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

[Dizchu]

Just as a quick aside, you're right about bugs, glitches and arguably exploits being defects, but like with your music example, that doesn't necessarily hurt the game. We have a "Eight Things Blah Blah Blah" article on the front page for glitches in games that later became features. Where would G-Mod be without the wacky, exaggerated facial expressions and bodily contortions? Where would Smash Bros be without wavedashing? Where would twitch shooters, which I know are a favourite of yours, be without rocket jumping? While you can objectively say that they're a defect, thats not necessarily a value judgment of the defect itself.

Well, I agree that some glitches are harmless and endearing, and others are not so much errors but things in the game logic that can be exploited to provide entirely new possibilities. I was referring to the sorts of things like clipping through floors, crashing to desktop, clumsy physics engines, things that are a direct obstruction to the game. Even aesthetic things like disappearing textures and mangled-up meshes are things that I'd consider "objectively" bad. You raise a good point though, some "mistakes" can end up being innovations. But other mistakes can make a game unplayable, or at least have terrible performance issues.

It's actually quite an interesting thing to think about. Many of the greatest inventions, theories and works of art were the result of a complete accident.

 

[Skatologist]

Well, should of known Peridot would be popular after last Thursday's episode. Good I already have other ones in stock. I may also use best Gem for use later.

Either way, I lean critics, but I'm mostly in the middle for various sorts of media. I'd argue it would seem I've found myself agreeing with game critics the most, then film critics, then music critics.

Music critics are often musicians themselves and can usually inspect a work in ways I know I couldn't, and they seem to have a gripe with albums sounding to "samey", much less shrugging off entire genres and subgenres they personally don't like, but then again, everyone does that.

Film critics are a fairly diverse bunch, and despite my agreeing with their scores often times, I don't necessarily have the same feelings they do. Like recently, I watch Fantastic Four. Was it a bad movie that deserved a 1? Yes, but even saying that, I didn't hate the film in the slightest, it just sucked every step of the way.

Game critics have their own problems of other media critics of criticizing game sequels for being too similar to their predecessors, but often do so selectively. Other than that and maybe unnecessarily boosting AAA games in the past, I agree a lot with game critics. I look at the metascore of Gone Home and think "yeah, I kind of do think it deserves a score around a low 8, I was certainly entertained by time with it".

Also, anybody complaining about game critics should look up a dude called Armond White and his Rotten Tomatoes Scores/Reviews and how he judges games and realize you wouldn't know who the fuck he was without me spelling it out for you because he has next to no power in the film industry.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I like to read both, then usually I can find a sort of middle point between the two if they are at polar opposites and make my decision from there. Sometimes though a game's pre-release trailers (gameplay or otherwise) intrigue me enough that I cannot be dissuaded from buying it - the latest of such games is in fact MGSV.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Critics, for a lot of the same reasons other people posted, but I'll add one on. If you follow a critic you can get a feel for where your tastes align and where they differ. On the other hand, if a random user you've never seen before complements the gameplay, you don't really have a basis for what they consider to be good gameplay, and if it's inline with what you consider to be good gameplay.

Plus, I like "pretentious" or artsy games like Journey, so that really isn't a turn off for me

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Well probably professional critics first. On PC, you have a lot of Steam opinions that are misleading while trying to be witty or funny but offering no real information. Then there's metacritic scores that can have a ton of people downvoting because of controversy bandwagoning.
And yes there are valid user scores out there, but sometimes I've got to wade through multiple scores that have no useful information in them to find a user who actually said something about the game that gives me an inkling if I'd like it or not.
At least with professional critics I know I'm getting a full opinion on the game, even if I might not agree with it at least they're willing to articulate why they didn't like it.
I've only written a few reviews on games, but I try to provide enough information for people to get a sense of what I found in the game, whether it was worth the buying price or not and why.

 

[Skatologist]

Also want to touch up on the time thing. I think it's a good criticism of reviewers of media, particularly film, television, and games. Movie critics only see a film once before a review in one particular circumstance almost completely artificial to many other people who view movies. Game Critics may beat the game one time or just spend a few hours on it, or have the placed into an environment by publishers. Television critics may just watch the first half of a season of a series to place judgment, or let their review of the first episode of the season warp their views on the rest of the series.

It basically boils down to reviews being more "impressions" rather than "analyzes" in regards to what they review, since they're given so little time to let their true thoughts and feelings sink in for a review. This is because people want their immediate thoughts as reviewers, often because we wish to know if a piece of media ought to be purchased by us as soon as humanely possible.

Leon Thomas/Renegade Cut released a video on film criticism just today. I highly recommend it:

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I trust critics more. I've worked among them long enough.

 

[Bat Vader]

Neither. Both are from a subjective opinion. Someone has theirs online because it's their job. Others have theirs online because they didn't like the shoe size of Mastercheif and it's destroyed their world.

I trust myself and I'm able to form my own opinion. Anyone who decides a purchase based off of someones opinion online is quite frankly stupid.

Just because you disagree with it doesn't make the person stupid. You really can't judge how intelligent someone is just by one thing.

On Topic: I trust neither. I prefer to play a game myself and come to my own conclusions on it. Just because critics and user reviews say a game is amazing doesn't mean I will find it amazing.

 

[Wary Wolf]

I like to make a comparison with the public, who score a game 7-9 out of 10 and those who score it 4-6 out of ten. It gives a much more objective view on what the game's problems are. Professional critics tend to go for pretty standard scores of 7-9 out of ten. Especially when there is a very 'popular' game come out.

Yes, game critics are more professional, but would you trust Jim Sterling to objectively review Dynasty Warriors, or Yahtzee to objectively review Final Fantasy?

Yes, they could do it, but you're going to get a little bit of their bias in there.

 

[fenrizz]

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.

Well, I'd place Gone Home in my top 5 games that year.
I really enjoyed the experience, and I got it at a bargain price as well.

OT:
I tend to not trust either one too much, but try to get a sense of what the general opinion of the game is.
Also, being older now I know pretty well what type of experience I might like and that helps alot.

 

[DementedSheep]

Neither. Both are from a subjective opinion. Someone has theirs online because it's their job. Others have theirs online because they didn't like the shoe size of Mastercheif and it's destroyed their world.

I trust myself and I'm able to form my own opinion. Anyone who decides a purchase based off of someones opinion online is quite frankly stupid.

Just because you disagree with it doesn't make the person stupid. You really can't judge how intelligent someone is just by one thing.

On Topic: I trust neither. I prefer to play a game myself and come to my own conclusions on it. Just because critics and user reviews say a game is amazing doesn't mean I will find it amazing.

Judging for yourself after playing it is all well and good but unless you are sailing the high seas or the game has demo/ free trail you can't play a game before you spend money on it.

 

[Bat Vader]

Neither. Both are from a subjective opinion. Someone has theirs online because it's their job. Others have theirs online because they didn't like the shoe size of Mastercheif and it's destroyed their world.

I trust myself and I'm able to form my own opinion. Anyone who decides a purchase based off of someones opinion online is quite frankly stupid.

Just because you disagree with it doesn't make the person stupid. You really can't judge how intelligent someone is just by one thing.

On Topic: I trust neither. I prefer to play a game myself and come to my own conclusions on it. Just because critics and user reviews say a game is amazing doesn't mean I will find it amazing.

Judging for yourself after playing it is all well and good but unless you are sailing the high seas or the game has demo/ free trail you can't play a game before you spend money on it.

A majority of the games I buy are because I rented the game first to try it out or played a demo. For games that don't have a demo or are PC only I will usually just eat the money I spend on it. 90% of the time though I enjoy them. Pillars of Eternity was one such game.

 

[Nazulu]

Lately it's been public for me. I usually look at both positive and negative reviews to get a balance, but for some reason I usually find the negative user reviews bring up significant problems more often than the critics. It's amazing how many flaws I find that are generally ignored, or sugar coated.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Neither/ both? I mean both sides has their pro and cons-

Public- Pro- Their reviews can be more "real" at times like telling you the specific things that make the game good/ bad in a sentence than needing to read a paragraph/ long video to say that specific part from a critic. Con- Depending the age/ maturity of that public review, it can be rather bias or a immature review.

Critic- Pro-Thier reviews are usually presented and written well, tell you everything you need to know about that game. Con- They could be dishonest with the review. I'm not saying all of them are dishonest but I know not all reviews are to be trusted (my brother used to work in the gaming industry).

 

[SmallHatLogan]

Specifically regarding scores. I generally don't take scores into account unless they're universally bad, but I have to vote for user scores. Reason being, as much as I hate to admit it, I tend to use the user review summaries on Steam as a way of determining if I'll bother checking a game out or not. If a game has an "overwhelmingly positive" reception on Steam then I'm more likely to take notice of it. Whereas a game having over 90 on metacritic isn't something I take into consideration.

But do I trust a critic's opinion over a user's? It's probably about the same. A critic's opinion is potentially more interesting and nuanced, but I read game criticism more as something to do out of interest as opposed to a buyer's guide. If I'm researching a purchase I'll get a general consensus of a game's pros and cons from both users and critics, but more importantly I'll check out some gameplay footage.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

If I had to go by the average score based on Critical reviews or the average score based on Public reviews, I'd go Critic every time.

I mean, are they flawed occasionally? Have their own biases or generally have a different taste than me? Well sure. But they aren't going to latch onto an innocuous thing, give it a 0/10 or 10/10, then have all their sock puppets, their buddies, and all their buddie's sock puppets to come and give out the exact same score.

Especially if buying, let alone playing, isn't a requirement for making a review.

 

[Dizchu]

Well, should of known Peridot would be popular after last Thursday's episode. Good I already have other ones in stock. I may also use best Gem for use later.

She is a precious cinnamon roll.

Music critics are often musicians themselves and can usually inspect a work in ways I know I couldn't, and they seem to have a gripe with albums sounding to "samey", much less shrugging off entire genres and subgenres they personally don't like, but then again, everyone does that.

I usually find that music critics have an advantage, as they usually have the time to listen to an album a few times before making their final assessment. Compare this with film reviewers who have to watch a screening of a film or game reviewers who have to blast through a game to meet a deadline. The length of games vary wildly, from short little 10 minute experiences to sprawling monstrosities that can take upwards of 100 hours. Films rarely exceed three hours, albums rarely exceed 70 minutes.

Leon Thomas/Renegade Cut released a video on film criticism just today. I highly recommend it:

Good video, though I have a few objections. Mainly about assuming that a critical consensus is due to the social climate of the time, rather than honest opinions. But otherwise I agree, some works need to be re-visited a few decades afterwards. However, I will say that some "cult classics" can be and should be appreciated while acknowledging that they might be... err... pretty bad. Take Labyrinth for example, I love that film. But I don't disagree with the mixed reviews it had. Similarly, there are a few classic films that I don't understand but can appreciate. I think a negative view on something you cherish (if it's written well), can enhance your appreciation of it.

By realising its flaws it can make it more personal to you, because it's something you value despite its faults. Judas Priest have some pretty awful lyrics, but I can't resist singing along to them.

 

[kasperbbs]

I found a few critics that i can trust and most of the time our opinions seem to match. User reviews help me find out some things that the reviews left out, but most of the time it's just praises by fanboys or haters that hate the game because it's not on their system, was developed by X company and has X type of DRM.

 

[Poetic Nova]

Neither.

Scores mean jack shit compared to a well though out argument, and still, I'd rather play it myself to form my own oppinion, or atleast watch gameplay video's. Trailers aren't trustworthy nowadays.