well, but with critic reviews so that people can't find out that the latest oscar bait bullshit is actually trash and spend their money to see it only to find another 2.5 hour film about a minority having a hard time, hollywood sucking its own dick, or metaphysical longshots of terrain with characters staring at walls and the ground while they talk to each other gloomily about their existential crises.
 
Last edited:
Sites like Metacritic WANT traffic and engagement from users/visitors like you.

Sites like Metacritic NEED on companies like Sony to advertise on their site.

That's who they serve. $$$$$$
 
Echelon said:
You're welcome to pretend that this isn't blatantly about one thing: TLOU2.
Click to expand...
If TLoU 2 was the only time it happened people at ND would care, others would have talked about it as well... Truth is is has happened many times over (for good or bad reasons), putting a bit of a delay to cool down only makes sense--but I am fairly sure it won't make a difference.
 
MrS said:
When a game has 1000 negative user reviews before its even been released, you know something's wrong with your system
Click to expand...

Not only that, user reviews where already 5K 24 hours after the TLOU2 got released, in comparison TLOU1 user reviews were at 9K for its entire lifetime. So yeah, it's obvious it's the agenda and warz is most of the reason the user reviews are utter trash.
 
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige said:
It's only a one day delay.

Will be interesting if other games going forward get a similar delay or if only certain games get it.
Click to expand...

It really needs to be by a week or two at the least, to weed out the trolls and insta-ragers. That gives people to reflect on what they think about the game anyways.
 
Dont like this, and censorship is ALWAYS Bad unless its illegal. Try to look at the bigger picture, and not stupid console warz.
 
Last edited:
Stuart360 said:
Dont like this, and censorship is ALWAYS Bad. Try to look at the bigger picture, and not stupid console warz.
Click to expand...

Censorship is not always bad.
For example we censor images of child abuse online, and most people don't think that is bad!

Also this is not censorship. You still get to have your say. You just need to wait until the game is actually available first!
 
WelshBluebird said:
Censorship is not always bad.
For example we censor images of child abuse online, and most people don't think that is bad!

Also this is not censorship. You still get to have your say. You just need to wait until the game is actually available first!
Click to expand...
I was talking within reason obviously, as in always if its legal. I would of thought i wouldnt need to add that stipulation.
 
ryan13ts said:
It really needs to be by a week or two at the least, to weed out the trolls and insta-ragers. That gives people to reflect on what they think about the game anyways.
Click to expand...
I think a 3-4 day delay is good. 1-2 weeks might be stretching it for eager beavers.

But day one user reviews is kind of stupid. It's not like a 2 hr movie where you're done.

The vast majority of gamers posting a review on day 1 or 2 clearly hasn't played it through.... unless they hardcore plastered through it all day. I bet most of them barely played it.

Gamers want game site reviewers to play the game through instead of rushing reviews based on incomplete play throughs. The same should apply to user reviews. You can't prove someone played through it in 3-4 days (or a week), but at least i gives more time for gamers to play it, instead of doing a fanboy bum rush to post a 0 or 10.
 
Last edited:
Shai-Tan said:
uh, is the delay until the game is actually released? if so that's fine? what's the point of crying about censorship when early reviews are disproportionately people who didn't even play the game? I trust Steam review aggregates because they validate that people actually play the thing and this does not accomplish that so I'll continue to not give a shit about user scores on sites like that (or the critic scores either beyond x game being good enough to consider looking at direct footage)
Click to expand...
No it's not, the game already released and people playing it are forbidden from posting their reviews. Sure it's "only" a day but it's a still an anti-consumer move made to protect the publishers and their day 1 sales. Also I wouldn't be surprised if the delay was "negotiated" individually with each publisher, but I guess we'll see about that.

LikeI'MMarkCerny said:
Verified purchase mechanism is what they need.

We all know it was being grossly abused, both ways (for positive reviews, and negative reviews). Clearly what they've done here is a half assed measure that solves nothing cause they either don't want to or can't come up with a purchase verification system. What this does is disincentivize (to a certain extent) day one review brigading.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid this won't work because of safety reasons. On Steam you already have your account, you'd have to voluntarily provide Metacritic with your account info for each platform. Personally I avoid linking accounts to different services because I don't want a headache when the site gets hacked.
 
Last edited:
Can't they just implement a system to check whether someone played a game? Like looking at trophies or achievements? If sites like psnprofiles can pull everything, metacritic Should be able to as well. This doesn't seem like a solution.
 
Last edited:
WelshBluebird said:
So despite the rest od your rant, you agree that user reviews should wait until the game is released to the public then?
Click to expand...

Nah mate they are not allowing reviews until the day after a game is released. So in this case the game releases on 07/09 but user reviews are not allowed until noon on 07/10.

Yes, I know, users can just wait one day. Omg. Such babies. Amirite?

They shouldn't have to wait though. Plus if this is simply being done to protect the day one sales or day one marketing buzz of publishers then fuck that.

I'm not against waiting 24 hours to do something.

I am against the principle of the thing. Where paid reviewers getting free copies from publishers can review a game before release and get all that revenue and clicks for themselves and then, in turn, can drive marketing buzz and revenue for the publishers.

Meanwhile the filthy plebs are kept locked out until after release day so they can't soil the release and harm some corporations profits.

If people want to shit on a game they haven't played or don't understand with 0 out of 10 reviews then, yes, those people are fucking idiots but I don't really care and they should still be allowed to do that as a matter of principle.

Look at the user score for EAs Star Wars Battlefront 2. It has a 1.4 and everyone thought it was a hoot.

Now everything has changed for some reason.

The game is pushing an agenda. OK. That's fine. Let people do what they want.
Oh no! The general game playing scum are pushing their own agenda in the reviews. OK. Same rules apply.
 
Abear21 said:
Games get review bombed all the time and Metacritic hasn't cared— it's a bad look for ND and Sony IMO to have TLOU2 be the spark of change. This game is divisive, people want to be heard about it and it's censorship to not allow voices to be heard.
Click to expand...
This did not affect TLOU2 at all so what are you talking about? The people who had not played the unreleased game already got to score it on that one.
 
Sony said:
Delaying user reviews is only part of the puzzle. They should also mandate that in order for a review to be listed, the reviewer needs to submit proof that he or she spent enough time with the game. Or, also delay listing of professional reviews to prevent the 'first!' syndrome.
Click to expand...
Yes. I like this. I don't know how it can be done. But I like it.
 
This is no surprise. They hate the fact that people are allowed to contradict the approved voices appointed by the publishers.

But the fail to point out the most reviewers don't even finish the games they review.
 
Proof-of-purchase and hours played should be somehow available through api to be linked to accounts.
Metacritic reviews will always be shit because there's no way to weed out "premium" reviews from people who just created an account to praise or trash a single game.

That being said moving a review date by one day is not suppression of reviews or free speech. Nobody finishes the game on day of release and writes a coherent review. So it's a step in right direction imo, but doesn't really prevent dogpiling if people are so determined.
 
sobaka770 said:
That being said moving a review date by one day is not suppression of reviews or free speech. Nobody finishes the game on day of release and writes a coherent review. So it's a step in right direction imo, but doesn't really prevent dogpiling if people are so determined.
Click to expand...
That depends on a game, there are plenty of games you can finish in a few hours. Plus it's perfectly reasonable that someone might end up dropping the game because of not liking its content or its technical state for the day1 build and wants to write a review based on that experience. It shouldn't be reserved only for people who have finished the game.

It's a tough situation without linking accounts and checking actual ownership, but some lighter steps could be taken. Like disabling day1 reviews for people with fresh accounts or with a history of constant 0/10 & 10/10 scores.
 
Complaining about this measure is absurd and IMO outs you as a review bomber that doesn't bother to play the games.

If I ruled over Metacritic I would eliminate the ability to give a score as a user. Write your review, explain why the game is good or bad or terrible or awesome in your opinion. Only people that get off leaving one liner reviews with multiple accounts for the sole purpose of lowering or incrasing the score of a game would miss it.

Keep the like system and the most useful user reviews will stay on top. Normal people would still be able to read them and be warned by other players of problems within the game before buying. Nobody is censored. Nobody loses except infantile keyboard warriors obsessed with scores.
 
z1Ww9QU.jpg



Right now there is a 50/50 split on metacritic between possitive and negative user reviews. Despite the hate there are many people who clearly like part2.
 
Last edited:
Abear21 said:
I agree with you that it's not okay and those racist, sexist, or other hateful comments are wrong, but true freedom of speech is allowing all to be heard, not cherry picking, no matter how wrong you or I think they are. True freedom of speech and expression is allowing hateful views too.
Click to expand...

you're misrepresenting what I said. I said reviews coming before the game was even released. You should not be allowed to review the game if you don't own it.

Oh, and saying you hate gays is not free speech, it's hate speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Resident Evil Requiem currently has the highest user score of all time on Metacritic
Review Hype 
33
618
Deerock71 replied
MetaCritic removes AI written Resident Evil Requiem Reviews
News 
14
517
simpatico replied
Larian studio boss Swen Vincke thinks game reviewers should be graded by people similar to metacritic user scores
Opinion  2
89
859
crackajack replied
Steam adding option to attach hardware specs to user reviews
News  2
92
739
brokenwatch replied
Crimson Desert releases to 240.000 players on Steam and 'Mixed' User Reviews
Social News 
23
738
Sebastian1295 replied
Top Bottom