Reviews all the way for me. Games are too expensive to risk it and end up with a lemon!
I did this with Spider-man 3 and Raging Blast 2, ignored the reviews and paid dearly.
From a consumers perspective, it isn't. I use metacritic to get a list and then go and read as much as possible. Then I ask people too. And I watch videos. As far as the industry goes, it's up to them whether they want to offer bonuses or close studios based on the scores. But they shouldn't include user reviews when making those decisions.
Wait, IGN, a site with no standards for reviews or fixed editorial policy is asking if Metacritic is ruining the games industry?
IGN, a site which does it's level best to exploit gamers in order to induce hits is asking if Metacritic is ruining the industry?
IGN, a site that most often grades games on a 7-10 scale is asking if Metacritic, a site that reports the findings of entities such as IGN, is ruining gaming?
Really? Readers should feel insulted IGN can ask such a question and not expect gamers to see the truth.
Pot, meet kettle, kettle, meet pot.
No IGN, the press is ruining the industry. People that do not realize they write about an industry in which they do not work are ruining gaming. The press, who believe they are more important than the games and developers about which they report are ruining the industry.
I agree with 360GamerFG. I have limited gaming time, and a limited budget for gaming. I rely on reviews to help me make my purchasing decisions. Although, after 30 years of gaming I've got my sources for reviews that I find I'm always in agreement with and usually stick to those.
Ridiculous question though. How is Metacritic ruining gaming? Is RottenTomatoes ruining the movie industry? IGN even says "It's not Metacritic's fault," well then why write anything after that point? The game industry needs some sort of measuring stick. If they don't use Metacritic they're just going to pool reviews and figure out averages themselves to judge how their products fit in. Sales is obviously the first, most important factor for companies, but when you're looking at quality you look to the professional reviewers who's job it is to review these games, then see how you stack up. There's nothing wrong with that.
I do both. Reviews do help sometimes though. They're not THE deciding factor as to whether or not I purchase a game, but they are one of many, as I cannot just simply purchase everything I'm interested in.
I'll watch a review, and if it gets a good score. If it does, I'll watch more footage and read more about the features. If it still looks and sounds interesting enough, I'll get it, provided I can spend the money at the time.
If the reviews are just okay but it's a game that looks really interesting, in some cases I will still get it (The Darkness 2 I bought full price even though reviews complained about the short length).
Reviews aren't everything, but they certainly aren't worthless.
And I gotta agree with Morganfell, lol. If ANYONE should be asking this question, it sure as sh*t isn't IGN. As far as I can tell, they are responsible for this "every really good game gets a perfect score" trend, and subsequently responsible for the "every game must get a 9 to be worth buying" trend as well.
In my opinion, the lack of truth and quality in game reviews seems to stem from them.
No it's just a hub for most gaming news, as metacritic is hub for most reviews.
Some people buy games based off reviews, but more people buy them based off friends getting the game / demos / and gameplay trailers / advertisment (whatever or not it looks like they would buy the game).
Reviews are nothing more, but confirmation (if the game receives an 8+), hesitation (the game may be worth waiting a couple of months for a price drop), or passing (if the game has some serious problems).
IGN is trying to nuke metacritic, talking out for their corporate boys. They should also add that many devs also go there to review their own games and give them 10's, thus influencing positively their games. Some devs don't have nothing to fear, as they make good games and people overall positively review them. http://gaminggoreview.blogs... have a look here about the love they're giving us xD
Alot of different variables when it comes to metacritic.
1) They will allow some reviews to be posted by a review site for some games and not for another (which is total bs)
2) Some games have an overwhelming amount of reviews computed in their score and others have only a few. This can be problematic because if a game has only say 30 reviews hand chosen they can raise that games score and review. If another has say 90 reviews computed in their review score the probability that it scores less is higher.
Case in point Mario galaxy 1 and 2 have like 40 less reviews computed in their scores compared to UC2 which has a one point difference in score. Had maybe only 80 reviews been accounted for in Uc2 it could have scored even more.
Until metacritic paints a clear picture on how it determines which reviews are inputted and is fair when allowing reviews it is bs.
Not only that, but there are some review sites that have a different weight in the score than others. Which ones? No one knows, they have gaming sites and magazines, and then blogs and newspapers and we don't even know that is the criteria for that choice.
I sincerely don't give a cr*p about metascores. If I'm relutant about buying a game (for example Sleeping Dogs), I'll wait for some reviews to come (video reviews for example, I want to know about gameplay, if the story is good, etc...).
Btw, if IGN is against metacritic, I dare them to stop review's numbered scores. With no number at the end people will need to read and watch the review and everyone will get their own opinion.
If I give a game 4/5 stars, to me that's a great game. But when metacritic posts my review it'll show up as and 80. Someone may see that and say "oh, 80 is average, I think ill pass." To some people an 80 is great but to others its just not enough. And there is the main problem with metacritic; peoples interpretations of the scores. Different sites have different scoring scales that mean different things, and for metacritic to assume every site uses the same or similar scoring scales is absurd.
journalist ruined the industry, i dnt know where all them came from its like since 2004 everyone gose for journalism even though they speak nothing but crap.
I think Metacritic is a great place to go if you want to see all the review scores put into one final score.
Now with the User Reviews, I think there should be some moderators that keep that part nice and in order. Delete all rants and unusually low scores. I think with the right technique it could be the go to place for gamers to be heard.
I've seen some "1/10 BF3: "OMG BF2 was way better than this POS game!" - Uhh deleted...
It could work, if not, I guess just go to the video game of your choice forum and post your own reviews.
I use reviews as my first step in buying a game and then from there I go to see un editied gameplay if it matches. OR, I just play a demo if one is available. Some games that received less than expected scores like Enslaved, I would have never played if I only listened to reviews. People here seem to generalize all journalists into one area, hit seeking trolls. That's not always the case, there are a lot of sites out there that do try to put their best work out just because they love gaming. IGN is bringing in 10 mil in revenue each year, they don't need to "try" anymore.
It's not doing so singlehandedly, but it's certainly not helping things. Greedy publishers, greedy developers, and biased/ignorant journalism are all also contributing to the degradation of the gaming industry.
Hell, is IGN ruining the games industry? There critics play games on easy and rarely complete titles, yet still score full games. Remember the GT5 review? That f***er played till he was level 5 and reviewed the entire game...lol.
20°
30°
20°
0°
Ad 
20°
I did this with Spider-man 3 and Raging Blast 2, ignored the reviews and paid dearly.
IGN, a site which does it's level best to exploit gamers in order to induce hits is asking if Metacritic is ruining the industry?
IGN, a site that most often grades games on a 7-10 scale is asking if Metacritic, a site that reports the findings of entities such as IGN, is ruining gaming?
Really? Readers should feel insulted IGN can ask such a question and not expect gamers to see the truth.
Pot, meet kettle, kettle, meet pot.
No IGN, the press is ruining the industry. People that do not realize they write about an industry in which they do not work are ruining gaming. The press, who believe they are more important than the games and developers about which they report are ruining the industry.
Ridiculous question though. How is Metacritic ruining gaming? Is RottenTomatoes ruining the movie industry? IGN even says "It's not Metacritic's fault," well then why write anything after that point? The game industry needs some sort of measuring stick. If they don't use Metacritic they're just going to pool reviews and figure out averages themselves to judge how their products fit in. Sales is obviously the first, most important factor for companies, but when you're looking at quality you look to the professional reviewers who's job it is to review these games, then see how you stack up. There's nothing wrong with that.
I do both. Reviews do help sometimes though. They're not THE deciding factor as to whether or not I purchase a game, but they are one of many, as I cannot just simply purchase everything I'm interested in.
I'll watch a review, and if it gets a good score. If it does, I'll watch more footage and read more about the features. If it still looks and sounds interesting enough, I'll get it, provided I can spend the money at the time.
If the reviews are just okay but it's a game that looks really interesting, in some cases I will still get it (The Darkness 2 I bought full price even though reviews complained about the short length).
Reviews aren't everything, but they certainly aren't worthless.
And I gotta agree with Morganfell, lol. If ANYONE should be asking this question, it sure as sh*t isn't IGN. As far as I can tell, they are responsible for this "every really good game gets a perfect score" trend, and subsequently responsible for the "every game must get a 9 to be worth buying" trend as well.
In my opinion, the lack of truth and quality in game reviews seems to stem from them.
No it's just a hub for most gaming news, as metacritic is hub for most reviews.
Some people buy games based off reviews, but more people buy them based off friends getting the game / demos / and gameplay trailers / advertisment (whatever or not it looks like they would buy the game).
Reviews are nothing more, but confirmation (if the game receives an 8+), hesitation (the game may be worth waiting a couple of months for a price drop), or passing (if the game has some serious problems).
Bring up facts and/or relevant issues based on the content of the article is frowned upon.
Instead you should just read the title and make wild assumptions about the content of the page without ever going to it.
Using these baseless assumptions you should then criticize the article that you never read.
But there have been some pretty questionable game reviews, as of late.
I just can't seem to decide upon this issue.
Bethesda...sacking 30 obsidian members because New Vegas got 84 instead 85 out of 100
Yeeaaah. I don't know about that one. But I agree that watching a video of some gameplay to see if I'd like it is the way to go!
1) They will allow some reviews to be posted by a review site for some games and not for another (which is total bs)
2) Some games have an overwhelming amount of reviews computed in their score and others have only a few. This can be problematic because if a game has only say 30 reviews hand chosen they can raise that games score and review. If another has say 90 reviews computed in their review score the probability that it scores less is higher.
Case in point Mario galaxy 1 and 2 have like 40 less reviews computed in their scores compared to UC2 which has a one point difference in score. Had maybe only 80 reviews been accounted for in Uc2 it could have scored even more.
Until metacritic paints a clear picture on how it determines which reviews are inputted and is fair when allowing reviews it is bs.
I sincerely don't give a cr*p about metascores. If I'm relutant about buying a game (for example Sleeping Dogs), I'll wait for some reviews to come (video reviews for example, I want to know about gameplay, if the story is good, etc...).
Btw, if IGN is against metacritic, I dare them to stop review's numbered scores. With no number at the end people will need to read and watch the review and everyone will get their own opinion.
Do reviewers receive games a week early?
I like reading reviews on games that have came out about two weeks to a month after the games release.
For big AAA titles, I read many reviews to see what add up as facts and opinions.
I think opinions shouldn't be in reviews because every gamers is different. What the reviewer may not like someone else will.
Now with the User Reviews, I think there should be some moderators that keep that part nice and in order. Delete all rants and unusually low scores. I think with the right technique it could be the go to place for gamers to be heard.
I've seen some "1/10 BF3: "OMG BF2 was way better than this POS game!" - Uhh deleted...
It could work, if not, I guess just go to the video game of your choice forum and post your own reviews.