Support NeoGAF

[Makariel]

My assumption is that the majority of 0/10 or 10/10 "reviews" from accounts with only 1 review on them (or only 0/10 respectively 10/10 reviews) are pre-sorted (i.e. thrown into the bin) by whatever algorithm Metacritic uses, and don't actually show up in the number that is displayed.

 

[MiguelItUp]

Thats a good reason to sent a first-person game to the trash. I get motion sickness from low fov, if the game doesn't offer one, then it deserves to be trashed for it. The only way to do that on Steam page is to leave a review and I am sure a fuck not giving it a positive if it is missing an essential feature. The bigger problem is that there are no neutral reviews on Steam.

I can understand that and as much as that sucks, it isn't something everyone experiences. I think it's fair to have it impact your review as a result. But to be like "0/10!" or "GARBAGE!" is a bit much. If you experience motion sickness so bad that you're not able to play the game whatsoever, it makes sense, but it could certainly be worded better. But that should most certainly be mentioned in the review written if that's the case.

 

[mckmas8808]

Most 90+ meta scores is just ass kissing by the media.

This is the day and age we live in where NO GAME deserves a 90+ meta score and NO popular game can be great because all media isn't to be trusted. This whole thing is just so freaking stupid. It's clear RDR2 is a great game going by what most people (reviewers and normal gamers) are saying.

 

[lefty1117]

Professional Reviewers need to go back to the old school method of giving ratings by criteria: story/gameplay/audio/graphics/etc. Some of them are just giving an overall score which adds too much gut feel and unconscious bias to it. As for user reviews, I think they are largely trash at this stage and can't be trusted overall.

 

[Horns]

Who cares? User reviews are tainted scores.

 

[Grimmrobe]

This is the day and age we live in where NO GAME deserves a 90+ meta score and NO popular game can be great because all media isn't to be trusted. This whole thing is just so freaking stupid. It's clear RDR2 is a great game going by what most people (reviewers and normal gamers) are saying.

I've watched over an hour of streaming. Not seen a single genuinely exciting moment. Just a lot of horse riding, with some awkward combat thrown in.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I've watched over an hour of streaming. Not seen a single genuinely exciting moment. Just a lot of horse riding, with some awkward combat thrown in.

I fall asleep through all game streaming, not matter how hot fire that joint is.

 

[mckmas8808]

I've watched over an hour of streaming. Not seen a single genuinely exciting moment. Just a lot of horse riding, with some awkward combat thrown in.

That's a TERRIBLE way to judge a game though. I've had some of my best moments in games where I'm not doing much as far as "action" is concerned, but everything else is amazing.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I've watched over an hour of streaming. Not seen a single genuinely exciting moment. Just a lot of horse riding, with some awkward combat thrown in.

Why'd you waste your time watching a full hour? If culture.vg didn't like it, you weren't going to like it. That simple.

I'm sure if it was an Ubisoft open-world game you would shower it with praise.

 

[Lightsbane]

Happens all the time with movies, I've grown used to it.

 

[Grimmrobe]

That's a TERRIBLE way to judge a game though. I've had some of my best moments in games where I'm not doing much as far as "action" is concerned, but everything else is amazing.

Eh... I wouldn't say it's a terrible way. Indeed tons of people in this thread are recommending precisely that. It is the best method to judge a game if you are not willing to spend $60 to try it out. And I am not willing. Not for a Rockstar game.

 

[bhunachicken]

It's a solid 7 / 10 game for me.

It's not a great game and it's not a bad game. It's well above average, but ... for me there's something missing. I can't quite put my finger on it. I I'm currently working my way through the story and will see how I feel after that. Around 20% of the way through, maybe more.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Eh... I wouldn't say it's a terrible way. Indeed tons of people in this thread are recommending precisely that. It is the best method to judge a game if you are not willing to spend $60 to try it out. And I am not willing. Not for a Rockstar game.

And there in-lies the entire crux to this thread's existence.

 

[LostDonkey]

Not surprising really with all the backhanders going around for review scores these days.

 

[seph1roth]

Ayer 30 Hours, It's a great game...but as a good it's very dull, it's like a Quanric Dreams game but on steroids.

That's not bad...depending on your tastes, but for me It lacks the main aspect of antes video Game, which is gameplay and quest/level design.

Almost 80% of RDR2 quests follow this pattern:

Talk to someone - cinematic - follow an npc to the village - cinematic - shoot or punch all the bad guys - escape

Now that's cheap...

It's a product more based on crazy details than as videogame itself.

The world is details as hell, with random eventos and NPCs that has their own life inside the game, but It lacks in design, It feels like a flat world where's you only use to travel, nothing more, even Assassins Creed 1 has a better use of the map than RDR2 does.

Controls are not the only issue of this game...

But even with all those negative aspects, It's still a great game.

 

[Nymphae]

If culture.vg didn't like it, you weren't going to like it. That simple.

 

[SonGoku]

Not denying the press is bias but the edgy review by culture.vg is nothing but trash, their review is worse than the hype reviews they are calling out, just doing the opposite its full of hyperbole and bs

 

[Battlechili]

I don't normally like the criticism that something is "pretentious" but culture.vg has always been a pretentious and terrible website with extremely awful opinions, and their Cave Story review solidified that in my mind. Terrible website not worth listening to and I don't even like Red Dead.

 

[Vawn]

Are we really putting any credence in Metacritic user scores? Of course there is a divide. Review scores don't have to account for a bunch of 0/10s from people who didn't even play the game.

 

[Killer751]

And you thought my boycott would fail. Bwahaha.

Hundred hour weeks are not okay.

 

[Dr. Claus]

And user reviews are even less reliable.

Mhm. You have people complaining about how Rockstar *allegedly* treated its employees poorly, people whining about a lack of a PC release, or simply console wars bullshit. The fact ANYONE treats Metacritic user reviews seriously is absolutely baffling.

 

[JimmyJones]

The game is good but the character movement is CLUNKY. Their games have got clunkier and clunkier over the years in favour of 'realism'.

 

[CloudStrife_ca]

To be honest if I'm going to really give two shits about user reviews, I'd probably come here and look over a few familiar names, read a few posts if I'm on the fence about a game, atleast I know you guys actually play games. It's Red Dead Redemption 2, does anyone really need to read over user reviews to know if they are getting this or not, if so... away! back to the Gamespot forums for you!

 

[DeepEnigma]

Mhm. You have people complaining about how Rockstar *allegedly* treated its employees poorly, people whining about a lack of a PC release, or simply console wars bullshit. The fact ANYONE treats Metacritic user reviews seriously is absolutely baffling.

#ConfirmationBias

 

[DeepEnigma]

And you thought my boycott would fail. Bwahaha.

Hundred hour weeks are not okay.

What boycott? The game shipped 17 millie already and climbing!

 

[Grimmrobe]

What boycott? The game shipped 17 millie already and climbing!

Just imagine without the boycott!

 

[mckmas8808]

Are we really putting any credence in Metacritic user scores? Of course there is a divide. Review scores don't have to account for a bunch of 0/10s from people who didn't even play the game.

Mhm. You have people complaining about how Rockstar *allegedly* treated its employees poorly, people whining about a lack of a PC release, or simply console wars bullshit. The fact ANYONE treats Metacritic user reviews seriously is absolutely baffling.

Perfect post here! It's a weird world the internet has created for us now. Where we seemingly can't trust any media in gaming culture, politics, or sports. Everybody in the media is either "OUT TO GET US" or "DOING IT FOR TEH CLICKS!" Social media and the internet, in general, has made most of us jaded and believers in nothing. If it doesn't have a snide comment, then the media is being paid off by the man!

We live in a world where nothing or nobody can be genuinely great anymore. If a person achieves great success it's because they are part of the Illuminati (i.e. Jay-Z and Rihanna). And if a product is reviewed to be great, it's because the big corporate masters paid off all the reviewers!!!

 

[joe_zazen]

The lack of diversity in reviews is disappointing, and the vicious fans who attack 'haters' of their toy-murder-sim make discussion impossible.

Rdr2 is mass market corporate disposable entertainment; not liking it is not some damnable moral offence.

It is pathetic that the the best criticism will be buried in comment sections written by players.

Oh well, maybe we'll get some real talk in six months.

 

[Kerotan]

Most of the reviews are 0/10 from pc users who can’t play the game. I can’t believe why we are even discussing this. Go play the game.....it saves the day for real organic open world games and not just reskins from Ubisoft.

Yeah you can't really judge a game on it's user reviews especially when it's only available on 1 or 2 platforms. That alone leaves it open for a lot of 0/10 reviews. And then the fact a lot of rights groups are pissed with things you can do in the game. I'm yet to talk to a guy i know who has it whether online or IRL who said it isn't epic. Most said the first 2 or 3 hours were very slow but once you're past that it's fantastic.

 

[mckmas8808]

The lack of diversity in reviews is disappointing, and the vicious fans who attack 'haters' of their toy-murder-sim make discussion impossible.

Rdr2 is mass market corporate disposable entertainment; not liking it is not some damnable moral offence.

It is pathetic that the the best criticism will be buried in comment sections written by players.

Oh well, maybe we'll get some real talk in six months.

But what if all the reviewers actually "like" the game? Is that impossible? The fact that you call it mass market corporate disposable entertainment shows that you are biased to not liking the game.

 

[Helios]

This is the day and age we live in where NO GAME deserves a 90+ meta score and NO popular game can be great because all media isn't to be trusted. This whole thing is just so freaking stupid. It's clear RDR2 is a great game going by what most people (reviewers and normal gamers) are saying.

But is it a 10/10 game like most reviewers said? I haven't played it but to me the game looks amazing but I still think it's not 10/10. Obviously this is subjective but when I see that most reviews range from 96-100 I tend to wonder if I'm just not getting something or they're just preaching to the hypetrain. Same thing that happened to BOTW and Odyssey. Maybe I'm just too cynical and I should just let people enjoy the game but it kind of affects consumers by raising their expectations.
Also obviously the people that rate a game too low are just as bad if not worse.
Edit: Also what happens if they release the multiplayer and it's even better than the main game? Do you call it a 12/10?

 

[Barakov]

https://www.metacritic.com/user/Reivilo85

"The game is slow, boring and punitive for all the bad reasons. It's slow because controls are awful, the world is huge and empty and you spend your time going from A to B and dying for stupid reasons. It's boring because all the quests are the same, you have narrative where Rockstar believe they can master dialogues as well as Tarantino, then you have a very bad gunfight where you cover/auto-aim/shoot, have a quick narrative and rinse and repeat. The rest of your time you actually work. You cook, you collect grass, you hunt animals for hours, you clean stuff, you clean yourself, you clean your horse, you clean your guns, etc. It's a miracle you don't have to brush your teeth and wipe your ass."

For a 97 Metacritic GOTY billion-dollar seller, this review, by an ACTUAL GAMER is damning.

Haha. I really like the game. But it definitely feels like the game's systems and controls fights against you at every turn. Review is pretty spot on, I'd say.

Next go around, Rockstar really needs to reign how many systems they have in the game. I'm going through RDR again after I'm done with RDR2 to see how different is now.

 

[joe_zazen]

But what if all the reviewers actually "like" the game? Is that impossible? The fact that you call it mass market corporate disposable entertainment shows that you are biased to not liking the game.

I'm definitely biased. Nonetheless, there isn't much room for disparate viewpoints, let alone having them engage with each other critically. I guess in that regard, it is like most online discourse, and maybe that's why it bugs me. For some dumb reason, I try to fight back against that sort of enforced mono-think. Generally, it is met with hostility, people don't seem to want to hear anything that conflicts with their world views. I'm even on some russian bot list on Twitter, lol.

Anyway, yeah it is possible 131/132 reviewers found it amazing. But it would be nice if that wasn't taken as objective evidence of greatness in order to punish deviant critics and silence discussion in the community.

 

[mckmas8808]

But is it a 10/10 game like most reviewers said? I haven't played it but to me the game looks amazing but I still think it's not 10/10. Obviously this is subjective but when I see that most reviews range from 96-100 I tend to wonder if I'm just not getting something or they're just preaching to the hypetrain. Same thing that happened to BOTW and Odyssey. Maybe I'm just too cynical and I should just let people enjoy the game but it kind of affects consumers by raising their expectations.
Also obviously the people that rate a game too low are just as bad if not worse.
Edit: Also what happens if they release the multiplayer and it's even better than the main game? Do you call it a 12/10?

But that's not how a 10/10 scale works. I think that confuses alot of gamers. A 10/10 doesn't mean it's perfect. It also doesn't mean there are no improvements that are possible for the game. Your treating a 10/10 the same way you treat a A+ on a test in high school, but that's not what it means. This is all subjective so what may be an issue for one person, another person my not find issue with it.

And you are too cynical, but I'm happy you recognize it within yourself. When they release multiplayer it'll still be a 10/10, just that much more solid.

I'm definitely biased. Nonetheless, there isn't much room for disparate viewpoints, let alone having them engage with each other critically. I guess in that regard, it is like most online discourse, and maybe that's why it bugs me. For some dumb reason, I try to fight back against that sort of enforced mono-think. Generally, it is met with hostility, people don't seem to want to hear anything that conflicts with their world views. I'm even on some russian bot list on Twitter, lol.

Dang man you on the Russian bot list lol. I mainly listen to video game podcast to get my "official" review thoughts from media heads. For me, in that space, the video game's media do a better job "fully" explaining how they feel about a game. Even when The Last of US got 94 10/10s, many of those people still talked about the things they didn't like or wish were designed a bit different. But they mentioned many times how it didn't ruin their experience. And better yet there were many things that superseded those slight downsides because something else was so great.

 

[NickFire]

User reviews are worthless to me. Seems that with every game that offends one side or the other, there are brigades of people who want to vote on the politics of the game instead of the game itself. I am not dismissing that the game may not live up to some people's expectations, perhaps many people's expectations. I just no longer give the benefit of the doubt to crowd sources reviews. Whether yelp, metacritic, or anywhere else. People just ruin what should be a great thing over politics, all the time.

Ok that was knee jerk. I still check them from time to time. But I try to avoid aggregated scores and look for thoughtful typed content.

 

[CatLady]

User reviews on Amazon are 80 & 82 on PS4 & Xbox respectively and a while lot of those reviewers are verified Amazon purchasers.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01M5DZ525/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Personally I'd give it about a 78 due to horrible controls, crummy gunplay, repetitious and boring and not into horse simulators

 

[TLZ]

Let's read some of the 3/10 and lower reviews dragging down the average. These are not excerpts. You folks are getting the full, unabridged reviews below!

3/10


0/10


0/10


1/10


0/10


I know you love to puppet any opinion printed at culture.vg but Metacritic isn't going to help you prove your point.

Let them and their 10/10 brethren even each other out.

 

[off duty ninja]

Let them and their 10/10 brethren even each other out.

Exactly! All you have to do is sift through literally thousands of bullshit reviews and you will find gems like the one cherry picked here:

"The game is slow, boring and punitive for all the bad reasons. It's slow because controls are awful, the world is huge and empty and you spend your time going from A to B and dying for stupid reasons. It's boring because all the quests are the same, you have narrative where Rockstar believe they can master dialogues as well as Tarantino, then you have a very bad gunfight where you cover/auto-aim/shoot, have a quick narrative and rinse and repeat. The rest of your time you actually work. You cook, you collect grass, you hunt animals for hours, you clean stuff, you clean yourself, you clean your horse, you clean your guns, etc. It's a miracle you don't have to brush your teeth and wipe your ass."

All you crybabies just don't know what a quality game and/or game review even is anymore. /s

 

[Danjin44]

But that's not how a 10/10 scale works. I think that confuses alot of gamers. A 10/10 doesn't mean it's perfect. It also doesn't mean there are no improvements that are possible for the game. Your treating a 10/10 the same way you treat a A+ on a test in high school, but that's not what it means. This is all subjective so what may be an issue for one person, another person my not find issue with it.

And you are too cynical, but I'm happy you recognize it within yourself. When they release multiplayer it'll still be a 10/10, just that much more solid.

Exactly! 10/10 is just overall feeling of the reviewer. He/she might enjoy the game enough that the flaws didn't ruin his/her experience and 10/10 game doesn't mean every person going to enjoy that game. I watched EZA review on RDR2 and the things they considered positive for the game to me they were negative and that doesn't the reviewer is wrong it just means I have different taste than the reviewer. This why need actually read or watch the actual review instead just looking at the final score.

 

[mckmas8808]

Exactly! 10/10 is just overall feeling of the reviewer. He/she might enjoy the game enough that the flaws didn't ruin his/her experience and 10/10 game doesn't mean every person going to enjoy that game. I watched EZA review on RDR2 and the things they considered positive for the game to me they were negative and that doesn't the reviewer is wrong it just means I have different taste than the reviewer. This why need actually read or watch the actual review instead just looking at the final score.

BOOM! I listen to their reviews on podcasts so I feel like I get a great fill for "why" they scored it the way they did. If I only looked at the score, I'd be so confused lol.

 

[Enjay]

Scores from the press are paid for.

 

[Grimmrobe]

Exactly! All you have to do is sift through literally thousands of bullshit reviews and you will find gems like the one cherry picked here:

It only takes 5 minutes. And instead of giving your attention to shills, you give it to actual players who know the games inside and out and care.

 

[Paperboy]

Rockstar could probably benefit from including an easy/arcade mode, where you don't need to eat even though you're not low on health or sleep even though you don't need to save. More like the first game, or GTA V if you prefer. I'm not saying I would personally use it, but y'know, for the kids out there. But it's hard not to appreciate the amount of work they put into the details and their strive to move the game medium forward.

 

[Halo0629]

It's topics like this why review scores should go the way of the dinosaurs.

 

[Chairman Tickles]

If you want a useful metric, take the critic score for these big darling titles, take the user score, and find the middle point. Checks out almost every time. For example, if Critics are giving it a 9/10 average, and users a 7, then it's a solid and safe 8. This works on rotten potatoes and on betacritic for both films and games. I feel rdr2 is a solid 8.5 after completing most of the missions which form the meat of the gameplay. Aye, the repetitive mission loop lets it down alongside the tankish controls. But the rest is impeccable.

Yes, number scale tells you little to nothing about the specifics of what is good and bad about the game. So...read and watch the review. Sites like metacritic are the worst thing to have happened to gaming in a long time.

 

[Halo0629]

Rockstar could probably benefit from including an easy/arcade mode, where you don't need to eat even though you're not low on health or sleep even though you don't need to save. More like the first game, or GTA V if you prefer. I'm not saying I would personally use it, but y'know, for the kids out there. But it's hard not to appreciate the amount of work they put into the details and their strive to move the game medium forward.

Well maybe someday if the game ever comes out on pc modders can mod the game without the life simulator included.

 

[visiblemode]

Pretty much. I bet user reviews are like "omg they overworked their employees? 0/10 didn't even play the game."

Yep. That and half the user reviews on MC are like “Cowboys are unrealistic at rhis poynt really, iits 2018. Realy?!? I would never buy or play this dumb game. 1/10.”

Combine that sort of insanity with fanboys trying to tank the reviews of “rival” platforms, and people trying to “avenge” unappreciated employees and it’s just a total shitshow.

 

[cr0w]

Don't give a shit about review scores, no matter if they're from critics or users. I was rather lukewarm on the game myself for the first handful of hours, but after Arthur's character started coming into its own and the story progressed I was all-in. It's my personal game of the generation at this point, above Bloodborne which I didn't think was possible. That's all that matters to me.

 

[makaveli60]

But is it a 10/10 game like most reviewers said? I haven't played it but to me the game looks amazing but I still think it's not 10/10. Obviously this is subjective but when I see that most reviews range from 96-100 I tend to wonder if I'm just not getting something or they're just preaching to the hypetrain. Same thing that happened to BOTW and Odyssey. Maybe I'm just too cynical and I should just let people enjoy the game but it kind of affects consumers by raising their expectations.
Also obviously the people that rate a game too low are just as bad if not worse.
Edit: Also what happens if they release the multiplayer and it's even better than the main game? Do you call it a 12/10?

Or maybe they feel that this game is much better than other games they gave 9s for this year for example. They must somehow indicate that they think this is a better game in their opinions. 10/10 never means a perfect game becasue it doesn't and won't exist. It's all relative.

 

[PocoJoe]

Same with nintendo games.

Zelda = far from perfect, story is shallow, "musics" are just random noises, world is kind of empty, technically it is nothing impressive, so while it is great game, giving it 10/10 is just silly.

10/10 = nothing left to improve.

Mario odyssey: repetitive, boring game.

I dont read reviews anymore as they are just fanboyfantasies without real objectivity