Stay FAR away from Metacritic user reviews. If you think that professional game reviewers are morally bankrupt, try considering what Very Angry John Q. Poplicopolous is when he takes to Metacritic.
Are major game reviewers morally bankrupt at this point? (Wall of Text Warning) (Updated)
- Thread starter Kaendris
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nah, those low review scores just prove Valve paid off the gaming media because ponies.[/quote]Zachary Amaranth said:
I don't understand the problem, 5/10 does not mean bad it means passable and that's what Portal 2 was, a passable game that is much weaker in comparison to its predecessor.
OT:I wouldn't say Gaming journalists are morally bankrupt but really that most of them are just ineffectual fanboys who are incapable of critical thought and thus buy into the hype of games too much. It's a pretty sorry sate of affairs when amateur youtube reviewers offer more insight into something than paid 'journalists' whose reviews seem to be nothing more than '9/10 its okay'.
Not bankrupt so much as outraged. Often unrightfully so, but still outraged.Kristian Fischer said:
5/10 has come to mean "bad." I may not like it, but it would be remiss of me to pretend otherwise.JazzJack2 said:
Keep in mind though, I was making the obvious point, albeit facetiously.
You should come and check out my reviews. Totally honest and shit. I assure you. ADVERTISING
Nah, I'm a pretty optimistic reviewer so some negative sides of a product don't get abused and the positive side can be a little hyped but that doesn't mean I'm trying to impress anyone other than the audience. However I can see some people maybe give things a higher score than necessary. More than once I've sat checking out a product and thinking "Is there anyway I can make this positive?" Because this is a competitive market and impressing the people who send out review copies is needed. However, the best thing to do is always ignore it. Don't say a thing.
But the paid professionals might just have different opinions. I don't think it's all malicious but I'm confident SOME give these high reviews to poor games just because they want the publisher to like them.
Nah, I'm a pretty optimistic reviewer so some negative sides of a product don't get abused and the positive side can be a little hyped but that doesn't mean I'm trying to impress anyone other than the audience. However I can see some people maybe give things a higher score than necessary. More than once I've sat checking out a product and thinking "Is there anyway I can make this positive?" Because this is a competitive market and impressing the people who send out review copies is needed. However, the best thing to do is always ignore it. Don't say a thing.
But the paid professionals might just have different opinions. I don't think it's all malicious but I'm confident SOME give these high reviews to poor games just because they want the publisher to like them.
Dont read Metacritic. Ever. Just dont. You get more reliable Reviews by sacrificing a Goat in your basement and praying for a Omnipotent Weasel-God to appear and then tell you if it's good.
Jokes aside, a site where absolutely EVERYONE can create an account and influence the User Review-Score can not be trusted, since its very easy to abuse. Heck, as previous posters stated, there are a ton of people just writing "CA IS DEAD" and giving the game a 0/10, and im supposed to take this sh*t seriously? Get real.
Concerning Reviews, i dont watch professionals do them at all. You get a lot more reliable "Reviews" by just watching people play. I got into Monster Hunter after watching a LP, and into Dynasty Warriors after some Gameplay-Footage. You have to see for yourself, before you can judge.
And i cant take people like Angry Joe seriously. people watch him rant because thats what he does. As the title of the show implies, usually it's just him harping and derailing everywhere, banging on the bad stuff so his audience can point and laugh. While i dont base my Wishlist on him either, i enjoy Yahtzee's Reviews a lot more. While he also focuses on the bad stuff, he will point all the good things too. Even if it's small. (At least in most cases, MH was pretty much destroyed by him without paying even remote attention to everything after the Tutorial). But still, if i want to know about a game, and if i would buy it, i watch footage and surf Forums. But keep the Hell away from metacritic or Sellouts like Joe.
Jokes aside, a site where absolutely EVERYONE can create an account and influence the User Review-Score can not be trusted, since its very easy to abuse. Heck, as previous posters stated, there are a ton of people just writing "CA IS DEAD" and giving the game a 0/10, and im supposed to take this sh*t seriously? Get real.
Concerning Reviews, i dont watch professionals do them at all. You get a lot more reliable "Reviews" by just watching people play. I got into Monster Hunter after watching a LP, and into Dynasty Warriors after some Gameplay-Footage. You have to see for yourself, before you can judge.
And i cant take people like Angry Joe seriously. people watch him rant because thats what he does. As the title of the show implies, usually it's just him harping and derailing everywhere, banging on the bad stuff so his audience can point and laugh. While i dont base my Wishlist on him either, i enjoy Yahtzee's Reviews a lot more. While he also focuses on the bad stuff, he will point all the good things too. Even if it's small. (At least in most cases, MH was pretty much destroyed by him without paying even remote attention to everything after the Tutorial). But still, if i want to know about a game, and if i would buy it, i watch footage and surf Forums. But keep the Hell away from metacritic or Sellouts like Joe.
Well, at least everywhere I've lived in the U.S., it has operated on a system where a C is 70-79, and that is generally classified as "Average". Granted, most people would be happy with just a 70, but it is a dangerous place to be in. Ideally, you want to have a 90 or better, and all "good" students will get at least an 80 in a majority of their classes. Getting even a 69, though, provided you don't have a very lenient professor, can basically be considered failing a class, as many universities will have you retake the class (ex. if I were to get a 69 in General Chemistry I, which is a pre-requisit to Cellular Biology at my school, then I wouldn't be able to take Cellular Biology until I got my grade in Gen Chem I up to at least a 70). At some schools, though I've only seen this at the school I'm currently attending, a 70-72 will pass the class, but even then you run the risk of having too low of GPA to avoid academic probation, and you must balance it with higher grades in other classes to avoid that academic probation and possibly academic dismissal.In Search of Username said:
I'm not sure if it is different in other places of the country, such as California, where most big-name game reviewers seem to be stationed. However, I'd imagine it is pretty standard across the whole country with only minor variations given to it. Considering so many of the big-name reviewers are from the U.S., I'd imagine that they'll follow that mentality.
My thoughts, in order:Kaendris said:
-1: Say what you will about Angry Joe, at least when he has an issue with a game he shows footage of that issue.
Since video games are, by definition, a visual medium this "Show AND Tell" method is the best and the most honest.
There are very few game critics/reviewers out there whose methods remain objective first and subjective second.
People say that reviews are purely subjective, but that's easily disproved by the simple observation that a video game can have objective failings, like frequent crashes, inconsistent/unresponsive controls, confusing "overt" game mechanics, graphical glitches etc.
-2: It's pretty safe to assume that metacritic bombs are done by trolls, and that said trolls outnumber both professional reviewers and normal non-troll players. You can't stop the Internet Hate Machine or its Trolls, so it's just best to discard the user score entirely* and focus on specific review details.
(*any score, actually. As a numeric score alone cannot account for taste, among other things).
-3: How did this happen?
Well, first, trolls discovered that it doesn't take much of an effort to skew the user score on metacritic.
Second, professional reviews have been increasingly scrutinized thanks to waning consumer trust, and the increasingly obvious effects of corruption (leading to the rise of the Polished Turd).
So, not only do these trolls have an audience, but motivation.
-4: As for professionals forgiving failings: patches and good intentions are no excuse for raising a "score" or evaluation.
Their job is to play and evaluate what the game IS, not what it COULD BE.
In any creative medium there are infinitely many hypothetical "COULD-BEs".
Good intentions, I hope, are assumed for any product that goes onto the market regardless of its other qualities; if it actually fails in that regard (say, the War Z), then the rest of the review is moot anyway.
Why the hate on angryjoe guys? -^ He gives his honest opinion as he sees them so weird people here are saying hes a "sellout" or insinuating his opinion is less then honest.
Say what you want about the guy, but he gives his passionate opinion and you can always tell if he is having fun with a game or not, which is the most important criteria at the end of the day.
Anyways for major review sites...I like to think that established journalists and publications are very wary of giving "big" names low scores unless it's clearly an abomination, it's rather intimidating to give a hotly anticipated mass marketed title a low score when you have a career in games journalism to think about.
Say what you want about the guy, but he gives his passionate opinion and you can always tell if he is having fun with a game or not, which is the most important criteria at the end of the day.
Anyways for major review sites...I like to think that established journalists and publications are very wary of giving "big" names low scores unless it's clearly an abomination, it's rather intimidating to give a hotly anticipated mass marketed title a low score when you have a career in games journalism to think about.
The "User" Rating on sites such as Metacritic are often not true ratings - they reflect anger or objections gamers have to a game (such as the ending of Mass Effect 3) and are thus not reliably honest ratings.Kaendris said:So, bias warning, I dislike game reviews in general. I feel they are done for the cash, and include some chap that puts an hour or two into a game and makes what he feels are educated and safe opinions. I generally take them with a large grain of salt, and just wait for the time tested "community" to let the truth be known. That being said, I do not refuse to watch them. Matter of fact, I usually spend a piece of my Sundays browsing them. So understand I already believe that prime time game reviewers ARE morally bankrupt.
Now that the air is clear, here is my scenario/question. I just watched Angry Joe lamblaste Rome: Total War II. I do mean lamblaste (bwhahaha, thank you for everyone that corrected that for me) , he shredded it over 43 minutes. Now anyone that watches him can tell you he gets a bit carried away. So I hop over to meta-critic, see this [http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/total-war-rome-ii] and almost spit my coffee in shock. So I check IGN, and low and behold, they have given it an 8.8...
So - Metacritic Professional Reviews - 80%
IGN - 8.8
User - 3.8
How does that happen? How can the community and users playing the game end up with SUCH a different experience than the people that are paid to do this professionally? Are we dealing with a case of users having knee jerk "i don't like this therefore everything about it sucks" reactions? Is this a case of professionals using critical thought to it's mightiest extent, allowing the bad to be forgiven outright in favor of patches and initial intention?
Lastly, as game developers and advert spots only report on professional reviews, is it fair that such an imbalance is allowed to exist? Could this be considered inherent bias and intentional attempts to mislead and sell a false product to the public?
I personally feel reviews are seldom worth the paper they are printed on, as they are only printed for paper. Yet, I am disappointed that they still have the power to drive sales and generate hype in the manner they do.
Your thoughts?
(Captcha = "high horse", touche Escapist, touche...)
Major game review sites focus on mainstream games, since that's where their advertising revenue comes from. So they are fundamentally biased toward high-budget games. They've drunk the industry kool-aid prior to writing a single review.
Additionally, major game review sites compete with each other for info-scoops and previews. In order to get a preview they have to have the developer give them access to the game prior to release. The developer will only do this if they have a good relationship with the review site - in other words if the reviews/previews the site gives meets with their approval. This completely corrupts the review site.
All of this means that game review sites are naturally predisposed to favor big-budget games, to such a deep extent that they often don't even recognize their bias.
I haven't trusted reviewers since Jeff Gerstmann's sacking from GameSpot over his Kane and Lynch review. They may not have said that it was this, but it damn well felt as if it was, because he was telling the truth.
Only reviewers I trust these days are Jim Sterling and Angry Joe because they have been shown to have their own opinions on topics such as the next gen consoles (not so much after Microsoft's DRM reversal, but pre-announcements they were quite opinionated from what I can remember) and they genuinely care about the games they're playing. Hell, Sterling was so pissed off about Colonial Marines that he had to alert us to its awfulness through a special Jimquisition. Also, Joe seemed to be one of the only critics to point out the awful, awful bugs in Total War: Rome II, which I hadn't really seen any mention of in other reviews.
Only reviewers I trust these days are Jim Sterling and Angry Joe because they have been shown to have their own opinions on topics such as the next gen consoles (not so much after Microsoft's DRM reversal, but pre-announcements they were quite opinionated from what I can remember) and they genuinely care about the games they're playing. Hell, Sterling was so pissed off about Colonial Marines that he had to alert us to its awfulness through a special Jimquisition. Also, Joe seemed to be one of the only critics to point out the awful, awful bugs in Total War: Rome II, which I hadn't really seen any mention of in other reviews.
Fair enough. That's quite different from how it is here. Makes the scoring system make a bit more sense though, I suppose. Though why UK reviewers still operate on pretty much the same scale is still a mystery if that is the case. Just American culture being so highly consumed everywhere else I guess.MysticSlayer said:
No I don't think they are morally bankrupt. I do however think there is a trend lately of reviewers praising aesthetics over good game design and I don't like it.
I've stopped listening to major game viewers for some years now they usually always give a game a high or near perfect score unless it's so hideous there's just no way about it. Many of them are also back door bribed in the way of free game merchandise, maybe dinner with the creators, ect that makes them at least aware of the fact that this company wants a good review and on some level to make them feel obligated to provide. Now a days I'll wait a bit see what other gamers or if my friends beat me to the purchase see what they thought of it, take the chance on buying it, or go to my local play n trade and try out the game in question for a small player fee to be get a feel before I buy.
Easy, go read some of the user reviews and youll see. Users are crap at giving their opinions on things in clear ways.Kaendris said:Now that the air is clear, here is my scenario/question. I just watched Angry Joe lambaste Rome: Total War II. I do mean lambaste (bwhahaha, thank you for everyone that corrected that for me
So - Metacritic Professional Reviews - 80%
IGN - 8.8
User - 3.8
-An UI is UGLY. (0/10)
-0/10. Shogun 2 is way better game!
-I expected wayyy more. I hate the way the soldier look on the bottom tab. (0/10)
-This game is one of the best strategy game I played but it's poorly optimized (Gave it 0/10)
-This is a really bad game. I bought it, and I was all excited, but there are so many bugs and the gameplay is boring. (0/10)
Thats what user reviews are. Thats why user scores are pointless and should always be ignored, and why people who can actually have an moderately objective opinion a game review games and no random gamers on the web.
People are angry right now because tis buggy, and in a week when its fixed people wont care, and proper gamers will look at the real review score, pick up the game and have fun with it. And when they do look at the user scores none of them will have any relevancy and gaming will continue on as it always does.
Look i dont ever use Metacritic as a medium to buy games, I do notice it as a way of seeing how bad the game is designed. You notice that and i use the term broadly "A LOT" of games that are of poor design or have enraged players have low scores. It is a good indication on the stability or fluidity of a game, not the game itself.
Angry Joes review, I have to say he is about 7.5 out of 10 correct about RTW2. Ive personally had that boat glitch where its sailing on the sand. Ive seen first hand the graphis issue and he has a very very good point about the lack of effort and de-evolution of the total war franchise using Shogun II as his comparison source. I would have gone further and Use Empire total war but that is his review.
IGN- Honest I am surpised they are still even online, they are the most worthless sacks of fecal matter in gaming. Only the bribery funds they have recieved from publishers keeps their shoddy website afloat and there is no shortage of AAA glorfication on video games.
Best source for reviews?
-FORUMS- Gaming forums, always go to the offical website check the gaming forums and see what other players have spoken about, check out the view count and post count. Its a really really good way to indicate major flaws in a game if on release for insteance RTW II has its support view count 5,309 and climbing which is pretty shocking considering its less than a month old. source http://forums.totalwar.com/forum.php
Angry Joes review, I have to say he is about 7.5 out of 10 correct about RTW2. Ive personally had that boat glitch where its sailing on the sand. Ive seen first hand the graphis issue and he has a very very good point about the lack of effort and de-evolution of the total war franchise using Shogun II as his comparison source. I would have gone further and Use Empire total war but that is his review.
IGN- Honest I am surpised they are still even online, they are the most worthless sacks of fecal matter in gaming. Only the bribery funds they have recieved from publishers keeps their shoddy website afloat and there is no shortage of AAA glorfication on video games.
Best source for reviews?
-FORUMS- Gaming forums, always go to the offical website check the gaming forums and see what other players have spoken about, check out the view count and post count. Its a really really good way to indicate major flaws in a game if on release for insteance RTW II has its support view count 5,309 and climbing which is pretty shocking considering its less than a month old. source http://forums.totalwar.com/forum.php
How helpful user reviews are depend on the website. They're borderline useless on metacritic, but you can find some fantastic reviews on Amazon. Professional reviews are good for determining how well made a game is, or whether it will appeal to most people. The vast majority of the time, even if I don't care for a highly reviewed game, I can step back and say to myself "Alright, I understand why that got good reviews though", so I don't have too many times when I yell "RIGGED!!!" at professional websites. There are a few games (Witcher 1 for example) where I don't have the faintest idea how they got the scores they did, but that's to be expected on occasion I guess.
Professional reviewers do an excellent job of indicating how well made a title is, it takes a bit more work on my part to figure out whether it will appeal to me or not. I like to mix them with the occasional high quality user review to figure out whether a game is worth a purchase.
Professional reviewers do an excellent job of indicating how well made a title is, it takes a bit more work on my part to figure out whether it will appeal to me or not. I like to mix them with the occasional high quality user review to figure out whether a game is worth a purchase.
