Support NeoGAF

[FalconPunch]

Let us start with Halo.

As we can see, there's a drop in quality with each mainline release. We can see again that the user score is not aligned with the critic score highlighting that the critics got it wrong.

Forza Motorsport:

Forza's decline is again visible but not as bad as Halo's. Notice the difference in user score vs critic scores. Very large difference.

Gears of War:

Another gradual decline in quality here with each mainline release. Coincidentally, Gears 5 is the first time we see that the critics and users agree.

State of Decay:

Great name for the series considering the review scores. Yet another decline.

Forza Horizon:

Considered Microsoft's most consistent series. It's funny though, the critic scores go up but the user score goes down. It's a good game and one of the best performers we'll see today.

Crackdown:

Yet another declining series.

 

[FalconPunch]

Continuing on from my previous post, lets look at the Ori series next.

A great game and one that bucks the trend of a general decline in quality. The user and critic scores are closely aligned showing that this is a series where the critics got it right.

Fable Series:

The only thing we can say here is that there's a perceived decline according to the users. The franchise is shelved I believe.

Flight Simulator:

Flight Simulator is a stable series in terms of reviews with FSX being the outlier. Notice the huge gulf in userscore vs critic score suggesting that the critics were wrong once again. Personally speaking, I like the series and it's one I play often till this day.

Miscellaneous Exclusives:

There's no real trend to see here. This chart just highlights the Metascore vs User score for each random exclusive.

Dead Rising Series:

Here again we see another decline in quality with each iteration. Nothing much to add.


Minecraft:

Another decline in quality although these are different type of games.

Let's Look at Phil Spencer's Performance as a whole.

It's clear to see that prior to Phil Spencer taking over Xbox as a whole in 2014, titles scored higher with both users and critics. Since he's taken over, we've seen a drop in both ratings.

Key takeaways:

• 8 out 11 franchises saw a decline in quality with each mainline release
• There's a drastic difference in user score vs critic score suggesting that the critics are overrating games. This is not just limited to xbox
• The franchises tended to score higher earlier in the lifecycle often aligning with OG Xbox or Xbox 360
• There are more 90 rated games in the OG Xbox / Xbox 360 era than there are in the Series / Xbox One era
• Of the recent releases, only Flight Simulator, Forza Horizon 5 and Ori the will of the wisp touch the 90s.

Discuss....

Personally speaking, I feel like Phil Spencer is a big problem.

EDIT: adamsapple is attempting to derail the thread by arguing that metacritic user scores are invalid. The charts are composed of both the metacritic "critic" score listed as metacritic and the metacritic user score listed as "userscore". If you do not like the userscore. Feel free to ignore the user score and look at the aggregate critic scores.

EDIT 2: Since adamsapple is as persistent as a mosquito in attempting to derail the thread with statistically insignificant protest user scores, I've decided to track his attempts in a nice little graph below. I'll do my best to keep this up to date. Thanks Everyone.

 

[GHG]

The Phil Spencer effect™.

 

[Fart Knight]

Yeah, its time for uncle Phil to retire.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Facts don't matter

 

[adamsapple]

As we can see, there's a drop in quality with each mainline release. We can see again that the user score is not aligned with the critic score highlighting that the critics got it wrong.

I'm gonna stop you right there.

Using user reviews as any kind of gauge or metric, especially from metacritic, is immediately disqualifying of the whole experiment.

 

[FalconPunch]

I'm gonna stop you right there.

Using user reviews as any kind of gauge or metric, especially from metacritic, is immediately disqualifying of the whole experiment.

Using user reviews from people who pay for the game is not ok... However it's ok to use reviews from review outlets who get the game for free and are incentivized to rate highly if they want to receive more review copies for free? Yea that makes sense chief.....

 

[N30RYU]

I don't blame Phil... I blame gamepass.

As simple as gamepass limited the game budgets and developers aren't gonna spend time and money to polish an 8 game to try and make it a 9 for it to end on a service on day one.

Ms is sacrificing quality in order to have games released regularly to keep ppl susbcribed

 

[Zathalus]

[*]There's a drastic difference in user score vs critic score suggesting that the critics are overrating games

This is basically true across the board and not just a Xbox problem. Just one of the more extreme examples is GT7, 87 from critics, 2.3 from users. Even the mighty Elden Ring is almost 20 points lower.

I find metacritic user scores to be absolutely useless.

 

[Ar¢tos]

I'm gonna stop you right there.

Using user reviews as any kind of gauge or metric, especially from metacritic, is immediately disqualifying of the whole experiment.

Should he go door to door and ask "real people" then?

 

[FalconPunch]

This is basically true across the board and not just a Xbox problem. Just one of the more extreme examples is GT7, 87 from critics, 2.3 from users. Even the mighty Elden Ring is almost 20 points lower.

I find metacritic user scores to be absolutely useless.

I completely agree but I don't find them to be useless. They're quite useful because they tell us when users agree and disagree with critics. Its not just limited to xbox but to all platforms.

 

[analog_future]

Using user reviews from people who pay for the game is not ok... However it's ok to use reviews from review outlets who get the game for free and are incentivized to rate highly if they want to receive more review copies for free? Yea that makes sense chief.....

Sites like Metacritic require zero verification that a user actually played a game.

User scores are useless, particularly in this day-and-age full of trolling, console warring, and childish tribalism.

 

[adamsapple]

Using user reviews from people who pay for the game is not ok... However it's ok to use reviews from review outlets who get the game for free and are incentivized to rate highly if they want to receive more review copies for free? Yea that makes sense chief.....

What's the source of the user scores?

If it's metacritic, anyone can make an account and post a user review. User review bombing is a topic we've seen covered on GAF for pretty much every recent platform exclusive.

GT7 has a user review rating of 2.3 out of 10. Anyone agree with that?

Should he go door to door and ask "real people" then?

Or just not use user reviews as any kind of worthwhile metric.

 

[FalconPunch]

I don't blame Phil... I blame gamepass

And who introduced gamepass?

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Phil Spencer was put in place to oversee the transition to 3rd party publisher and in case Series did well, prolong it with one more gen.

Change my mind.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Look at all that negative agenda from the games media towards anything Xbox.

 

[kiphalfton]

Bastard forgot to label the axis.

 

[Hudo]

Phil Spencer also revived Age of Empires as an IP with good success, as well as Microsoft Flight Simulator. So get fucked.

 

[Elysium44]

This comparison doesn't seem very meaningful tbh, sorry.

 

[GHG]

I don't blame Phil... I blame gamepass

The scores started dropping before gamepass was a thing.

People can't see the forest for the trees, his impact was felt on their game output from the moment he was put in charge of their first party studios.

Phil Spencer also revived Age of Empires as an IP with good success, as well as Microsoft Flight Simulator. So get fucked.

The development for those games was outsourced, the same goes for Ori and the earlier Forza Horizon titles. It's no coincidence that their best output has not come from their in-house studios.

 

[FalconPunch]

What's the source of the user scores?

If it's metacritic, anyone can make an account and post a user review. User review bombing is a topic we've seen covered on GAF for pretty much every recent platform exclusive.

GT7 has a user review rating of 2.3 out of 10. Anyone agree with that?




Or just not use user reviews as any kind of worthwhile metric.

I think you're mostly wrong.

Example:
Halo Infinite Steam score(120k reviews verified paying users): 69.71
Halo Infinite User Score: 79
Is User score now useless?

Starfield Steam Score(120k reviews verified paying users): 66
Starfield User Score: 70

The premise is that critics are overrating games. User score doesn't invalidate this and is actually more generous in rating that Steam scores. Critics are overrating games and it's not just limited to xbox.

 

[Hudo]

The development for those games was outsourced, the same goes for Ori and the earlier Forza Horizon titles. It's no coincidence that their best output has not come from their in-house studios.

So? He had to sign off on these projects.

 

[kiphalfton]

This comparison doesn't seem very meaningful tbh, sorry.

Don't blame OP for your lack of critical thinking skills.

Spoiler

But if I were to blame anybody, I would blame Phil

 

[DeepEnigma]

Or just not use user reviews as any kind of worthwhile metric.

Steam is a valuable metric. But bookmarking for when "OMG, we love user reviews again."

 

[Zuzu]

Their two biggest flagship series are much worse than they used to be. Halo 4, 5 and Infinite are cheap imitations of Halo 1, 2 & 3. Gears 4 & 5 have lost all the heart and grit of the original trilogy. They pale in comparison to originals. Is this Spencer’s fault? He probably shares some blame but the problem is pretty complex.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Steam is a valuable metric. But bookmarking for when "OMG, we love user reviews again."

Steam is not Metacritic, you have to own the game to review it.

On topic: yes, Xbox is in decline. Forza Motorsport is the most painful example for me.

 

[Kagoshima_Luke]

The scary thing is they haven't been able to create a new, big IP to match Halo, Gears, or Forza. Starfield was the big chance, but failed spectacularly.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Steam is not Metacritic, you have to own the game to review it.

On topic: yes, Xbox is in decline. Forza Motorsport is the most painful example for me.

And? Still a user review.

 

[GHG]

So? He had to sign off on these projects.

What's your point? That signing off on projects suddenly makes him good at managing studios?

Their output has suffered under him, once great franchises have gone to waste.

I'm not against him signing off on projects that are to be outsourced to studios outside of his control (they are sitting on a lot of fantastic IP), or even that being the logical solution from this point forwards. But if things continue as they are then even the franchises you mention will go to waste the moment he decides to bring their development in-house.

 

[Bernoulli]

But the engagement?

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I came across this post on Beyond3d and I take no credit for it. It highlights my feelings about Xbox and Phil Spencer in a way I couldn't describe.
Let us start with Halo.

As we can see, there's a drop in quality with each mainline release. We can see again that the user score is not aligned with the critic score highlighting that the critics got it wrong.

Forza Motorsport:

Forza's decline is again visible but not as bad as Halo's. Notice the difference in user score vs critic scores. Very large difference.

Gears of War:

Another gradual decline in quality here with each mainline release. Coincidentally, Gears 5 is the first time we see that the critics and users agree.

State of Decay:

Great name for the series considering the review scores. Yet another decline.

Forza Horizon:

Considered Microsoft's most consistent series. It's funny though, the critic scores go up but the user score goes down. It's a good game and one of the best performers we'll see today.

Crackdown:

Yet another declining series.

I thought Gears 5 was outstanding. It made some nice changes in my opinion.

 

[Aces High]

GT7 has a user review rating of 2.3 out of 10. Anyone agree with that?

I do.

GT7 would be the best GT game ever if it weren't for the awful microtransactions.

The game is no fun if you don't want to spend real money.

2.3 is well deserverd.

 

[adamsapple]

I think you're mostly wrong.

Nah, it's a dumb comparison and you're just batting for it as you posted it.

I don't know if you're also the person who posted it on Beyond3D under a different alt, but they're using metacritic user scores.

Using metacritic user scores and saying "as you can see the critics got it wrong" is about as bad of a take as you could have done.

Last of Us Part 2 - Critic score: 93, user score 5.8 - Did the critics get it wrong?
Gran Turismo 7- Critic score: 87, user score 2.3 - Did the critics get it wrong?

There's a lot of other examples of very well regarded games like RE4 remake, Tunic, Cocoon etc which were all review bombed for one dumb reason or another.

User reviews are the worst metric.

Steam is a valuable metric. But bookmarking for when "OMG, we love user reviews again."

You've probably seen enough of my posts in user review topics for games to know how I've always felt about it.

 

[tr1p1ex]

interesting charts. Some of it is expected. Or all of it is really... considering it's MSFT. MSFT is all about the business. They aren't a craftsman culture. I feel like a Nintendo also has a craftsman culture in addition to the business culture. And the two are simpatico.

MSFT is all about owning you. lol.


I can't speak for Sony. Although I feel like they are trying to emulate Nintendo on the games side while emulating MSFT on the business side.

But as for MSFT I remember Fable. That could been their Zelda.

Minecraft ...they haven't released sequels afaik which is good I think. A few spinoffs that don't rate as high is expected.

Forza? I don't play it but felt like they spam too many of them as there is always a new one and never could figure how they could make so many new versions of what to me seemed like the same game. And by releasing so many ...quality and interest is only going to drop off.

And Halo... the reality is some franchises need a lot of time off before you release another one. Look at SMB on NES. Pretty sure they waited something like 20 years before making another on the Wii.

Never cared much for GoW. I played one. I never saw the appeal of the characters. But as long as they haven't damaged the franchise too much...it's something they can bring back in the future. That's the thing with franchises. You can't just go for the cash grab. You have to consider whether or not you are enhancing or damaging the brand when making a new iteration in the franchise.

Granted annual spamming has worked business wise for EA with its sports games, ATVI with CoD and TTWO with NBA 2k. Kudos to Kotick and CoD considering the other guys do it thru licensing sometimes exclusive licensing.

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[MidGenRefresh]

And? Still a user review.

And you don't see a difference between someone posting shit for giggles vs. someone paying for the game and then posting their feedback?

Fucking hell.

 

[DeepEnigma]

And you don't see a difference between someone posting shit for giggles vs. someone paying for the game and then posting their feedback?

Fucking hell.

Read what I quoted. I made a declarative statement. Both can coexist to the context of the quote.

Fucking hades.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I don't blame Phil... I blame gamepass.

As simple as gamepass limited the game budgets and developers aren't gonna spend time and money to polish an 8 game to try and make it a 9 for it to end on a service on day one.

Ms is sacrificing quality in order to have games released regularly to keep ppl susbcribed

Which is exactly why I was against Day 1 AAA game releases. Gamepass would be awesome as a $100 a year 6 month, 1 year later on GP.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I don't blame Phil... I blame gamepass.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Read what I quoted. I made a declarative statement. Both can coexist to the context of the quote.

Fucking hades.

So you agree that:

Steam user review = valuable feedback (especially when you filter out for a) purchased with own money and b) played for more than a couple of hours)
Metacritic user revie = mostly unreliable garbage not worth paying attention to

?

If yes, then why we even having a discussion.

 

[FalconPunch]

Nah, it's a dumb comparison and you're just batting for it as you posted it.

I don't know if you're also the person who posted it on Beyond3D under a different alt, but they're using metacritic user scores.

Using metacritic user scores and saying "as you can see the critics got it wrong" is about as bad of a take as you could have done.

Last of Us Part 2 - Critic score: 93, user score 5.8 - Did the critics get it wrong?
Gran Turismo 7- Critic score: 87, user score 2.3 - Did the critics get it wrong?

There's a lot of other examples of very well regarded games like RE4 remake, Tunic, Cocoon etc which were all review bombed for one dumb reason or another.

User reviews are the worst metric.






You've probably seen enough of my posts in user review topics for games to know how I've always felt about it.

That's fair point however you chose to focus on user review scores when the critic review scores still show a decline. You're arguing semantically in an attempt to invalidate the whole premise. It won't work. Phil Spencer is a problem.

 

[adamsapple]

Metacritic user revie = mostly unreliable garbage not worth paying attention to

Exactly. But that's what OP's charts are based on.

Exhibit A.

This is Tunic. An incredible indie game, not even a first party title.

T

That's fair point however you chose to focus on user review scores when the critic review scores still show a decline. You're arguing semantically in an attempt to invalidate the whole premise. It won't work. Phil Spencer is a problem.

Variations of the phrase "critics got it wrong" and "notice the difference between critic and user scores" occur multiple times in the charts.

I'm not arguing semantics, I'm challenging the premise of the topic directly.

 

[DeepEnigma]

So you agree that:

Steam user review = valuable feedback (especially when you filter out for a) purchased with own money and b) played for more than a couple of hours)
Metacritic user revie = mostly unreliable garbage not worth paying attention to

?

If yes, then why we even having a discussion.

Why are you twisting your brain into pretzels over declarative statements in the context of the quotes?

You're just projecting what you think I said, rather than reading it as-is.

Goodness, go play some video games, not mind games.

 

[FalconPunch]

Exactly. But that's what OP's charts are based on.

Exhibit A.

This is Tunic. An incredible indie game, not even a first party title.

T

Wrong, the charts are based on both the metacritic critc scores and the user scores.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Why are you twisting your brain into pretzels over declarative statements in the context of the quotes?

Goodness, go play some video games, not mind games.

Ok, buddy! It's Darkwood on Steam Deck OLED time anyway. Enjoy the rest of this pointless discussion.

Exactly. But that's what OP's charts are based on.

Exhibit A.

This is Tunic. An incredible indie game, not even a first party title.

T

Whoever thought that putting these scores in an Excel spreadsheet and making graphs is a good idea is a fucking imbecile. Sorry not sorry.

 

[Zathalus]

I think you're mostly wrong.

Example:
Halo Infinite Steam score(120k reviews verified paying users): 69.71
Halo Infinite User Score: 79
Is User score now useless?

Starfield Steam Score(120k reviews verified paying users): 66
Starfield User Score: 70

The premise is that critics are overrating games. User score doesn't invalidate this and is actually more generous in rating that Steam scores. Critics are overrating games and it's not just limited to xbox.

Steam scores are not there to say how good a game is, it's how many people would recommend playing a game.

It can have a 95% recommendation rate and be a 8/10 game.

I would recommend both Hogwarts and Elden Ring, but I think Elden Ring is the vastly better game. According to Steam I can just recommend or not recommend either.

 

[adamsapple]

Wrong, the charts are based on both the metacritic critc scores and the user scores.

Yes. I didn't say otherwise.

Reposting myself since you quoted before I edited my post.

Variations of the phrase "critics got it wrong" and "notice the difference between critic and user scores" occur multiple times in the charts.
I'm not arguing semantics, I'm challenging the premise of the topic directly.

 

[FalconPunch]

Yes. I didn't say otherwise.

Reposting myself since you quoted before I edited my post.

Variations of the phrase "critics got it wrong" and "notice the difference between critic and user scores" occur multiple times in the charts.
I'm not arguing semantics, I'm challenging the premise of the topic directly.

It's not the premise of the thread. The premise of the thread is that xbox has declined under Phil and the critics scores from actual reviewers show that.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Ok, buddy! It's Darkwood on Steam Deck OLED time anyway. Enjoy the rest of this pointless discussion.

Mofo, you quoted me off the rip.

 

[Elysium44]

I do.

GT7 would be the best GT game ever if it weren't for the awful microtransactions.

The game is no fun if you don't want to spend real money.

2.3 is well deserverd.

I don't think GT7 is particularly good but 2.3 is ridiculous. I don't see how it would be any more fun if you had more credits or even if cars and upgrades were free, unless you just want to collect cars like Pokemon rather than race. Its strengths are its graphics, physics and multiplayer.