Top
240°

Metacritic vs User Reviews…which is more important?

While watching G4′s discussion on Mass Effect 3′s ending they brought up something on the show truly interesting that I don’t think a lot of people talk about.

Read Full Story >>
consolecontrollus.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Jackhass2438d ago

These days I find myself relying on reader reviews more and more often.

Megaman_nerd2438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

have you seen those metacritic user reviews? Most of them are a bunch of gibberish accompanied by a 0/10. lol

EVILDEAD3602438d ago

Why even ask the question. Metacritic user reviews mens absolutely nothing. Metacritic reviews as a whole has been the reason some developers end up closing their doors.

We see the stories of developer salary bonuses tied to the Metacritic aggregate for their titles. What you will never see is the user reviews materring at all oher a fan blogger site is biased against said game and wants too point out how negative the user review scores are for that title in one of their blogs/articles.

Evil

iamtehpwn2438d ago

Really, I rely on my friends more than anything. I think of them to be more sensible people who don't really have any real motive to convince me if the game is bad or not.

iamnsuperman2438d ago

I agree. It just a lot of rubbish about it sucked/was amazing and is put with a score either 10 or 0 by people who clearly haven't played the game. I think I haven't seen a decent user review on metacritic. I really doubt anyone takes the user reviews seriously on metacritic (and if they do and write an article about it then they are clearly fishing for hits). That area of metacritic is the fanboy mecca.

joab7772437d ago

It depends on what is said. I am looking for details. If someone gives it a 0 and i know it's gibberish, i discount it. But sometimes users point out intricacies that i find more important to my tastes than reviewers do. I pretty sure we can all agree that the extreme is annoying. And for the most part, the reviews r honest because, despite the belief that pandering occurs, these reviewers know how astute we r. If we feel a reviewers opinions are too far out there, we won't read them anymore, ultimately costing them money. But, users reviews r important too. This is because many users are only playing that game and have spent alot of time with it, much more than the professional.

SilentNegotiator2437d ago (Edited 2437d ago )

User reviews are mostly 10s and 0s, and most review sites are full of idiots.

The only reviewers I trust are ones that never seem to be trying to sell me something, even when giving a high score or praise. Ben Yahtzee, Jim Sterling, and a reviewer or 2 on joystiq. That's just about everyone I trust to give a truly insightful review, and not just list features off of the back of the box, give it a 9, and collect ad dollars.

Throw me some raw gameplay and I know pretty much all I need to know about the game, though.

*Is the AI moronic? [ ]
*Is it repetitive? [ ]
*Is there ANYTHING unique? [ ]
*Does the level design make sense? [ ]
*Is it well balanced? [ ]

Pretty much all I need to know.

Saladfax2437d ago

Yeah, the aggregate score not so much, but there are usually a few here and there who provide balanced insight.

While maybe you escape the potential principle of "paid-for review," the obvious problem is in rampant fanboyism in both directions, leading to 1s and 10s.

Still, the aforementioned balanced insight can provide pretty solid ideas.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2437d ago
Outside_ofthe_Box2438d ago

You rely on nonprofessionals lol?

Yeah, I know some sites are "bias" but that's why you read multiple reviews. See if the pros and cons are consistent among multiple reviews.

christheredhead2438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

Which is more important? Well, neither. The entire site is built upon irrelevant information and the whole "X is better than Y" mentality.

I don't see how any one can take Metacritic seriously.

cynosure2438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

Id like to view multiple professional reviews.
As opposed to a bunch of 13 year old fanboy dweebs reviewing games based on their emotional bias of "This game is the best and everything else sucks"

googergieger2438d ago

Neither myself. Though between the two clearly one has a real bias and the other would have no real reason to fail or praise something other than personal opinion(ignoring fanboys/trolls, though even critics are guilty of that too). Not to say critics don't have opinions that can differ from some, but there will always be that bias there. Free exclusives, friends in the industry, etc. Even if some do their best to be unbiased and some might even succeed, there is that cloud hanging over their head. At least for me.

Again though, I'd rather try out the demo and seek out the word of people I trust. That have tastes similar to mine. Unfortunately no gaming critic seems to have that and I can't be arsed to dig through the metacritic user reviews to find the nontroll/nonfanboy reviews. So I guess it all falls down to taking a gamble. Unfortunately it's a sixty dollar gamble or wait a few months for a cheaper gamble. I'm tending to go for the latter, nowadays.

Show all comments (36)
The story is too old to be commented.