No Man's Sky: Proving that User Reviews are Useless

[Cowabungaa]

Nope. If I'm looking for reviews for consumer advice, I want someone with similar views. Reviews aren't telling me what to think, it's not an echo chamber, they're telling me what they thought about the game. For that, I want someone who's tastes are like mine. It's no echo chamber of any sort. I'm literally taking in someone else's view on something I don't yet have a view on. Exactly the opposite of an echo chamber.

That's not what I mean with echo chamber. I mean that if you end up with a group of people who think alike you're just going to confirm each other's biases and viewpoints. What I argue for is also (not just, both are useful) looking for reviewers who will challenge your perspective, make you look at things from angles you wouldn't have considered on your own or through people who think like you. For instance, a few years ago I started playing and loving a game because a reviewer I follow, TotalBiscuit, didn't like it. It made me consider the game from a different angle.

Bottom-line is that I'd argue that you don't just look for people who think like you but get more varied opinions and viewpoints. Not as much games you'd dislike, but games you'd perhaps not considered before. I only have a relatively small overlap with TotalBiscuit in terms of videogame taste for instance, but that's partially why I value his views on games that might interest me so much. He can spot things in a game that I might not spot because of my viewpoint. And with that information I might reevaluate my opinion or tastes. He might also talk about games I wouldn't have considered before but give reasons for his like or dislike that end up agreeing with my tastes. That happened with FTL with me.

Quantifying opinions, by the way, is being able to say exactly why you like or dislike what you like or dislike. Adding an elaborate "because" to your opinions. Because it's with that information you can truly compare their opinion about something with your tastes and make an informed decision.

 

[Rangaman]

The reviews so far are complaining because, apparently, there's not much to do.

This, of course, leads to the question,"Are all hype-mongers born with a spike in their brain?" The game was never touted as being the next Skyrim or Witcher 3 people. It was always going to be an Elite: Dangerous/Starbound-style exploitative sandbox game.

Also, anyone who gives a functional game a 0 deserves to be crucified by Metacritic and left in the Sahara Desert.

Unless, you know, they just really dislike the idea of a big Skinner Box, who's designer forgot to include a reward mechanism that works for most of us?

Whose, not who's. Anyway, what did you expect? It was always a sandbox. If you bought it regardless, that's your fault for being a bellend, not the game's fault for being what it advertised. Reward system? Are you one of those achievement junkies?

If you mean an in-game reward, what should they reward you with?

Has it occurred to you that you are looking for the wrong qualities in this game?

That sounds like exactly what everyone was saying when people were questioning if there was enough to do in the game to maintain engagement. And now that reviews and videos are out, the answer seems to trend towards "no". It's really rather strange to go straight to ad hominem, calling someone a bellend, and trying to imply that they may not like it because they may be an achievement junky. Screw achievements, a reward mechanism is something that occurs in the game. "What should they reward you with"? They already do. Mining something collects it, going somewhere means you're in a new place, etc. Doing things in the game should have a tangible effect on the world and your experience, the core loop of gameplay needs to have momentum, the player has to want to do something, to get to something. To which some people have been saying "eh". A lot of it boils down to doing the same thing, which isn't super engaging.

You can see what I mean here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aLNKkjzoWQ

"It's a lot of filling up things with things so that you can go to things to do more things, to fill up more things, to do more things".

You know, how most survival games end up working. Collect, build, upgrade, repeat. A style of gameplay that's become oversaturated and a lot of people are already tired with. Still, looks more interesting than Starbound turned out to be, I'll probably pick it up when it's cheap.

I admit I was a bit rash, but it pisses me off immensely when people assume that developers automatically know what they (as in that specific player) want in the hot new game from [insert bad joke name here] Studios.

I have said to my PlayStation Nation friend multiple times that the game would be Starbound in 3D, and he didn't listen to me. But when I asked him what he thought it would be, he just repeated what the devs said. It just seems (to me at least) that people were excited for a game that they didn't actually know much about, other than it was really big.

I can appreciate that, contrary to the Starbomb song, Minecraft is not for everyone. But...ugh, I've said enough in this comment already.

 

[Einspanner]

The reviews so far are complaining because, apparently, there's not much to do.

This, of course, leads to the question,"Are all hype-mongers born with a spike in their brain?" The game was never touted as being the next Skyrim or Witcher 3 people. It was always going to be an Elite: Dangerous/Starbound-style exploitative sandbox game.

Also, anyone who gives a functional game a 0 deserves to be crucified by Metacritic and left in the Sahara Desert.

Unless, you know, they just really dislike the idea of a big Skinner Box, who's designer forgot to include a reward mechanism that works for most of us?

Whose, not who's.

And we're done.

I'll say it regardless of how elitist it sounds:

Most people, whether they watch movies or play games or listen to music or whatever, have neither the care nor the ability to concern themselves with a work's quality outside of their own personal taste. To put it in the simple example that I always use; the fact that I don't care in the slightest about football doesn't mean that FIFA is then a shitty game.

That's why if I look at user reviews I only pick out those that either go beyond their own tastes or acknowledge their tastes and clearly review something within those boundaries. Or, y'know, funny bullshit. I fondly remember the Steam User Reviews of DayZ, those were some good laughs...

Find a reviewer who has similar opinions to you, and they'll give you a better impression. Alternatively, watch it on Youtube.

No, not similar opinions. That way you just nestle yourself in an echo chamber. More like find a reviewer who can quantify his opinions, acknowledges his tastes and is willing to judge something regardless of his tastes. Those people make for good and useful reviewers.

People who can explain why they liked something, or why they hated it, in detail are the best. If someone raves about a game not having an element I despise, that's just as valuable to me as talking about something that I love. Being informative and honest is what matters the most, and being an experienced gamer who recognizes tired tropes and bad design. That they like the same games as you only matters insofar as they'll only be reviewing games they like, so you probably need some basic taste similarities.

 

[Ender910_v1legacy]

I have said to my PlayStation Nation friend multiple times that the game would be Starbound in 3D, and he didn't listen to me. But when I asked him what he thought it would be, he just repeated what the devs said. It just seems (to me at least) that people were excited for a game that they didn't actually know much about, other than it was really big.

I ran into the same kinds of problems a few times when the topic came up in conversation. When I first heard about the game I instantly knew it was going to be doomed for failure. Almost purely procedurally generated content, ESPECIALLY on that kind of a scale, with that kind of a setting, just doesn't work. No matter how "complex" your system is or how many assets you pump into it, the game's still not going to feel very alive or interactive.

I feel like a lot of people buying into hype like this just don't understand game design, and so they fail to recognize what should be obvious: when a game's developers don't really have a solid grasp on what it is they intend to create and how fun it'll be to play.

 

[Hawk of Battle]

Wait, people still actually give a crap about what number/percentage reviewers give games? I thought that by now people would have realised that the, yano, actual game review, ie, the words on the page talking about the game, is the only thing that matters? But no, apparantly people want something as complex as an entire form of media simplified to a number to determine if something is good or not, rather than spend the time reading words and forming objective opinions. Good job internet, lot's of progress there...

 

[CaitSeith]

If you ignore everything that isn't 10s or 0s, then you're right; user reviews are useless (just like how the Overwatch Olympic skins have had an overwhelming positive reception, if you ignore the complains about being timed and unpurchasable with coins).

 

[RedDeadFred]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the game gets at least 8's from the major outlets like IGN and Gamespot, because quite frankly they review based on hype more than any actual game merits. I found myself unable to trust game sites anymore and instead rely on the opinions of independent Youtubers like TotalBiscuit, Jim Sterling, Jesse Cox, Angry Centaur Gaming, and Angry Joe (if he ever goes back to doing actual reviews ever again).

IGN might actually give a fairly negative review if their first impressions are anything to go by. Jim's review reads like he hates it and pretty much confirmed all of the fears I had for the game.

 

[shrekfan246]

Nope. If I'm looking for reviews for consumer advice, I want someone with similar views. Reviews aren't telling me what to think, it's not an echo chamber, they're telling me what they thought about the game. For that, I want someone who's tastes are like mine. It's no echo chamber of any sort. I'm literally taking in someone else's view on something I don't yet have a view on. Exactly the opposite of an echo chamber.

That's not what I mean with echo chamber. I mean that if you end up with a group of people who think alike you're just going to confirm each other's biases and viewpoints.

How is that a bad thing, in the context of figuring out how you think you'll feel about a piece of entertainment?

Or, in other words, why is it wrong to learn about a video game from someone who will likely have had a very similar experience as you would?

What I argue for is also (not just, both are useful) looking for reviewers who will challenge your perspective, make you look at things from angles you wouldn't have considered on your own or through people who think like you. For instance, a few years ago I started playing and loving a game because a reviewer I follow, TotalBiscuit, didn't like it. It made me consider the game from a different angle.

Any reviewer or critic worth following will be able to make you look at things from a deeper perspective regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

Now, yes, you should ideally be able to find opinions from multiple different sources. But, for example, our own Yahtzee Croshaw's opinions on JRPGs are entirely useless to someone like me, because he has a long-standing history of not liking JRPGs released after about the mid-'90s. That does at least mean that if there's one which happens to catch his interest, it might be worth checking out, but it means that from a critical standpoint, he's very rarely going to have anything to say that will be relevant to my interests.

Quantifying opinions, by the way, is being able to say exactly why you like or dislike what you like or dislike. Adding an elaborate "because" to your opinions. Because it's with that information you can truly compare their opinion about something with your tastes and make an informed decision.

Little niggle, "quantifying" something means to measure its quantity and is focused around use of hard numbers; "qualifying" something is modifying your initial statement with extra information or reservation.

User reviews have always been from regular folks, most of whom are terribly unqualified to review a game (Not exactly a difficult task either), and have been frequently metabombed or boosted by fanboys. There are people just talking shit and joking, or idiots and spammers. Steam User Reviews are really obnoxious, because having a middling score can often tell you something about the game, but you go down and there's "Fell into a ditch and died, 10/10" Liked, with a 60% helpful rating, from someone who played 30 minutes "Love this game to DEATH!!!!", played 1 hour, etc.

Not to mention the games that have positive scores on Steam because of "ironic" user reviews, like Bad Rats.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

Wait, people still actually give a crap about what number/percentage reviewers give games? I thought that by now people would have realised that the, yano, actual game review, ie, the words on the page talking about the game, is the only thing that matters? But no, apparantly people want something as complex as an entire form of media simplified to a number to determine if something is good or not, rather than spend the time reading words and forming objective opinions. Good job internet, lot's of progress there...

WB anf Bestheda uses that to decide if you get a bonus or not.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Not stated: all the reviews that are "0/10 no FoV slider", "I have opinions on this game but everything is either a 0 or 10 and there are too many people voting 10s" and "Indy games shouldn't cost $60, I didn't play this". Oh there's the old chestnut "0 for no reason". And oh god the defenders "proactively" giving it 10s to counteract the 0s.

And yet people still cite non-professional review aggregates as having any value whatsoever.

Hm. I think you're going for one of those extreme 0-out-of-10 ratings yourself, right now. I don't think the thousand bleeting goats that make up the madness that eventually - and magically - distills into the User Score deserve a 0 rating.

I also think that a lot of supposedly professional critics and reviewers lack professionalism as well, these days. You've got your ideological sects where no individual seems to have an existence or opinion outside the open or clandestine hive mind. You've got your philosophers and politicians, who are unable and perfectly unwilling to see (or think) beyond the rim of the pond they've plonked their feels and ass and public persona in. It's a great shit show, to be honest.

The issue with openly non-professional critics is that we live in interesting times. There is no honour beyond the various life-or-death concepts of the remnants of archaic systems. Everything that someone holds dear, someone else urges to defile. Everything that is supposedly respectable and serious needs to be made fun of. At the moment, there's a lot of nice things we simply can't have, because there's always someone out to ruin the fun for everybody. Plus, you've got the added problem of insta-lynchmobs thanks to the ultimate cesspool of antisocial media.

The non-value you accredit to unprofessional non-professionals I also see in the body of work of many a supposedly accredited critic working for a once respectable (paper) newspaper. It's all pretend. Newspapers are struggling. Standards have fallen well beyond the do-I-give-a-shit or do-I-not-give-a-shit dichotomy. Where you're/your/ur are considered interchangeable and any and all efforts to at least uphold the sanctity of language, everything is lost, kys. kms? Not yet, no. Let's not rush this.

That doesn't stop me from reading all sorts of reviews before I make up my mind on preordering (another mechanism I loathe, but have to put up with... interesting times and all that) or holding off until I watch a video review or listen to some podcast offering some insight through reflections on somebody else's first-hand first impressions.

The only thing I stopped giving half a flying fuck about are trailers, early marketing offensives or random interview blitz strikes by people of supposed importance to the project. Notable exception in the past twelve months would include the guys from Overwatch.


That's one fine video, methinks.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Wait, people still actually give a crap about what number/percentage reviewers give games? I thought that by now people would have realised that the, yano, actual game review, ie, the words on the page talking about the game, is the only thing that matters? But no, apparantly people want something as complex as an entire form of media simplified to a number to determine if something is good or not, rather than spend the time reading words and forming objective opinions. Good job internet, lot's of progress there...

I am willing to read the words. I also want a number, though. I leave it to the reviewer and/or the outlet they work for if that number is at the beginning or the end of the informing and informed text. If there is no number, I am highly likely to not frequent that site anymore.

There are, of course, various exceptions to these ol' rules of mine. But when it is a quick score, a first impression, a TL;DR I'm after, you can be Elvis Siskel Ebert Shakespeare's second coming and that won't prevent me from rather quickly forgetting you even exist. If the critic is intimately knowledgeable with their discipline of choice, they will be able to rate it on whatever scale they choose. Rate it honestly on a scale of x out of ten, hundred or three dingoes, I insist on you giving me that number.

 

[Lodgem]

Numbered reviews can be useful in large numbers - many of the undeserved 0s can be cancelled out by the undeserved 10s and vice versa. They are not good as a final assessment, however. You have to read more complete reviews, and preferably more than one.

I haven't been following this game and so didn't know much beyond that it was extremely hyped. All I've seen of it is about 45 minutes of gameplay posed recently by Liana Kerzner, so I can't comment in detail or offer a recommendation. However, it seems to be a good game if you are looking for an open world survival sandbox game. If you're looking for something else, such as a detailed storyline, I think you'll be disappointed.

User reviews can be extremely valuable if they're well written (and some of them are), but when you read them you need to take into account where your preferences may differ with those of the reviewer. I've read positive reviews that have put me off games and negative reviews that have sparked my interest.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Wait? Someone already put 200 hours into NMS? Didn't it just release today? Was this a review copy or did they get one of the famous leaked copies?

And as others have said, how the hell do you put 200 hours into a game you don't like? There are games I only sorta liked that I was done with after 30 hours or less.

Only 200 hours for them to realize they don't like it? What kind of casual-tier reviewing is this? Most of the negative reviews for ARK: Survival Evolved don't seem to go below around 300 hours. Hell, I'm looking at a review right now from someone who's played the game for ~5,000 hours only to turn around and not recommend it. Granted, they claim it has to do with recent changes making the game bad, but the fact that next to the review it says they've played ~25 hours in the last two weeks (after the review was posted) makes me scratch my head.

On a related note, the game was apparently released on 2015/06/02, so that means they must have played nearly 12 hours per day. How is that even possible.

 

[Dalisclock]

On a related note, the game was apparently released on 2015/06/02, so that means they must have played nearly 12 hours per day. How is that even possible.

The Warcraft episode of South Park comes to mind....

 

[Caedite Eos]

What exactly do you imagine is in the "center" of the galaxy?

My guess is, a little easter egg.

Nothing worth the time getting there, that's for sure.

My guess would be a stats screen of sorts showing how many planets you visited, animals you saw, how many people came across your worlds, etc.
Maybe even a nice map of the universe displaying your path taken.

Or if I'm to be really pessimistic; a message with some quote that boils down to; "It's about the journey, not the destination.".

I'd bet money on one of those, definitely; the quote, most of all.

 

[shrekfan246]

Wait, people still actually give a crap about what number/percentage reviewers give games? I thought that by now people would have realised that the, yano, actual game review, ie, the words on the page talking about the game, is the only thing that matters? But no, apparantly people want something as complex as an entire form of media simplified to a number to determine if something is good or not, rather than spend the time reading words and forming objective opinions. Good job internet, lot's of progress there...

I am willing to read the words. I also want a number, though. I leave it to the reviewer and/or the outlet they work for if that number is at the beginning or the end of the informing and informed text. If there is no number, I am highly likely to not frequent that site anymore.

There are, of course, various exceptions to these ol' rules of mine. But when it is a quick score, a first impression, a TL;DR I'm after, you can be Elvis Siskel Ebert Shakespeare's second coming and that won't prevent me from rather quickly forgetting you even exist. If the critic is intimately knowledgeable with their discipline of choice, they will be able to rate it on whatever scale they choose. Rate it honestly on a scale of x out of ten, hundred or three dingoes, I insist on you giving me that number.

Why, though?

Like, I've got nothing against scores, but if all you're looking for is a quick TL;DR, that's what Metacritic is for. If you're going to an actual review at an actual website, why would you skip over the information that provides the context for the score? Numbers are absolutely meaningless for anything more than perhaps assessing the general technical prowess of a title; unless you already know a critic's preferences really well, any number they assign is going to be useless because it might not line up with your views. And if you do know their preferences, then it just seems incredibly lazy and reductive to ignore all of the work they put into something just to quickly scroll down to the number and then bail. Not only do they deserve more than that, but you deserve more, too, in order to actually make an informed decision. Seeing that something is a 7/10 doesn't explain why it got that score, and doesn't let you know if the issues that a critic had are ones that are going to make or break a game for you.