Poll: Which do you Trust More, User Scores or Critic Scores?

[Dizchu]

There's often a lot of talk about the divide between critics and the general public. In fact, the stereotype of the snobby critic has been around for centuries. Often works of art considered classics now were critically panned when they were first displayed, performed or released. Other times they alienated the public, only to become revered decades later for being innovative.

Critics are often accused of being out-of-touch, pretentious, taking satisfaction from tearing other peoples' work apart. But (in my opinion), the general public aren't usually any better. The IMDb top 250 list is a prime example of this. Several blockbusters with massive amounts of hype skyrocket to the #1 position for a few days or weeks as 10/10 scores are spammed. On the other hand, sites like Metacritic often display instances of "protest voting", where users band together to spam 1/10 scores on titles they dislike for superficial reasons (see Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2).

The critic/public divide is one that is often discussed, and I was just wondering, out of the two, which do you trust more? Let's ignore the whole discussion about review aggregate sites for a moment and dilute it down to the two options. You have an average score from the critics, and another form the users. Which do you personally find more trustworthy?

 

[EternallyBored]

On the whole, I trust critics way more. User reviews can be valuable for dissenting opinions if you hunt down the gems in a sea of shit. User reviews as a whole are usually only good for gauging whether or not there's a controversy going on that's causing review bombs. This is occasionally useful in cases where post-launch shenanigans get missed by critics like poor online performance or extremely glitchy release, but this rarely has much to do with the quality of the game itself, e.g. the release of AC:Unity was shitty and worth knowing about, but spamming the review pages with 0's means diddly shit.

I am plenty wary of the pitfalls of professional reviews, and ideally I take both user reviews and professional reviews into account, but I find professional critics to still generally be more useful in telling me about the overall quality of a game.

 

[Queen Michael]

As a whole, critics. They don't give a game 0/5 because they dislike the DRM. They don't give all half-decent romcoms 5 of 5 on Amazon just because they like the genre. They don't give top marks to a half-decent movie because the lead guy is hot.

You know why user scores for Transformers 3 were much higher than critic scores? Because the only people who went to see it were moviegoers who like that kind of movie. Obviously you'll get a good score then.

 

[soren7550]

Critics, seeing as they aren't going to give a game like Cory in the House perfect scores for teh lols.

 

[tippy2k2]

I don't know a nice way to put it so I'm just going to say it...

The Average user is a dipshit

While good user reviews certainly exist, most User Reviews I see boil down to "0/10; w0rst gayme evar!" or "10/10; cured my cancer it's so good!!!!11!". Even the ones that give a game a normal score generally have half a paragraph, maybe a full paragraph if you get lucky.

Critical reviews look at games with...well....a critical eye and that's an eye that I'm going to trust way more than the average user. They break down components of the game (graphic/aesthetics, control, difficulty curve, etc.) and then piece it back together to tell you if it all fits or not. They look at the game and judge it based on it's merits and not whether they like that genre or it doesn't give the message they want or any other things that seem to infect the user review. There certainly are shitty critics out there but I can figure out what critics have the same line of thinking as I do and gravitate towards them and stay away from the ones that I either disagree with or that try to push their own agenda rather than review the game.

There are individual users who I will listen to if they recommend something (I'm waiting for a price drop but I will be buying "Blood Bowl 2" specifically because a user on this very website recommended it) or a user review might catch my eye and make me wonder about a game but I will always look for the critic review before I make my purchase.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Critics. I have always, and probably always will, trust critics way more. Personal friends I will listen to, but I'm never going to read a user review and trust it more than a critic's take because, as everyone else has said, users are bias as hell. And they don't try to hide it 99.9% of the time.

 

[Lightspeaker]

I'm going to go against the grain here and say User Scores. But that's because I have a very specific way of assessing user reviews.

What I do is I look specifically at the reviews rating whatever it is as the absolute worst thing ever first. And I go through them all. Then I simply ask myself that if ALL of those things said about it are true am I still interested in the item? THEN I'll look at the other reviews.

I've found it rarely fails as a strategy. Because if I decide that I can put up with whatever the worst possible complaints from people who hate it have then I'll probably like it. If there are things that I decide I couldn't put up with, of course, I start digging a bit deeper. But I find user reviews like that to be very valuable. A kind of marketing "if you can't handle me at my worst you don't deserve me at my best" kind of thing.

 

[Zontar]

God damn it, I clicked critics when I means public.

I WANT to select public (but can't now) because they're more in line with how I tend to feel about games. Having to shell out 80$ for a new game that I'm going to try and get my money's worth out of I'm more likely to find someone in line with how I feel about it who's from the same situation as I am instead of someone getting the game given to them and blasting through the campaign as fast as humanly possible.

Even ignoring things like the Gone Home fiasco which showed just how disconnected critics are from the user base, a more recent example is Metal Gear Solid V. The, eh, the second one. The game's critics ratings is pretty much entirely 9s and 10s for what is at best an 8 and in more likelihood a 7 if we're being honest. Or the annual instalment of Battlefield (this year in the form of Battlefront) or Call of Duty, which are the very definition of a 6 for the FPS genre, always getting 9s and 10s. I'm calling it now, Star Wars Battlefront will be getting 9s and 10s from critics despite being unplayable online for months both because of mechanical issues and the fact the damn thing is broken to the core.

I'll start trusting critics when they give me a reason to, so far, they have not.

 

[DementedSheep]

Critics, users scores have a tendency of being either 10 or 1 and people give 1s because they don't the like the existence of DLC or something or because they are trying to make the overall score lower.

Although it doesn't really matter for games because unless a game is scored 4 (in which case I probably won't bother looking at it unless it's got some interesting hook) I purchase based on game footage and descriptions of the story/features. I've been gaming long enough that I can usually tell if it's too my taste or not from that. I don't think I've ever watched a review for a movie to decide if I want to see it.

 

[Dizchu]

Even ignoring things like the Gone Home fiasco which showed just how disconnected critics are from the user base, a more recent example is Metal Gear Solid V.

About Gone Home. I agree that there was a disconnect between the critics and the users. However, I see this as a failing of how games are categorised rather than the fault of the critics. Let's compare it to music. Play a death metal song in your local pub and regardless of the quality of the music, the responses will be along the lines of "this isn't real music", "real music has understandable lyrics", "this is just noise". Doesn't sound too different to "this isn't a real game", "real games have win/lose states", "this is just a walking simulator".

While I find it unrealistic to compartmentalise game genres the same way we do music genres, the fault does seem to be with the overly commodified nature of video games. They're seen as products primarily, hours of content are valued on the same level as quality of content, there are particular conventions people expect and if they're not met the consumer has been "cheated". Which is not completely wrong, but it seems to be a fault of the marketing rather than the game itself.

With Gone Home, critics weren't necessarily duped by its mysterious advertising. They're open to new things because they don't have to risk losing money on it. If it's not their cup of tea, they can just avoid reviewing it altogether. The reason it got high scores is because, like a well-done extreme metal or experimental jazz album, it does what it sets out to do (at least, the critics thought so).

I suppose music is sort of unique in that respect. With games and films, all genres outside of the truly experimental are displayed together. RPGs and FPSs, thrillers and comedies, they're on the same level, they're given comparable amounts of advertising and exposure.

Sorry if that was a long ramble, just my two cents.

 

[Zontar]

Snip

Calling Gone Home good at what it was trying to be (a cross between walking simulator and basic puzzle game) is one thing, but many critics where calling it the Game of the Year, a title it was very much undeserving of even within its own type of game for that year, let alone in general.

 

[GrumbleGrump]

I generally try to listen to my preferred videogame critics and movie critics if I want to play or see something.

 

[The Lunatic]

If I want to know what's wrong with a game, public scores will tell you that in big capital letters.

If I want a general impression of a game, then critic scores are sometimes worth listening to.

Rare that I pay much attention to reviews of any kind however.

 

[Kae]

Neither to be honest, I don't care about quantifiable scores, they're only useful when you want to gauge the general opinion of the game, however I do trust critics more but I don't care about scores, I care about what they say about the game because sometimes a thing they list as positive is a negative for me or vice versa, the point is I want to find out how the game works, so I'll look up a few reviews from critics I like that generally have different opinions and a few gameplay videos and after that I choose if the game is worth buying or not, after all sometimes games might look like a lot of fun but for example I wouldn't play Payday, I want to, I really do but I don't have a group of people I can play Payday with so there's no point in me buying it, how do I know? I wanted to play Guns of Icarus a lot but the group I got didn't really work out so I ended up never playing the thing so I bought the 4-pack for nothing, of course the fact that Steam limited me to only gifting people in my country instead of any of my friends is partially to blame for that.

But anyway, scores are irrelevant, reading what people have to say is what's important.

 

[Dizchu]

Snip

Calling Gone Home good at what it was trying to be (a cross between walking simulator and basic puzzle game) is one thing, but many critics where calling it the Game of the Year, a title it was very much undeserving of even within its own type of game for that year, let alone in general.

That's like... your opinion, man.

But seriously though I think this is a case of art vs product. Many have been calling for reviews to be more "objective" which for music and films is a completely ridiculous expectation, but with video games that rely primarily on technical things, it's not as straightforward. If a game has poor programming or is incompatible with certain systems or has severe glitches, it is defective. If it is defective that is an objective lack of quality, no doubt about it. As a comparison, music can have poor recording quality but not be objectively bad as a result (in fact such an aesthetic can enhance the final product).

When it comes to critiquing video games though, that's where objectivity ends. When it comes to the subjective, there is no "wrong opinion". I personally think Rayman Legends is better than GTA V, both of which came out in 2013. Does that make me "wrong"? Does it make the critics wrong for praising GTA V more than Rayman, frequently placing it at the top of their game of the year lists? Or are they just opinions that I can take or leave? Bioshock Infinite (which also came out in 2013) made a lot of game of the year lists, and was also well-received by the public. I thought it was mediocre with flashes of brilliance. Do I have a "wrong" opinion? If I wrote a professional review giving it a 6/10 would that be bad because it flies in the face of not only the gaming public, but fellow critics?

 

[Redryhno]

Depends, we talking indie, AAA, crowdfunded, silent partner investment, private funding? Because alot of my thoughts depend on who and/or what funded the development anymore.

I mean, for indies I'll believe the public, AAA I'll believe certain critics, crowdfunding I'll again go back to public. It really depends on a case-by-case basis.

As a general rule though, neither without the other, ever, rule forged in steel, covered in concrete and locked in a lead vault, no exceptions. For all the complete trolls and shit-posting user reviews have, they also give a general idea of what the person thinks of the game that critics don't always acknowledge. Hell, I still use Yahtzee as a starting point alot of the times on games I'm interested in, because I've found we have similar tastes the older I've gotten. But I still don't take his word as gospel, even if he obviously has trouble finding something to rip about a game(which normally means it's either really good, or it did something special to his knob).

In all, I don't really trust either more than the other, but I have come to trust Critics less, even though I want and should be able to trust them more, I just can't anymore. Burned far too many times the last few years especially.

Even ignoring things like the Gone Home fiasco which showed just how disconnected critics are from the user base, a more recent example is Metal Gear Solid V.

About Gone Home. I agree that there was a disconnect between the critics and the users. However, I see this as a failing of how games are categorised rather than the fault of the critics. Let's compare it to music. Play a death metal song in your local pub and regardless of the quality of the music, the responses will be along the lines of "this isn't real music", "real music has understandable lyrics", "this is just noise". Doesn't sound too different to "this isn't a real game", "real games have win/lose states", "this is just a walking simulator".

While I find it unrealistic to compartmentalise game genres the same way we do music genres, the fault does seem to be with the overly commodified nature of video games. They're seen as products primarily, hours of content are valued on the same level as quality of content, there are particular conventions people expect and if they're not met the consumer has been "cheated". Which is not completely wrong, but it seems to be a fault of the marketing rather than the game itself.

With Gone Home, critics weren't necessarily duped by its mysterious advertising. They're open to new things because they don't have to risk losing money on it. If it's not their cup of tea, they can just avoid reviewing it altogether. The reason it got high scores is because, like a well-done extreme metal or experimental jazz album, it does what it sets out to do (at least, the critics thought so).

I suppose music is sort of unique in that respect. With games and films, all genres outside of the truly experimental are displayed together. RPGs and FPSs, thrillers and comedies, they're on the same level, they're given comparable amounts of advertising and exposure.

Sorry if that was a long ramble, just my two cents.

Eh, it's not that bad of a comparison, but you're forgetting the MULTITUDES of albums released that have one or two good songs on them and a dozen shitshows that you have to pay for that people complain about because they aren't available in any other legal forms. Albums are still quantified by the same standards of "worth my time" and "long enough" as games in that regard.

Gone Home is alot like that to me. It had a good art team behind it, but that was about it. Very little direction, "challenge" was almost completely fighting the controls, and the story is forgettable if it weren't for the blow-up over the lezzies being in it as a "twist"(how did anyone not see it coming with the inclusion of "SAM"? Like seriously, that's high school level writing there whether you like it or not).

Can you see where people might very much dislike it? Especially with more than a few albums having it come out that the "critics" were paid to say "best one yet" for some bands? While it's got a nice artstyle and somewhat intriguing setup, it does nothing else with it and has nothing else to it. And yet this was given near perfect scores by almost every outlet and was fast-tracked for SOOOOO many awards that other games deserved on technical ability alone when it came out.

 

[Dizchu]

Eh, it's not that bad of a comparison, but you're forgetting the MULTITUDES of albums released that have one or two good songs on them and a dozen shitshows that you have to pay for that people complain about because they aren't available in any other legal forms. Albums are still quantified by the same standards of "worth my time" and "long enough" as games in that regard.

Personally I'd consider an album with a couple of good songs and the rest being filler as a bad album, or at best mediocre. It's like my opinion of Bioshock Infinite in that regard. Excellent opening and ending, a few highlights here and there, but otherwise a relentless slog. Like the album with the couple of gems amongst a sea of mediocrity, it was worth experiencing, but ultimately I'd prefer to just experience the highlights again.

That said, I don't hear much of the "not long enough" criticism (there's actually only one album I can recall that had that criticism and that was because more songs were promised). I have plenty of LPs that are shorter than 30 minutes but don't feel like they have a lack of content.

Can you see where people might very much dislike it? Especially with more than a few albums having it come out that the "critics" were paid to say "best one yet" for some bands? While it's got a nice artstyle and somewhat intriguing setup, it does nothing else with it and has nothing else to it. And yet this was given near perfect scores by almost every outlet and was fast-tracked for SOOOOO many awards that other games deserved on technical ability alone when it came out.

While it was one of my favourite games (or "games") of that year, it was more because it hinted at something greater rather than it being groundbreaking (seriously, it's like a lot of the critics had never played Myst). I understand why people who are "on board" with it (as you seem to be) may dislike it, I share some of the same criticisms. I see the hyperinflated scores as critics leaping excitedly at something new more than anything, which I can understand considering their job consists of trudging through a lot of samey titles that most consumers wouldn't. I have some experience in music criticism, though on a hobbyist level. If I had to listen to countless promo CDs I would lose my mind and probably exaggerate the quality of the one band that does things differently even if I might have only found them decent before.

Which ultimately leads to my own answer to the question I posed. I trust critics up to a point. In terms of aggregates I am fond of the Rotten Tomatoes system of an "approval rating", which doesn't so much measure quality but the probability of satisfaction. A 92% may not be a "classic", but there's a good chance that I'll enjoy it. If I look more in-depth, I tend to stick to critics whose opinions often correlate with mine. If they recommend a film that has otherwise had mixed critical reception, I may check it out because I might share their perspective. On another level, this "critic" could just be a friend rather than a professional, someone who shares my interests and might provide better insight into the quality of the work.