Games with big differences between magazine reviews and user reviews.

[outcast_within]

While i was checking up on Command and conquer 4. I noticed how industry reviews were pretty mild avering around a 7 while user reviews were averaging around 3.5

I thought that this was a pretty interesting phenemenon and wondered if there are more examples of this.

Perhaps even the other way around a game loved by users but not so much by the industry.

 

[Rednog]

The problem with user reviews is that a majority of them are twats and just rate things on "extremes". They either think its the greatest game ever or its the worst game ever.
Also there are usually reviewers or people who vote solely based on glitches or some problem with the game that is rears its ugly head and gets solved or patched early on.
A good example of this is like reading amazon reviews, the PC version of most games gets 1-2 stars less than the console versions because a ton of people give the game 1 star because of DRM or some other factor that really has nothing to do with the gameplay.

 

[RDL_Razor]

"Why we love ZP" itt.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

also http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/modernwarfare2?q=call%20of%20duty:%20modern this is hilarious

This is ONLY because of the dedicated servers and, thus, can't be a good demonstration.
*sigh* Hooray for me defending MW2 again.
The Xbox 360 version user score is 8.4, by the way. Not that low, is it?

 

[Mordwyl]

It's easy to criticise MW2. I can start by saying it's just a generic war shooter that barely introduces anything groundbreaking or fun in the formula.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

ONLY because of the dedicated servers

Only?

OT: Gamespot eh? Kane and Lynch anybody?

Only. Absolutely and completely. If not for that, it would've gotten an average 8.0.
It's fun how such a small decision can affect the reception of the game.
By the way, if you know any other reason, feel free to inform me.
Also, about Kane & Lunch, it is so panned by users because they are childlish and petty of the Gerstmann scandal. The ratings have nothing to do with the game at all.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

also http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/modernwarfare2?q=call%20of%20duty:%20modern this is hilarious

This is ONLY because of the dedicated servers and, thus, can't be a good demonstration.
*sigh* Hooray for me defending MW2 again.
The Xbox 360 version user score is 8.4, by the way. Not that low, is it?

yes but it is still fucking hilarious.

Well, it probably is but I get really angry when people judge a game by one standard and one standard only. Same goes for Heavy Rain (waah, waah, it's a QTE compilation, waah).

 

[Srdjan]

Every bad game which can afford to pay for good reviews, to trick people into buying it.

 

[Indecipherable]

Well the end users tend to talk in absolutes, and if the game was merely so-so they'll describe it as an abomination against nature, that it should be burned on a fire, pissed on, the ashes thrown off a cliff and then the cliff to be destroyed in an avalanche via TNT. That, or it is the greatest game ever, worthy of idolisation, heralded as the second coming of Christ.

That and sometimes the reviewers are paid to give good reviews, or are only given prereleases under the condition that they write positive reviews, either of which accomplishes the same thing.

 

[Rednog]

ONLY because of the dedicated servers

Only?

OT: Gamespot eh? Kane and Lynch anybody?

Only. Absolutely and completely. If not for that, it would've gotten an average 8.0.
It's fun how such a small decision can affect the reception of the game.
By the way, if you know any other reason, feel free to inform me.
Also, about Kane & Lunch, it is so panned by users because they are childlish and petty of the Gerstmann scandal. The ratings have nothing to do with the game at all.

Well, sorry to break this to you, but some people had an overwhelming sense of "meh" playing MW2. I certainly did, and I am sure as hell not the only one who doesn't think the game is Jesus descended down to earth again.

By the way, that Gerstmann scandal had a reason didn't it? And what was it? Yeah. See?

I think you're completely missing the point of the post. You might think the game is overall a "meh". But that has absolutely no weight in the current discussion. The discussion is the difference between critic's scores and user scores. Journeythroughhell pointed out that the reason why the PC version of MW2 has a terrible user rating while the console versions a high rating of user score compared to critic score. This is only because PC users threw the game to the fire for not having dedicated servers. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that some people think the game is "meh".

 

[Beartrucci]

One contributing factor is that before some big name console exclusive comes out, many opposing fanboys will give it a shit rating from the user review section.

 

[tomtom94]

Well the end users tend to talk in absolutes, and if the game was merely so-so they'll describe it as an abomination against nature, that it should be burned on a fire, pissed on, the ashes thrown off a cliff and then the cliff to be destroyed in an avalanche via TNT. That, or it is the greatest game ever, worthy of idolisation, heralded as the second coming of Christ.

That and sometimes the reviewers are paid to give good reviews, or are only given prereleases under the condition that they write positive reviews, either of which accomplishes the same thing.

As loathe as I am to say it, this.

For the sake of not getting banned, this happened a lot in the Official Nintendo Magazine. MySims, Zelda TP, and Red Steel were all accused of having too high scores for what they offered. (Two of those are third-party, interestingly).

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

ONLY because of the dedicated servers

Only?

OT: Gamespot eh? Kane and Lynch anybody?

Only. Absolutely and completely. If not for that, it would've gotten an average 8.0.
It's fun how such a small decision can affect the reception of the game.
By the way, if you know any other reason, feel free to inform me.
Also, about Kane & Lunch, it is so panned by users because they are childlish and petty of the Gerstmann scandal. The ratings have nothing to do with the game at all.

Well, sorry to break this to you, but some people had an overwhelming sense of "meh" playing MW2. I certainly did, and I am sure as hell not the only one who doesn't think the game is Jesus descended down to earth again.

By the way, that Gerstmann scandal had a reason didn't it? And what was it? Yeah. See?

A sense of "meh" does not make an overall rating a 3.4. Don't break this to me, I take critisism of games that I happen to like well if it's justified. Short campaing length - that's justified. Confusing storyline - that's justified. No dedicated servers - that's really not a huge issue.
Also, the Gerstmann scandal happened not because the game was horrible (which it wasn't, at least from my point of view) but because Eidos had idiotic review policies and because Gerstmann's review... well, sucked.