Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

An unspecified game launched recently that's receiving rave reveiws. I have become so skeptical of MetaCritic + OpenCritic that I now place early reviews in the same bucket as early Twitter movie reviews that pop out a month or two before a movie launches. I now believe that the reason the vast majority of AAA games review on the 7 - 10 scale ("7 is still a good score!"), is because there's an unhealthy relationship between publishers and game critics. The entire structure has been building towards "enthusiast press" rather than adversarial press or true games criticism because mutualism between publishers and access media so profitable for both parties.

That being said, I'd like to see if my viewpoint is in the minority. How do you view Metacritic and OpenCritic? Specifically reviews that come as a result of being given early access.

 

[64gigabyteram]

user reviews are infinitely more important. Especially Steam Reviews where you'd need to buy/play the game first

 

[Alandring]

I like to see the metascore because it helps me to see the general reception for a game.

It doesn't mean so much, even if it's way better for games than for movies.

 

[Zathalus]

They can be useful, but are hardly proof that I would enjoy a game. I've enjoyed games that score in the 60s while found myself bored with games that scored in the 80s.

 

[Robb]

I think it’s nice that they exist and someone is willing to calculate the average, but I wouldn’t care much if they disappeared.

user reviews are infinitely more important. Especially Steam Reviews where you'd need to buy/play the game first

This would be my preferred option, an average of verified user reviews. Unfortunately that’s very rare to find and the user reviews on stuff like Metacritic are nothing but fanboy circlejerks.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

In all honestly I only care about them insofar as to use them as ammunition one way or the other.

 

[Killer8]

All MetaCritic and OpenCritic are doing are reporting on who scored the game what and then averaging the results. They are totally neutral in that regard. It's the gaming press behind the scores where the issues lie - of which there are numerous - but I think in general if a consensus forms around a particular game being very good then that will usually be the case. Particularly if it also aligns with something like Steam user reviews. A game with a 95+ on MetaCritic and Overwhelmingly Positive reviews on Steam... is probably going to be pretty fucking special. It's worth caring about in that respect.

 

[DrFigs]

I basically never buy games below like 80 metacritic. I put a lot of stock into reviews and metacritic in general. Not just for games. Especially for movies.

I think critics tend to inflate game review scores (you don't see the same for movie reviews). but generally i agree with them on whether a game is good or bad. user reviews are a crapshoot. sometimes they're right, and sometimes they're responding to culture war stuff or political stuff and not the game itself.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Steam reviews is all that matters.

 

[MiguelItUp]

I glance at them periodically, but I don't put them on a pedestal. Honestly I don't really care too much for whoever has the biggest number. I typically just look at gameplay and go from there. Even if a game has a huge number, it doesn't mean anything for me.

 

[nemiroff]

It's a helicopter overview.

 

[Knightime_X]

I only pay attention if the reviews are objective.

 

[Bakkus]

None at all. User based sites like Backloggd and Glitchwave are much better.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

user reviews are infinitely more important. Especially Steam Reviews where you'd need to buy/play the game first

I think it’s nice that they exist and someone is willing to calculate the average, but I wouldn’t care much if they disappeared.

This would be my preferred option, an average of verified user reviews. Unfortunately that’s very rare to find and the user reviews on stuff like Metacritic are nothing but fanboy circlejerks.

Steam reviews is all that matters.

 

[AV]

I think aggregates are good. If you've got 150 outlets calling a game good, chances are that game's good, and that I'll enjoy it. Means I play stuff I wouldn't have otherwise, a good example being NORCO from last year that I just wouldn't have even looked at if it didn't review well.

That said, nobody should limit themselves to games that score highly, not does it mean that everyone is going to love every highly scored game. BG3 is an all-timer for me but that's because I've played 50 hours of it so far and can't wait to do another 100, not because it's at X score on Opencritic. I also would never recommend it to a lot of people I know that play games because they just won't like it.

User reviews are utterly worthless shite 90% of the time. 0s or 10s depending on the platform/franchise, users with 2000 hours in a game calling it bad because they've played it too much, anyone using the phrase LGBT agenda, spiteful scores because things are over/underrated, etc, etc.

 

[L*][*N*K]

Not much but I love getting on people's nerves who care so much about it. the one thing I never care about are user reviews and steam reviews since let's face if you are leaving a negative review on a product as a form of protest then you are pretty fucking retarded and your opinion count for nothing.

 

[Fuz]

Can't vote, none of the answers represent my feeling about them.
Opencritic is useless crap.
Metacritic is good because of user score.

Fuck all game "journalists", they're either incompetent, agenda driven morons, tasteless mediocres or blatant shills.

 

[Topher]

Aggregators are good tools, but not the only tools. If the game is on Steam then I'll put more weight on user reviews there.

 

[xrnzaaas]

I only look at user revuews on Metacritic and search for the highly rated ones. I never based my purchases on the metascore because I would miss out on many games I enjoyed.

 

[Wildebeest]

I don't know what methodology Opencritic uses, but a lot of games don't have any score and other older games with tons of reviews have very limited data.

 

[STARSBarry]

I enjoy the drama around review scores, but as an actual metric... naaaaaa sometimes they aline, sometimes they don't.

Thing to remember critics review games as a critic, consumers review games as a product, this is where a majority of the disconnect comes from.

 

[FinalBossWithTheMostPower]

Taken individually, review scores are meaningless and amount to a single opinion, but in aggregate, the number becomes a powerful reflection of consensus.

I trust metacritic more, but because it is impossible to account for my personal taste, the aggregate score does not determine whether I will purchase a game.

 

[The Cockatrice]

0%

 

[DaleinCalgary]

Reviews create revenue and kickbacks. You are always best to wait 1 month for the paid reviews to start to be uncovered by user scores.

 

[SenkiDala]

They are useless. And yes harming the industry in a sense that devs are asked to reach a certain score to receive a "bonus" or to things like that. If reviews are not 80+ sequels are cancelled, projects too, and people are getting fired. So objectively yes, they're harming the industry.

Players reviews have a sense, as long as they're not review bombing / dick eating.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Depends.

There are games that I know I want, regardless of others opinions.
Even new IPs that haven't proven themselves yet, I can make up my own mind after playing the game.

Then there's games where I'm on the fence and that's where I look at MetaCritic (OpenCritic as well, I suppose).
Like others have said, userscore is a good indication of the general reception within the gaming community and it's easy to get a few quick summaries for the games in question.

But at the end of the day, it's all mostly opinions.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Metacritic is only as worthwhile as the data fed into it, ergo utterly worthless.

 

[T4keD0wN]

The numbers themselves are useless, but there can be some useful information in the reviews themselves.

 

[amigastar]

I value reviews quite a bit, i grew up with them (gaming mags) so i look at them but with caution.

 

[AV]

People praising Metacritic user reviews out out of their fucking minds. (BG3 by the way which in no way has been "banned from Twitch")

 

[Mung]

I give it absolutely zero value.

I see very little correlation between general review scores and how much I enjoy a game.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Metacritic in a nutshell

 

[Roberts]

Way too many 85+ games bore me to tears and way too many games with lesser scores kicked ass to take any of that shit seriously.

 

[skit_data]

The scores are usually a good indicator but there are other things to take into account that are deciding factors on wheter I will buy a game or not.

I'm of the belief that no matter the genre, a game that scores really high is probably gonna be something worth playing (this applies to movies as well).
However, I can easily buy a lower scoring game that belongs to one of my favourite genres and still have a blast (just like watching below average scoring sci-fi horror movies).

 

[VitoNotVito]

Highly.
It's an aggregate of the opinions from people who play a lot of video games.
There are problems though. They include commonly recognised fanboy outlets "scores". Halo Infinite is a good example here.

 

[Fake]

I like to joke, but in reality I don't give a shit to metascore.

 

[Markio128]

I like to use it to see the library of games on a particular system, especially if I’m late to the party, but I don’t worry too much about the scores themselves. Annoyingly, it’s difficult to just get a list of available PSVR 2 games atm as they are mixed in with PS5 games.

 

[Robb]

People praising user reviews out out of their fucking minds. (BG3 by the way which in no way has been "banned from Twitch")

Only if they’re not verified. They should just remove it from Meta imo, the only purpose it has on that site is to fuel fanboys giving 0/10 or 10/10.

That’s one of the reasons OpenCritic is better.

 

[Kabelly]

game journalists inflate their scores so that way they can continue to benefit from early review codes.

 

[acm2000]

review scores never stop me playing a game i liked the look and feel of.

opinions are like arse holes, everyones is different but all are full of shit.

 

[Makoto-Yuki]

It can be useful but usually I only do a quick look at the score and read some reviews. If a game is 80, 85, 90, 95 it makes no difference to me and it's not going to stop me playing it or convince me to buy it.

Checking reviews is only a small part of the research process I do on a game that I'm thinking about buying. I guess it's a good way to get an idea of the bigger picture but it can be abused by salty fanboys but usually they are drowned out if it's a popular game. It's good to have both critic and user reviews to see the differences. Before I buy a game I watch gameplay, read about it, check reviews (mc/oc/steam etc), and make up my own mind if I want to buy it.

 

[balls of snow]

For recognition absolutely. Seeing witcher 3, red dead redemption 2 and recently baldurs gate 3 so high makes me happy for the devs. Otherwise not so much, I love many supposed 7/10 games because they just vibe with me and I can overlook many flaws.

 

[Guilty_AI]

People praising metacritic user reviews out out of their fucking minds.

Fixed.

Steam user reviews are great.

 

[existensmaximum]

I care more if the metascore is very low than very high. A high score is absolutely no guarantee I will enjoy the thing, but a low score is often pretty accurate.

It's good to get a quick overview, to see if the game is littered with bugs for example. I would never buy (or not buy) a game or watch a movie based on that alone though.

 

[Black_Stride]

Pretty much only on NeoGAF when people claim Game X is great with a score of 8x+ but Game Y is shit because it only scored 8x+.

Otherwise if I need to watch/read a review theres trusted reviewers i follow and thats about it.

I do feel bad for devs who kinda have to care about Meta/OpenCritic.

 

[AV]

Fixed.

Steam user reviews are great.

Fair, I did actually mean that. I'll fix.

That said there's still some utter bobbins in Steam reviews. People who play 10,000 hours of Dota only to rage quit and leave a bad review. C'mon.

 

[Fbh]

They are a useful tool to quickly get an idea of how a game did with the media.
While I don't generally base my purchasing decisions on it, it can still have an effect on me when scores are particularly high or low. Like if a game I was looking forward to ends up with a 65 metascore I'll at least look into why it got such low scores before purchasing, likewise if a game that wasn't really on my radar ends up with a 90+ I'll probably take the time to check out some videos to see if it's something I might like.

Pretty much only on NeoGAF when people claim Game X is great with a score of 8x+ but Game Y is shit because it only scored 8x+.

Because like half the people here will claim reviews are irrelevant and pointless and then you see them in another thread like "Actually this exclusive from my favorite console has a 93 metascore and won 20.000 Goty awards so you can't say it's bad"

 

[MasterDerico]

 

[LavitzSlambert]

It can be a useful tool. My main use for it is identifying outliers (exceptionally good or bad games). For instance, I never played Baldur's Gate 2 and had a moderate interest in the Divinity: Original Sin games. Baldur's Gate 3's overwhelmingly positive critical reception is making me more interested in a game that wasn't really on my radar previously. I find aggregate sites benefit me most when there are exceptional games in genres I play less. It makes me pay attention to those games that transcend fans of the genre alone.

Similarly, if there is a series or genre I really like and a big/promising game gets low scores across the board, that is an indication it was a bad entry or has some kind of large problem that people are unanimously upset about. Since game reviews in general tend to skew high, this is a big warning sign. A good example is Forspoken. I played the demo and hated it, and the negative reviews confirmed the rest of the game was a similar experience without many good aspects to outweigh the rest.

 

[rodrigolfp]

Numbers are useless. I only pay attention to objective aspects of the reviews.