Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

Why? We know Microsoft actively deletes bad user reviews to get better overall. All corporations do that, so it is essentially better than what it should be.

Metacritic user reviews?

 

[March Climber]

You don't have to finish eating a piece of shit to know it tastes bad. Just one bite and you know it's shit.


Same with fallout 76 for me. Me and my 2 friends were anticipating playing it together. One hour into the game I told my friends that I think this game is gonna be crap. They weren't happy and kept on playing.

I kept on playing with them for another week and I said I give up and gave them all my loot. Of course they weren't happy as I shat on the game and it's bugs constantly throughout our playtime together.

A year later I asked one of them how is fallout 76 going. And he admitted it's shit.

You’ve completely misread the intent of my post, because it helps all parties involved, even those such as yourself.

What you think my post is saying: You must complete games in order to leave a review.

What my post is actually saying: You must at least have proof of purchase and/or have earned 1 trophy/achievement to leave a review.

The large majority of games will award you with a trophy/achievement when finishing a tutorial section. Thus, if someone such as yourself would prefer reading the opinions of the people who did only this, then they’re free to do so.

The ultimate point of the new system is to deter reviews from people who:

A) Have never purchased said title.
B) Have never played said title after purchase.

If that is taken care of, we will see way less zero score review bombing and the numbers will realistically reflect the opinions of those who have played the game.

The system I’m proposing is very similar to Steam’s review system where it lists ‘number of hours played’ so that you know how informed the review will be, but proof of purchase/play is an absolute necessity.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

These charts seem accurate to me. Most people would agree halo fell off after reach.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Metacritic user reviews?

Well now you have to apologise for writing those reviews.

 

[ozz ex machina]

These charts seem accurate to me. Most people would agree halo fell off after reach.

Reach was shit too compared to halo 3. Added bloom and abilities which ruined halo. 4 was a mess. 5 was decent but hard for people to get into. Infinite is now in a really good place, had it launched like it is now we'd be saying it's halo back on form but they fucked it hard.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Does it get any more crystal clear than this?

Of course the looney house would be offended at the data, it’s Xbox. Data is forbidden knowledge.

 

[SHA]

Did y'all know 70 considered a fun game, to my standards, even 50+ considered fun without flaws, 90+ for sensitive emotional people.

 

[Chronicle]

This guy was touted as the Saviour. Like I've said before MS is losing so badly that they're shooting for mutually assured destruction.

I still can't believe they got off with the cloud computing bullshit from last gen. Man, people ate that crap up.

 

[StereoVsn]

Pfft, user scores, critic scores. These aren’t metrics that Microsoft even uses!

Uncle Phil only trades on engagement and number of people who start a game for 1 min (it’s ok to delete it right after).

If you map the Engagement graph it will be through the roof!

 

[yurinka]

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.

Nice to see what we think of Phil Spencer in numbers, properly backed with factual data.

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.

Nice to see what we think of adamsapple in numbers, properly backed with factual data.

 

[MasterCornholio]

EDIT 2: Since adamsapple 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.

 

[DeepEnigma]

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.

 

[Wildebeest]

There is a big problem with a strategy of leaning on tentpole IP for 10-20 years, namely fatigue. While it might seem that player fatigue is the main problem, the real problem is developer fatigue, as they get sick of trying to complete the Sisyphean task of giving 40-year-old millennial man babies what they want with games that they are totally sick of working on.

 

[bender]

 

[mayham2199]

He's a gamer just like us.

edit: Orziel is attempting to derail the thread.

I mean is that really it? I'd just prefer someone who can take Xbox back to the 360 days when I was having a blast on their ecosystem. Could care less what that person does in their free time. Hell maybe he needs to stop gaming and start focusing on Xbox more. Maybe he's doing to much gaming.

 

[adamsapple]

 

[nemiroff]

All those charts and no mention of the infamous "hands off" style studio management from MS Xbox..? Shoddy research.

Also, metacritic scores from years ago is not good use of data without the context of explaining the impact the evolvement internet has had on the industry. How review scores have changed over the years is drastic. Idk, is MC adjusting for that?

User scores.. LOL.

(Anyway, I didn't know Minecraft had such "low" scores. One of the most infamous and popular games of all time, and it only has a low 80s aggregated score..? That's...Interesting..)

But yeah; a multibillion dollar franchise, and all they could come up with was the mediocracy of Legends and Dungeons..

There's so much context missing in the op.. Halo f.ex., why not mention 343, the the sole reason for Halo's "downfall" in the form of Halo 4 and 5. It has little to do with Spencer (unless you're interested in discussing general MS management strategy).

The same general lack of context is the same for all of op's "data" and "conclusion", I'm not going to go through all of those franchises, the point has been made.


Again; There's no need to bring in a lot of half-assed data to show off correlation when the only question to be asked in the wake of causation is this: Is the hands-off approach wise? Should they carry on like that or should they implement mechanisms for oversight? How will "independent" studios under the MS umbrella react to this?

 

[FalconPunch]

All those charts and no mention of the infamous "hands off" style studio management from MS Xbox..? Shoddy research.

Also, metacritic scores from years ago is not good use of data without the context of explaining the impact the evolvement internet has had on the industry. How review scores have changed over the years is drastic. Idk, is MC adjusting for that?

User scores.. LOL.

(Anyway, I didn't know Minecraft had such "low" scores. One of the most infamous and popular games of all time, and it only has a low 80s aggregated score..? That's...Interesting..)

But yeah; a multibillion dollar franchise, and all they could come up with was the mediocracy of Legends and Dungeons..

There's so much context missing in the op.. Halo f.ex., why not mention 343, the the sole reason for Halo's "downfall" in the form of Halo 4 and 5. It has little to do with Spencer (unless you're interested in discussing general MS management strategy).

The same general lack of context is the same for all of op's "data" and "conclusion", I'm not going to go through all of those franchises, the point has been made.


Again; There's no need to bring in a lot of half-assed data to show off correlation when the only question to be asked in the wake of causation is this: Is the hands-off approach wise? Should they carry on like that or should they implement mechanisms for oversight? How will "independent" studios under the MS umbrella react to this?

Nuance is for those looking to make excuses. The data is just there to show how Xbox has performed under Phil's reign. To use a rather simplistic example, when a team starts performing poorly after a new coach is hired, it's up to the coach to rectify the situation. The coach must look at the underlying reasons to the poor performance and address them otherwise he'll be fired. The buck stops with Phil Spencer. The fans are not paid to manage xbox and Phil is. He's been underperforming for almost a decade and it's time for him to go period. If you want to blame others in the organization, feel free to do so but at the end of the day, the others are his pawns and he choose how the game is played.

 

[MacReady13]

Been saying for a while that Phil Spenser has completely ruined what was once great about Xbox- they were a CONSOLE 1st and foremost and competed very well against Playstation and Nintendo. All cause they got trounced in 1 generation they have decided to pretty much abandon the console space to try get their sub service into a billion gamers hands. They can keep dreaming but it will NEVER happen.
Funny how Nintendo lost BIG time with the Wiiu yet picked themselves straight back up with the Switch and it has been a HUGE success. Microsoft don't know what the fuck they're doing in the console/gaming space, so they decide to buy corporations to fill up their failing sub service.

 

[FalconPunch]

3 months later Xbox sales keep falling. Now Spencer is bringing first party games to ps5 killing off any potential reason to own a series console. Perhaps the worst console ceo not only in the history of Microsoft but in all of gaming.