Metacritic is a great tool for exploring varying opinions on game reviews, but it shouldn't be the sole decider of a game's quality.
It doesn't matter when it doesn't fit your agenda but when it does...it is swept under the rugs.
@Spurg @CaptainTravel Perfect!
I know. I find it unusual that people are focusing so negatively on Death Stranding lately, yet it has the same metascore as Gears 5 which was supposed to be groundbreaking. Such a funny world we live in.
@Ricegum Reviewers are dumb
Thank YOU! finally somebody had to say it! Truth always is pure, sometimes it hurts but sometimes its pure joy.
I agree with Sprug, he nails what he said. Death Stranding deserves even less but whatever.
Damn Sperg you got it spot on there.
I find that Meta scores tend to come pretty close to how I'd rate a game. Maybe not in the first week or two, but lifetime. But, I'm not one to get that bent out of shape if I would rate a game at 7, and then say that it's overrated because the meta is in the 8's. Conversely, I don't get upset if I think a game is an 8 or 9, and it happens to be at a 7 on meta. My score is really all that's important to me. Meta is just a good tool for basing discussion on consensus. There are some games which are rated higher or lower than most would say they deserve, and while the user score should show a better consensus than the critic score, that's been made meaningless with the advent of review bombing, which really isn't anything new. I try to only cite meta scores when people go around saying that a game is getting lots of low or high scores, because it does parse the scores into good, bad, and mixed, which is handy for making quick comparisons, or calling people out who like to paint a narrative that just doesn't exist. Like those saying that Days gone was mostly below average scores, despite most being average scores, and more good scores than below average. Or Death Stranding, where people are saying that there are all these bad reviews, despite there really only being about 15% which are below the "below average" threshhold by most people's standards.
No it still matters... Until the game I like doesnt perform as well as I hoped critically... then Open Critic matters more... And if that doesnt work out then I'll just throw a fit and say reviewers dont matter... Until the next big game I'm looking forward to gets highly positive reviews universally among critics, but if it doesnt the reviewer is a shill. The endless cycle of the gamer mindset.
Yes, the hypocrites will be all over Metacritic when the next big game releases. The same can be said about IGN.
Thing is, when IGN give high score to a game that people choose to like, we can almost hear the sound of crickets here. But when they don’t, well, prepare for statements like “people still use IGN?” Or “ People actually still "trust" IGN as a reliable source???“ Those are real comments made by some people here by the way.
IGN as a foundation was all over the place: IGN Spain 87 IGN Italy 98 IGN Japan 95 IGN US 68 So when you see a scores like this, clearly there is something to this game. Different strokes for different folks. A Metacritic score of 84 is a good score, just like it was for Gears 5, both are good games. But they are entirely different games... and thank god for that.
What I like about this comment is some people will like it because it speaks of a certain group of gamers at this time, but might be offended by it next month when they do the exact same thing. Other comments related to Metacritic: "[Score] is a good score, I don't see why people are downplaying it." "[Score] doesn't mean bad, just means it's not meant for everyone." "I can't believe it's only [Score], obviously people just want clicks over this spotlight game." "[Score] isn't bad unless you think [list of third-party games people like with similar scores] are also bad."
A lot of times though, those are in response to people who are also using those same meta scores to push their own viewpoints or bias. I mean, if people weren't going around saying a game doesn't deserve a score, either high or low, would anyone really respond in such a manner? The 2nd one though is actually kind of prudent beyond meta, because we do know that the troll reviews exist. However, I do think that people are too quick to assign that to scores which aren't that far off from the average. Like someone rates it a 6-7, but they think it's a 9-10, and average is 8-9 or whatever. Last statement you used as an example is the same old, "oh look at all the hypocrites" angle that is so prevalent nowadays, because it's an easy way to dismiss discussion, and not have to counter any argument made. Personally, I find it more entertaining to counter a spurious argument than call out hypocrisy, and while I get sucked in sometimes by a few people, the people making spurious arguments tend to be easy to counter.
***Personally, I find it more entertaining to counter a spurious argument than call out hypocrisy, and while I get sucked in sometimes by a few people, the people making spurious arguments tend to be easy to counter.*** So true and so hard at times to not get dragged in. I think the people who tend to do it also don't recognize how obvious it tends to be in appearance. But, I need to do better at focusing on countering the argument rather than focusing on the fallacy itself.
I'm sure some people think of me what I may think of them in terms of fan boy logic arguments. Generally, I don't mind a heated discussion, so long as it doesn't get too personal. It gets frustrating sometimes though, and I guess it's just a subconscious thing that you hope maybe your point will get across, even though if you really think about it, you know it won't do any good even if you can prove your argument beyond all argument.
They matter when it's good scores apparently. I get the psychological need to feel justified in your defense/decision to support a game, but people need to understand that the only score that matters is your own personal one.
I don't think they matter to me personally. I think they matter in the larger market which still uses review scores to make buying decisions. I think they're good for supporting one's discussion, or countering another persons, because they can help show a consensus. However, the discussions that utilize them tends to be very black and white, with no gray area in between. On the other hand, I do think meta has made people more lazy with their attempts at trying to bring something down, because they point to a low score, or try to say that all these devs are saying bad things, yet when it's not true, they won't acknowledge that what they're saying is false. So, in a way, meta does help also prevent false narratives of what reviewers are saying from being spread as easily. Days Gone was a good example of where it back fired on them, because despite what some people said, it wasn't getting mostly below average reviews. I think that now, Death Stranding is showing that people are ignoring any and everything that doesn't fit their agenda bias, because I keep seeing people saying that the reviews are polorizing, or it's getting all these bad reviews, but when I look at it, it seems to be one of the few games that doesn't get a lot of polorizing reviews, but tends to maintain all but 15-20%(last I looked) above 70%. To me, I think that's normal for a large number of reviews to come in within a three point range of the norm.
I would say that Death Stranding is definitely reviewing in the very positive category. I mean for it to be sitting at around 84-85 and someone to say polarizing is definitely questionable. Polarizing would have meant we would have seen many more 6's. Instead we have been getting plenty of great scores dispersed with some questionably low scores. I don't see how a fully playable game of this length could ever be a 3-4, I would reserve those scores for games that are broken or unplayable. I do agree that the scores serve a purpose, especially when it comes to helping a game sell. But I don't put too much stock in a score. I have played games that were 9/10 and I didn't enjoy them and vice versa.
It matters to sale, and it matter to the consumers when they are buying a game.
They really don't, but they have to not matter across the board, they can't matter when a game gets a high score just as they can't matter when it gets a low one. I never play a game based on a review score. The order 1886 and Remember me are two of my favorite games, both got shit scores and hounded in reviews.. Think for yourself play what you like.
It matters. Whether we like it sometimes or not.
Tell that to the developers who don’t get bonuses because their game didn’t receive a certain Metascore
That doesn't happen in the industry anymore. Bonuses tend to be paid out based on sales. Reviews became too unreliable with the uptake of everyone and their brother having a website, and the gaming press moving away from being established journalists to being glorified bloggers. There are just too many agendas to base a person's livlihood on a metascore, and developers had no problem saying so.
Never mattered to me have no idea of my fave games rating or any other , never had heard of metacritic until i came here.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.