Support NeoGAF

[Shtof]

I guess the most common answer is "just use MetaCritic".
It is a pretty good indicator at least. But its just a number, and they won't tell you how they got to that number.

At least in that sense, OpenCritic is somewhat better.
They also include percentile scores, which solves the problem of inflated scores.
But their one grave mistake was to group all versions of a game under the same score.
The PS4 and current PC versions of Cyberpunk 2077 has the same score.
They're aware of it, so they put a disclaimer.
But this goes for most games, the platform you're on determines its quality.

But what about games that were significantly improved since release?
Said Cyberpunk and No Man's Sky comes to mind.
A lot of games in recent times has had major upgrades since release.

Steam user reviews has a solution for this.
There's both a total score and a recent score.
But the system is prone to review bombing, or fans disliking changes.
Even worse, nobody slams a game harder than longtime fans.
Probably some of you have seen a meme with a Steam review of player hating a game they have played 2000 hours.

Another problem is that many games doesn't get really good until you are 10+ hours in.
As such, "just try it" isn't really that good of advice.

Anyone found a better way to find new games to play?

 

[GymWolf]

Impossible to be super accurate but i watch enough gameplay to have an idea of how the game fair.

And maybe some opinion from trusted gaffers but i have the last word.

Reviews are only used for precise data like number of levels, number of weapons, is enemy variety ok? Etc. But sometimes they can't even get this simple stuff right.

It's all about experience and catching patterns.

 

[ClanOfNone]

Steam user are flooded with crap, but if you sift a minute or two you can usually find some good ones.
Reading the opening few lines can usually tell you if they are actually reviewing the game or just yelling about culture war nonsense.

 

[Schmendrick]

I have a few reviewers that seem to have tastes that align with mine.
I also do not follow a game`s development over time. If a game comes out broken/bad I´ll never look at it again.

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

There are objective and subjective aspects of a games quality.

The objective aspects are measurable. Framerate, resolution, frame pacing etc.

The subjective aspects vary from individual to individual. These are character design, narrative structure, art style etc.

I personally would be totally fine if gaming outlets focussed on nothing but the objective / quantifyable aspects of a game (for example like DF does sometimes), as I feel I can form my opinion perfectly fine on my own if given the right amount of gameplay footage and so on.

 

[PeteBull]

Definitely dont believe professional reviewers, they get paid to lie and inflate scores of the games they reviewing, they do it for a living so many of them became quite good at deceiving us, gamers.
Instead watch gameplay of games u wanna buy/play, actual gameplay, not cgi trailers, not even gameplay trailers but actual gameplay, that is best way of determining if u gonna like the game.

On top of that make sure u keep into consideration genres u like/dont like and any particularities, for example if till now u didnt particulary liked anime/japanese games dont lie to urself u gonna like such a game only coz it got high metacritic score, u will not enjoy it no matter if some reviewer praised it to no end.

Same thing with game being woke/progressive/with political/feminist message, some ppl can stomach it, some cant at all, so u need to know how u feel about it right away, ur preference wont change no matter how many reviewers/sjws will call u names and tell u how awful human being u are for not liking independ bossbabes in the game xD

That is just a few examples, the more experience u accumulate as a gamer and the more games u buy/play the better u become at assesing that stuff despite close to 100% of gaming media shamelessly lying to us- consumers about product they were supposed to review objectively

U will never be 100% sure but u can definitely eliminate 90-95% of wrong choices with this aproach
Edit: That aproach imho should be used for new AAA 70usd games, if u wanna try some older/heavily discounted 20usd game obviously risk is much lower coz price is much lower, u can afford to make mistake so u dont have to vet such game with that much intensity anymore

 

[Shtof]

There are objective and subjective aspects of a games quality.

The objective aspects are measurable. Framerate, resolution, frame pacing etc.

The subjective aspects vary from individual to individual. These are character design, narrative structure, art style etc.

I personally would be totally fine if gaming outlets focussed on nothing but the objective / quantifyable aspects of a game (for example like DF does sometimes), as I feel I can form my opinion perfectly fine on my own if given the right amount of gameplay footage and so on.

This is an interesting and important take.
Almost like I wish for a metascore or something for the technical aspects of a game.

Most reviewers probably use these qualities to decide the score they give a game.

 

[GymWolf]

There are objective and subjective aspects of a games quality.

The objective aspects are measurable. Framerate, resolution, frame pacing etc.

The subjective aspects vary from individual to individual. These are character design, narrative structure, art style etc.

I personally would be totally fine if gaming outlets focussed on nothing but the objective / quantifyable aspects of a game (for example like DF does sometimes), as I feel I can form my opinion perfectly fine on my own if given the right amount of gameplay footage and so on.

Reviews are flawed, they have to rush to finish a game in time for the embargo and they mostly play on normal that nowadays is basically easy mode so they don't have to engage with all the game systems.

Would you trust a dude who button mash rush a game to tell you if that game is good?

 

[Loomy]

Only thing I rely on reviews - especially actual player reviews - for these days is how the game runs. Is it a technical mess? Am I going to be distracted by stuttering and dropped frames all over the place?

Everything else I'll figure out for myself watching gameplay videos or trusting my instincts. Been doing this long enough that I can tell when something is going to be enjoyable, or at the very least enough of an unknown that it makes me curious to try.

As for aggregated review scores, those numbers are meaningless to me as a consumer. At this point they're more useful to publishers so they can have an excuse not to pay bonuses to studios.

 

[riko]

The problem is like many hobbies where you are consuming creative output "quality" is extremely personal. One person might value technical measures like frame times and resolution, another might value aesthetics or vibe, another the story and how well characters are developed, etc etc. Public consensus might not match what you enjoy either. The best strategy for me is find people whose taste generally aligns with mine and see what they think about a game. That takes trial and error and isn't as easy as consuming review score aggregations. Be patient, wait for initial hype to fade for new releases. Take advantage of Steam's refund policy when something doesn't live up to your expectations.

 

[Generic]

If the enemies telegraph their attacks properly usually it means the devs cared about making a good game.

 

[PeteBull]

Reviews are flawed, they have to rush to finish a game in time for the embargo and they mostly play on normal that nowadays is basically easy mode so they don't have to engage with all the game systems.

Would you trust a dude who button mash rush a game to tell you if that game is good?

Yup, good example of that was high scores for diablo4, journos beat campaing and praised the game for its graphics/story/combat etc but for any diablofan who spend tousands of hours playing the franchise its obvious u should judge that game not on graphics/story/early gameplay but mid to late endgame aka at/close to max lvl and progressing/beating endgame content, there diablo4 showed crazy amount of flaws that even diablo1 didnt have, back in 97/98, that is how terrible it was, and yet here quick parody video summed it up perfectly:

Not even joking here, thats how mid to endgame gameplay looked for d4, 90% of ur time wasnt killing monsters/conquering dungeons but comparing various kinda useless stats on each particular item and figuring it out if its better vs ur current equipped ones.

 

[acm2000]

i watch videos and if it looks like my kinda thing then i play it and make up my own opinion.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Its a good question and I don’t have a good answer.

I could stick to metacritic, but then I would be missing out on so much great stuff while playing samey games all the time.

I am on consoles and would like to see transparency like steam (top 100 sellers, top played with player count, review scores etc ) to be available to make a call on the game.

 

[Kilau]

Angry anti woke YouTubers for all my gaming recommendations.

 

[Laptop1991]

Now, by watching game play videos after release and after the it's a new game hype period and then judge the game on it's own merits, that's how i decide to buy and play a game in the present game climate, and whether it's a good game or not.

 

[Ev1L AuRoN]

I like to watch technical reviews like Digital Foundry to see if the game is polished, watch gameplay to see if it looks fun, hear the community feedback, the developer pedigree, etc. I don't trust any score aggregators. Like metacritic,

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

The last thing I do is use Metacritic or reviews as a reference. It's never been reliable, today much less. If there isn't free demo, I listen to people who can judge games with similar filters as mine. If someone tells me that a game has a dynamic music like Nier that catches my attention.

IMO a game is quality when its core premise is well executed. For example, in an action game, I want great action, bosses, music. Everything else is secondary. "Oh, but the story is generic" ... I don't care. I'm here for the action.

In Zelda, I expect great exploration and worldbuilding. Combat isn't Dark Souls, nor I want it.

In games with a strong focus on narrative need to have good writing, so gameplay is not that important. Most reviewers can't tell good from bad stories so I pay attention to particular details that hint me whether or not it might be good. A reviewer may tell us a story is fantastic but his description makes me see it's actually fucking shit.

 

[Fess]

Good question!

Post-release patching has made release day game critic reviews irrelevant. They’re mostly there for publishers as PR. And for console warriors doing lists.

A Metacritic score of 71 staying put on a game that has had 30 big patches over several years is absurd.
Who would get anything useful from that?
That meta 71 game don’t even exist anymore.

Even just a week after launch many release day problems can have been fixed in some cases. Sometimes even for the worse. But professional critics never go in and update their score, so we’re stuck reading about how they thought it was to play a version nobody can access anymore.

So one way to fix it would be if devs simply had better QA in house. Don’t work for ever evolving games but at least for issues.

Or send a game to Digital Foundry 6 months before launch and at least make sure to not ship a game with stutter issues you know people will slam the game for.

For big No Man’s Sky like game changing updates. Send out new review copies. Get a new Metacritic score.

Guess that’s just part of the question asked. As for how to find games. I watch gameplay videos and go with my experience playing since early 80s. Then I use Gamepass to try before buying when possible.

 

[Da1337Vinci]

Hard to answer I played so many video games since I was a kid you develope a kind of intuition. Almost never failed me.

But what you can recognize is enemy movement and player control movement.

In addition the focus of the trailers of the game. Issue with AAA gaming ( especially currently western )is that they so put much that all you recognize is that everything is somewhat 'competent' but nothing is being highlighted as usp.

The aesthetic cohesion is also a kind of giveaway whether it will be good or not.

Live services games are hard to judge regarding the rating it could turn to be a better or a worse game over time.

 

[Mozzarella]

You mean me or the consensus?

If its me:
-Gameplay
-World/Level Design
-Art direction
-Music
-Writing
-Presentation

If its the consensus:
-Critical scores
-Awards
-Gamers scores (on websites that log games, steam and forums, i ignore trash like metacritic user scores which is boosted by trolls)
-Youtube videos and gameplay clips

 

[nkarafo]

Personally, i simply compare newer games to older ones. If a newer game is worse then an older one in certain aspects then i rate the newer one lower.

This means i rate the newer games harsher because (to me) the fact that developers have more resources to play with as the time goes by means it should be easier to make better games than before. They no longer have to deal with memory restrictions, which means the only thing holding them back is their own skill and talent.

 

[Paasei]

Watch gameplay from someone that isn’t stupid/bad. Then you can see for yourself if it’s something for you.

 

[cireza]

By playing the game.

 

[Humdinger]

I never use Metacritic or Open Critic scores to decide what games to play. Those numbers are fun to bat around here in arguments, but as an indicator of what you, as an individual, will enjoy, they are useless. We can all give long lists of games that scored high but we found lacking, or games that scored mediocre but we loved.

Metacritic averages are just one-number summaries of the vast unwashed masses of game reviewer opinions. Since most game reviewers are access media types, shills, biased, or otherwise immature/dumb, an average score is really just a summary of nonsense, half the time. GIGO.

How do I assess a game's quality? By knowing what sort of games I like, then gravitating to those types of games. By watching/reading reviews and impressions from people I trust. By watching Youtube videos of gameplay. I still get it wrong occasionally, but that's a lot more reliable than being guided by Metacritic scores.

 

[ssringo]

I dunno. It seemed to get easier to just look at information (videos, articles) and gauge as I got older and more experienced. I know what I like and what I don't like and everybody else's opinion is irrelevant.

 

[adamsapple]

Angry anti woke YouTubers for all my gaming recommendations.

 

[Guardian Monkey]

Trying to create an objective view of a subjective view is only going to get a best guess off the reviews and previews exposed to.

 

[TintoConCasera]

You can't, it's subjective.

Whenever someone says something like "this game is good, look at the scores and it's GOTY awards!" I assume they are retarded and move on.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I like it -> game is good
i don't like it -> game sucks

 

[Comandr]

Yup, good example of that was high scores for diablo4, journos beat campaing and praised the game for its graphics/story/combat etc but for any diablofan who spend tousands of hours playing the franchise its obvious u should judge that game not on graphics/story/early gameplay but mid to late endgame aka at/close to max lvl and progressing/beating endgame content, there diablo4 showed crazy amount of flaws that even diablo1 didnt have, back in 97/98, that is how terrible it was, and yet here quick parody video summed it up perfectly:

Not even joking here, thats how mid to endgame gameplay looked for d4, 90% of ur time wasnt killing monsters/conquering dungeons but comparing various kinda useless stats on each particular item and figuring it out if its better vs ur current equipped ones.

Holy shit that video really nails it. D4’s itemization is fuckin shit.

On topic though: quality can be, though shouldn’t be, subjective.

For instance, I think MHWilds is a very high quality game. I’ve seen videos of monsters blinking and showing a nictitating membrane. I’ve seen your seikret’s eyes will dilate based on lighting and weather conditions. The amount of care that has gone into various animations. These are all tells for me that scream “this game is of high quality” where the developers put a tremendous amount of care and intention behind everything.

And then many people will look at Wilds and say it looks like shit and the graphics are from ps3, with a completely straight face, and for them, the quality is garbage.

I don’t like Cyberpunk 2077 at all. The aesthetic is completely lost on me. That said, I can still recognize that it’s a high quality game. Well, now, anyway.

If a person docks points for a review, based on their political agenda, they are not a quality reviewer.

I think in order to accurately assess quality, you have to take yourself out of the equation, your personal opinions and biases, and look at a game for its objective merits. High quality presentation, sound, music, options, support, etc.

If Cyberpunk 2077 never got SUPPORT, it would have been a very low quality game. But because it did, all of the other aspects had the opportunity to shine, and it become regarded as one of the best games of the generation.

I love RGG Studios but they rarely support games longer than a month or so after launch, never updating older titles with newer versions of DLSS or FSR, patching any odd issues, etc. Yakuza 0 is one of the best games in the franchise and still suffers from a well known bug that can corrupt your entire inventory when you save the game. Hello?

 

[rodrigolfp]

If the game has forced aim assist(s) and or is 30fps only, it's auto NOPE. The rest only playing to know for sure.

 

[Mephisto40]

If it keeps me entertained for enough time to finish it, it's usually an indicator that the quality is good

 

[Killjoy-NL]

The only opinion I care about is my own.

Couldn't give two shits about review scores or what other people think.
If me and someone else happen to agree: cool.
If not, fine as well.

People shouldn't value opinions so much.

 

[simpatico]

"The Pull"

Many games I buy, I have to force myself to boot up and push through. SH2 is the best recent example. I still haven't slogged through the final 1/3

Conversely, Shadow of the Erdtree, R4make, Diablo IV etc I was sneaking in hours after work on weeknights and excitedly booting first thing in the morning on the weekends. Thinking about build options during the workday, getting immersed into community videos etc.

 

[poppabk]

You have to read or I guess at least listen and watch. Scores are at best an indicator of which reviews you should look at.
Why did someone like a game?
Why did they dislike it?
For example games often get praised for being long and full of content - but that is generally a negative for me. 8 - 14 hours is generally the sweet spot for me.

 

[MadchesterManc]

As someone that does reviews on the side occasionally, I don't actually read reviews or anything when deciding what to buy myself. The game just has to seem interesting enough at the right price for me to give it a go. Doesn't always land but you can sometimes end up enjoying something you wouldn't usually play.

 

[Zacfoldor]

Here's the thing. There is no objective truth to anything. Everything is subjective.

That said, if there were an objective truth about a game's quality it would be found in metadata.

A lot of people don't really understand statistics. However, if you do, you already know that there are two factors that actually support aggregate data as much closer to an objective truth than any other metric we can use.

First is law of large numbers and second is wisdom of the crowd.

Law of large numbers states that with enough iteration(each review is an iteration) you get closer to the actual number. Why don't user reviews reflect this? They do to a certain extent but they can much more easily be corrupted by bots or cheating. In fact, user reviews are one of the biggest innovations we have had as a species. Imagine if we had to shop on Amazon without them.

Second is wisdom of the crowd. Imagine you are at a fair and everybody has to guess the weight of one person. Individuals will be WAY off but the more iterations(guesses) the closer to objective reality mean will become. With enough iterations, objective reality will be found.

Statistics and the revelation of objective reality is why aggregate data is so powerful, it's why we use it and why we even care about sites like metacritic.

Conspiracy theories about games getting higher or lower scores(like Nintendo games) are always wrong. Any conspiracy that is large enough to significantly alter a 60 guess spread is also too larger to cover up. It would be impossible. In statistics there is the possibility that the pool of reviewers may be bias based on shared consciousness and actually give a bad result. Due to the remote nature of reviewers in the industry this seems highly unlikely as unconscious bias or even conscious bias is harder to maintain the further you are from the group that maintains it.

That is why aggregate data is the correct answer to this OP. The biggest issue with aggregate data about a game's quality is that currently our aggregate data only reflects the quality of a game on launch. Often games are fixed greatly right after launch and thus end up underscored the further you move forward in time from the date of release. Because the way we collect aggregate data is only at launch, Miyamoto will continue to be correct that a bad game will stay bad forever in the eyes of history.

 

[WaterOnix]

By watching some gameplay, preferably without commentary. Been doing that since the early 2010s. We're in a glorious age where HD gameplay is always just a click away at a moment's notice. That wasn't the case when I first started gaming at all. Just doing that alone I can tell 9 out of 10 times whether I'll dig a game or not. It's not always perfectly accurate but I've found it so much better than using reviews.

 

[DanielG165]

You play the game, engage with the product. If you like it, then it’s of quality to you. If not, then it wasn’t of quality to you.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

couple seconds of gameplay is usually enough to tell if its worth trying

then you play the game

 

[Impotaku]

Been gaming for over 40+ years my gaming tastes have refined to a point where I can tell easily if it’s something I’ll like.

My quick way of screening means first avoiding anything made by bethesda,ea,activision,ubisoft.

 

[Minsc]

I don't really have to ever find new games to play, since I just keep a list of games I have and have not played - and there's a good 2,000+ maybe more to be played. When I see a new game get enough GOTYs or enough word of mouth, if it looks interesting enough, it goes on the list.

I use a simple-ish formula that assigns a value to each entry based on the release date (newer = more points), length of game (shorter = more points), average review score (higher = more points), and my own personal interest in playing it (higher value = more points). It's all calculated automatically, and the stuff with the most points is going to be the stuff I'm most interested in playing next - this also penalizes 200+ hour games quite a bit and tends to favor 10-30 hour games, but the exact math can get adjusted as needed. Works very well, and anytime I read a bunch more word of mouth / LTTP / GOTY awards on something in the list, I decide upon bumping up the personal interest # a bit higher so it jumps a few places up.

 

[intbal]

User reviews at Gamefaqs used to be a primary source for me. Lots of non-critic reviews. You could usually tell if a game was to your liking by the overall average and also the specific points made by each reviewer. Since the message board for each game was on that same page, as well as any game guides, it was pretty much the best source for information on any game.
Reviews for old games are still there. But not many people leave reviews for new games any more. This isn't too much of a hindrance if you prefer older games like I do. But I wouldn't recommend it for any younger gamers who are looking to make a decision about the newest games.

 

[Fbh]

These days I'm pretty good at figuring out if a game is for me by looking at a few minutes of gameplay.
Reviews are still useful to figure out some details you might not instantly see on gameplay videos, like technical issues or story issues.
Also if you don't rush to buy everything day 1 you can usually get a lot of information from the general online buzz.


I think the only time in recent years I felt I was wrong was FFXVI. The trailers and gameplay videos looked good and I enjoyed the demo...little did I know it's all downhill from there lol .

 

[Danjin44]

I mostly judge based on my taste and history devs past works.

For example I can more than willing to play new games from Vanillaware or Monolith Soft because I enjoyed their past works.

 

[Tomofdahook17]

I'll give you a simple step by step guide.

#1 How gay is it on a scale of 1 to 10.
#2 Does the gayness relate to the theme and world or is it added for no reason.
#3 How does the gameplay and animations look?
#4 If the gameplay looks solid, try it out and see how it feels.
#5 How do the two outweigh one another? Are they balanced or biased in one direction.
#6 If you can get past all of that, attempt to beat the game. And reflect back on your experience. Would you play another game like this? Or was it too much.

A perfect example of this was Last of Us Part II for me. The gayness is relevant to the plot but it's slightly overdone in a few areas. However, the gameplay excels so I'm able to enjoy a majority of the experience. It's not a perfect game and the first one was better but Part II has incredible improvements to it's gameplay and therefore I will most likely play the next Naughty Dog game to completion and make the same judgments.

Do not under any circumstances take other people's reviews from the internet seriously, especially from games journalism websites. Judge them for yourself. That's how you'll find the most enjoyment.

 

[killatopak]

I’m old enough and played enough games to know if I’ll like a game based on what I see in gameplay vids and stuff.

As for other people’s opinions :

Word of mouth > independent reviewers > metacritic/opencritic > industry reviewers