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

[Mikeybb]

I sit somewhere in the middle, in that I don't specifically trust any individual reviewer but have been influenced by letsplayers who in showcasing the fun aspects of a game (or the fun that can be had with it if the game is bad but charming and cheap).
Effectively they perform a review like service by doing this.


I do pay attention to user reviews, but never as a score element alone.
More that I'll look at the low scoring reviews and consider the points they raise as reasons for such a low rating, then check them against other low and middling reviews.
Should a significant (to me) problem surface too frequently, I'll have a poke around in forums discussing said game before I either shy off temporarily, permanently or in some cases make a purchase.

In honesty, a wave of negative reviews can make me suspicious of a title and result in me holding off.
It's similar in a way to the suspicion that would be raised by something plastering too many high scores from websites on it's cover, but that was before the days of me having internet access.
Suffice to say back then I mostly held off until pczone had reviewed the title.
I miss those guys.

 

[The White Hunter]

Score means fuck all I read the review

 

[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.

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.

Oh right, renting. I always forget about that since you rent on the PC.

 

[Nuuu]

I go for a mix of both. Critics are what tell me what genre it is and how well it grades to that genre, but the public is what tells me the other overlooked facts: The community and interactions, niche issues that appear for certain users (but aren't known until a while after release), and when done right, can give a general idea of the game's quality.

Granted when it comes to user reviews, i'm only talking about Steam's review/recommendation system. As others have said, the 1-5/10 scale is garbage when it comes to the public, which is why I like Steam's Do/Don't recommend system more. Players recommend or don't recommend the game along with giving it a summary or review, and the percentage of positive reviews are shown on the store page. If you want to investigate what people think about it, you can just scroll down and take a look at why people are giving the game a thumbs up/down. If it looks like the game's score has been bloated (low content reviews, reviews with low hours) then you can turn to a critic or ignore the game entirely. The best part is that you have to own the game to give it a good/bad recommendation so a random flood of people can't tank the rating without giving the developer a ton of profit as well.

Still, both aren't perfectly reliable by themselves, we have both for a reason.

 

[Luminous_Umbra]

The public, if for no other reason than it being extremely easy to tell a biased review from a non-biased review. That is, I can just skip past the biased reviews.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Neither and both.

When I look at a review I recognize that why that person came to their specific conclusions as the true heart of the review. When critical and public reviews happen to differ widely I try to look at why they do so, where the differences in reasoning lies and how they apply to my own taste. Then I draw a conclusion whether I'd probably like the game or not. Any specific score that's given? Yeah no, that means fairly little.

In the end, critics and general consumers often have different expectations from a product. TotalBiscuit made a pretty intelligent video about that specific matter. So I try to keep that in mind when looking at reviews, as I have expectations and priorities that both critics and consumers have.

 

[Saltyk]

I don't really pay too much attention to review scores. It's actually pretty rare that a review makes me go out and buy a game or not. Often I check reviews after buying the game I wanted. More to see if others like it as much as I do.

When it comes to critics, I find they don't always like the same games I do. Other times they seem to ignore things that are quite annoying. The critical scores for FFXIII are overwhelmingly positive for example.[footnote]Full Disclosure: I don't hate FFXIII. In fact, I'm currently playing it trying to beat it as I never did before. It's by no means a perfect game, but I certainly don't think it's utter garbage. I'd probably give it a 6 or 7 out of 10. Mind you that's a reasonable score and not on a scale where 8 is a "terrible game".[/footnote]

Meanwhile user reviews can be whiny cry babies. They seem to knock off points for baffling and often petty reasons. I'd actually like to point out Mass Effect 3. Now, I understand the complaint about the ending, however, 90% of the game is actually pretty damn good. But because people didn't like the ending, many gave it scores of zero. They ignored any and all good parts of the game simply because of the ending. I could understand knocking a point or two off for that, but the game certainly doesn't deserve a goose egg score. For example, I'd say that Sonic Generations has a pretty disappointing final level, but up till that point the game is pretty good. I wouldn't say the ending ruined absolutely everything that came before it.

Though I've also seen users give games scores that are insanely positive. I've seen games that weren't very good get great scores. Like Aliens: Colonial Marines. Check Metacritic. There are 8/10, 9/10, and even 10/10 User scores for that game. All seem to amount to "true fans" of the Aliens franchise gushing over the game. So, yeah...

All in all, I'd take any review with a grain of salt, at minimum. A whole salt shaker at worst. Luckily, I'm never lacking salt.

 

[FPLOON]

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

It's... still the best anime, right?

OT: I trust my gut[footnote]It has an 87 in my mind's Rotten Tomatoes...[/footnote]... and then see if the public/critics are on a similar page as my own gut... If so, that's nice, yet if they don't and could "back it up" in terms of their overall reasoning, then I can respect their opinion, at least...

Other than that, it's a case-by-case basis that ultimately depends on my gut making the final play before my wallet goes "Again?" like I have an Orange Soda addiction or something...

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Neither. Both can be wrong.

See: Dragon Age Inquisition.

Both sides loved it, but when I played it, it was a mediocre story with little to no pacing, bland writing and fan service.

I usually ask my friends about it, and when possible, try to play a borrowed version.

 

[Mad World]

Neither. When it comes to games, though, critics typically seem to give a fair representation (I don't look at enough serious user scores to decide if I really trust users), but I'd rather decide for myself via gameplay videos or whatever. But when it comes to movies, I absolutely would place user reviews above critics. The "stereotype of the snobby critic" definitely seems to hold true. Again, though, I'd rather just risk seeing the movie. Too often have I heard from a friend that this or that movie was horrible, only to find out that I didn't agree.

Each to their own.

 

[Fox12]

The thing you have to understand about critics is that they see a LOT of games/films/books/ect. cross their desk. Not only that, but they have to heavily analyze them. So a film like this comes along:

Spoiler

And everyone losses their shit. It's got action, adventure, romance, and great humor. The audiences love it, and it makes all the money. But there's a problem. There are voices of descent. Some critics don't like the movie. The characters are too shallow, they say. The plot is episodic, and it's painfully obvious the writer just copied down the heroes journey, line by line. It's just another coming of age story. The heroes and villains are too black and white, there's no ambiguity or subtlety, and the themes are harmless and shallow. What's the situation with the government? What exactly IS the force? Is it sentient, or just a vague spirituality? These critics pan it, explaining that they've seen this done a million times before. It's boring, unoriginal, and, frankly, kind of dumb.

No, they say. You'd be much better of watching something like this.

Spoiler

End of Evangelion

There's deep symbolism in nearly every frame of the film, complex themes about nihilism, sexuality, psychology, violence, death, the individual vs. society, the self, the fear of others, religion, humanism, the inevitable death of the human race, and much more. They throw around words like post-modern, and explain that it's experimental and subversive.

The audiences watch in horror. First of all, what's wrong with a simple film with old fashioned values? Star Wars is fun, after all. And this is what critics recommend instead? Why does the boy jack off over a comatose girl? Why is there a giant naked angel lady killing everyone? Why is there live action footage at the ending of the film? Why does the protagonist strangle his friend? The critics try to explain that it's all symbolic (it actually is), but it just goes over the audiences head. Clearly the critics are just seeing symbolism where there is none, and think they're smarter then everyone else. How on earth can they like something like that over good, clean, moral fun like Star Wars.

Meanwhile the critics shake their head. Their masterpiece should be appreciated for how well made it is. Films like this are rare, and it's VERY difficult for films like this to get made, partly because the films are hugely complex, and partly because their risky and hard to fund. If the audiences just understood then they would appreciate it. The critics get bitter. This is why we can't have nice things. The average person is clearly just too stupid to get it. This only furthers the idea that critics are arrogant and pretentious.

In a sense both are right. It's really just a difference in perspective.

 

[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.

Oh right, renting. I always forget about that since you rent on the PC.

I use both consoles and a PC. If I like a game on the consoles I will usually also get it for PC.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

Users or 'real people' as I call them, as long as it hasn't been Metabombed. Critics are cynical and jaded, everything is a cliche to them. They just don't have a realistic perspective.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I'm sad the poll doesn't have an option for "both", or "neither". That's the TL;DR version, the big stuff is below.

Spoiler

I tend to skim through everything I can reach once a game I'm interested comes in. The big review sites, the small ones, YouTube review producers, Metacritic - and then I try and compare everything I've seen against what my own gut feeling tells me.

I'm suspicious of today's reviewing conditions, with boot camps being more of a deforming lens than a means to get an exhaustive view of the game in a fashion that leaves any room for criticism. I'm also suspicious of overly critical approaches, largely because I've read enough reports and reviews to know when scorn or spite starts to give a particular tint to sentences. The sweet spot is unattainable by virtue of how freaking emotional human beings tend to be, but it's still easy to find the occasional rundown where an honest effort was given.

I also don't trust user reviews at all, largely because of the above reason. Head to Metacritic, and for every concise explanation, you'll see twelve instances of "OMG BUY THIS NOW!" and even more of "THIS IS COMPLETE SHIT I HATE THIS." It's hard to ask people to be objective, seeing as most of us tend to understand "review" as meaning "what you, yourself, with your personal biases, likes and dislikes, thought of the product".

It doesn't. A review is what arises when someone at least tries to be objective - and objectivity is really, really hard to grasp in the context of game reviews. Someone might have some tolerance for a given mechanic, someone else will verbally disembowel any game that so much as shows the slightest smidgen of said mechanic. Reviews are personal diaries of our experience with the product, in a sense - but nobody signs up to hear you gush or gnash your teeth. It's an odd balance to maintain.

 

[Dizchu]

I'm sad the poll doesn't have an option for "both", or "neither". That's the TL;DR version, the big stuff is below.

Doesn't the "I have an equal amount of trust/lack of trust" option suffice? It's okay if it doesn't, no poll is perfect.

That said, the rest of your post pretty much sums up my feelings. My own views are (oddly) not easy to categorise into any of the three options I provided. Maybe I should've included a fourth option: "it depends". I find Rotten Tomatoes scores to be a good estimate (Metacritic scores on the other hand? Not so much). I find user-generated equivalent scores to be less trustworthy... most of the time. With music I'd trust a Rate Your Music rating over a Metacritic rating any day.

But I also have a detachment with many critics, I can tell that many are out of touch and many others fall into the same traps the fanboys and haters fall into. I like a good, cathartic, scathing review as much as anyone but when someone says "this is the worst thing I've ever seen" every few months, it lessens the impact (and credibility). On the other hand, most of Christopher Nolan's films are near the top of the IMdB top 250 list (compiled by user votes). I liked Interstellar, but I can tell that its high ranking is due to 10s being spammed, not it being a genuine classic.

 

[totheendofsin]

I'll glance at both, and if there's a huge disparity I'll usually try to figure out why that is

 

[lord canti]

Honestly, there are only a few critics whose opinions I actually put some investment in, but for the most part I always from my own opinions whether or not I'll play the game.

 

[FalloutJack]

Hah hah hah hah... I believe in MY view, if I think it looks interesting. Usually works out.

 

[Frankster]

User reviews for me, big time.

It's been a long while since I've found critic reviews to be of any help to me. I just find them too biased AGAINST the kind of games I love and enjoy whilst praising to the high heavens games I feel are just mediocre but happen to have high production values and/or hype. The only exception tends to be some youtube reviewers who I know share similar tastes as me.
Also contrary to what some might believe, critics aren't often that much more knowledgeable then gamers themselves past a certain age, the ONLY thing thing critics have going for them is seeming like a position of authority.

Furthermore critics are certainly not any more "critical" then user reviews, heck contrary to what most people are saying in the thread, I've found the opposite to be true. If you want remorseless criticisms, check out what players have to say, they are usually far more picky and likely to fixate on small things which might end up being quite important.
Heck one of the best sites I go to when considering getting a game is rpgcodex exactly because they tear games apart mercilessly and any praise earned there is hard earned and grudgingly given.

Otherwise regarding bitchy 0 reviews people leave for the stupidest reasons? I ignore those with the same frequency I ignore 10/10s "best game ever!" reviews. You'll always find a decently written review in the steam review section, the trick is just to find it and see which review rings the most true for you. Also the rating system is a bit stupid anyways, steam reviews and simply giving a thumbs up or down works perfectly fine so long as you're happy to wade through the garbage reviews in order to find the well written ones.

 

[shrekfan246]

Put simply, fuck user reviews.

They're the stupidest, most petty things outside of Youtube comments, and they're completely useless. Like, actually 100% pointless and worthless.

That's not to say the opinions expressed in them are the same, but I'd much rather read those opinions expressed in a thoughtful manner on, say, an actual forum or face-to-face rather than reading some bile-laden screed about how the game is the worst thing to exist since the last game that mildly annoyed that user and how the publisher of said game literally burnt down their home and murdered their entire family.

On the flipside, fuck the obscene levels of importance that users give to score numbers in the first place. Every person who starts flipping out because [X Game] got a score "too high" or "too low" or whinges because [Y Game] is "better/worse" but got a lower/higher score just makes me shake my head even harder, and I'm surprised I haven't either become an actual bobble-head or unscrewed my skull yet. The way it comes from people actually in the industry, most of the big-name publishers don't actually give much of a toss about scores. It's the indie developers or the "auteurs" like Cliffy B. who get a load of sand up their bums when their games don't get received exactly the way they wanted.

You know what critic reviews are generally useful for? Determining whether a game actually works. If it's got an aggregate score of 70 or higher, you can typically assume it'll be functional and playable, and generally speaking it'll have the "standard" mechanics in place to make it a decent, average, AAA game. Of course there are always exceptions (Batman: Arkham Knight on PC, anyone?) but in general that's what the consensus is useful for. And then individual critics are the people I actually follow for full opinions, and that's because they tend to be more eloquent on explaining what they think works or doesn't and why they think that way than the average user.

Wow, that came out far harsher than I initially intended. I'm not actually that upset by user reviews, though I am incredibly tired of users constantly whinging about Metacritic when they're the ones giving it so much relevance in the first place. If people didn't refuse to buy games that have a Metacritic score lower than 80, then nobody would care in any way.