Support NeoGAF

[cormack12]

We have devs with potential bonuses being tied to high metascores, critics over scoring DEI titles and a flat out rejection of all this pollution except in the 'too big to fail' titles.

We just get the usual cycle of love bombing and review bombing. I'm pretty sure everyone is tired of it so how do we move on in a meaningful way?

 

[Dacvak]

The same way we always have.

By ignoring them.

 

[Wolves hunt in packs]

Reviews are just for fun to me, cool to have but doesn't have any weight if i buy or not.

 

[Bartski]

never felt the need to reconcile it

 

[acm2000]

Easy, make up your own fucking mind and ignore them both.

Why would you blindly follow what anyone else thinks, if it looks fun to you then play it.

 

[Guilty_AI]

We deal with it the same way we deal with most problems. We ignore they exist and go on about our day.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Get rid of the scores for a "buy now", "wait for a sale" etc. system. Then we'd have to go by the words people use instead. Imagine that.

 

[Danjin44]

I don’t, I mostly trust my own taste.

 

[Hawk The Slayer]

I trust user reviews more than journalist reviewers but not by much if they aren't steam reviews. My own opinion > Steam user review >>>> user review > reviewer/journalist.

I usually agree with most steam reviews over the years.

 

[winjer]

Hiring based on competence and merit.

 

[VulcanRaven]

I don't usually pay attention to user scores much. People will review bomb immediately when they hear a game might be woke or it has something they don't like.

 

[Cakeboxer]

Both are just for fun, but actually it's best to ignore both, especially the fanboy invested user reviews.

 

[TGO]

I haven't read a review since the 2000's
The journalism has gone and they only serve as a indicator rather then an absolute.

 

[Banjo64]

BlackRock fund the games and own the gaming media parent companies.

Wow. Look how good this product is that we made.

It’s impossible for this to change as they are all in step with one another and have the same shared goals and ambitions.

Only thing you can do is find independent reviewing channels on YouTube etc whilst they’re in their early stages before they sell out.

 

[ReBurn]

We resolve ourselves to the fact that both journalist reviews and unverified user reviews are worthless and we go watch people playing online so we can decide for ourselves what we like. Or we buy on Steam and refund before two hours if it sucks.

 

[Arsic]

We have devs with potential bonuses being tied to high metascores, critics over scoring DEI titles and a flat out rejection of all this pollution except in the 'too big to fail' titles.

We just get the usual cycle of love bombing and review bombing. I'm pretty sure everyone is tired of it so how do we move on in a meaningful way?

There’s no fix because of user reviews. While stronger regulation could be put into place of critics it won’t fix a review bomb session or YTer cult to shit on a game because it has a DRM, or a gay character in it, or runs at 56 fps etc.

Users will bomb and fast at the slightest issue.

 

[jubei]

What exactly is the purpose of a game review? Is it to pass objective judgement? Or to inform consumers? Or is it a message to the game developers? Or is it just a space to express opinions freely for no true purpose?
I think part of the reason reviews suck is that they oftentimes serve different purposes, and even then, are used for different things. I can get value out of my friends' steam reviews, and use their viewpoint to help inform my purchasing decisions. I can't do the same with an IGN review, though that might not be what they're made for.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

Chud only listen chud.
Chud strong.

 

[Warnen]

Seems pretty easy, if you don’t agree with the paid shills you are a racist.

But really, follow a few reviewers that share your taste and hope they don’t sell out.

 

[R6Rider]

Do what I do and ignore scores and base your purchases on gameplay footage and actual critique elements instead of rating systems.

 

[DonkeyPunchJr]

You have to take them both with a grain of salt, but I’ll take user reviews over “professional” reviews any day.

If a game is getting review bombed, I can read the user reviews and decide if the reason for the bombing is something that matters to me. And if not, I can get a pretty good idea whether the game is something I’ll enjoy.

With professional reviews, most of them are useless. Most recently with Veilguard, EA invited many in the gaming press for preview events, then sent review codes only to the outlets that gave it the most glowingly positive coverage in their previews. And there’s lots of shit in that game that no professional reviewer had the balls to criticize.

Closest thing we got was Dualshockers saying something like “it got a bit of the Sweet Baby treatment”, which they later deleted from their review. Fucking pathetic.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I use reviews like movie trailers. Just something to give me an idea of what I'm in store for.

 

[Topher]

There is really nothing to reconcile for most games. It is just the controversial ones that need to be examined more closely. In any case, I've found watching reviews from reliable guys such as Mattyp and Karak is the best way to be informed on whether a game is worth your time and money.

 

[Hollowpoint5557]

I find its most important to start by finding and establishing a base of critics that align with you politically above all else. Yes, it matters. Ignore general consensus.

 

[Deleted member 848825]

If we cant resolve trust issues, then give us demo's for everything. And let me make my own mind up.

 

[Plague Doctor]

It's far easier to convince and sway centralized sources. You just got to buddy up to a handful of key people. This typically comes from scouting out sympathetic outlets/reviewers and the offer of exclusive access and white glove relationship with them on future projects.

It's very difficult (if not impossible) to "buy off" thousands upon thousands of individuals that have no financial or material benefit from posting their review.

Now the people overseeing an aggregate can mess with it, but that's a whole other cake of bullshit.

 

[Topher]

If we cant resolve trust issues, then give us demo's for everything. And let me make my own mind up.

And be more wary of publishers who are reluctant to allow wide access to their games. Veilguard has half the number of reviews as Astro Bot on metacritic, for example. That is by design and should be a red flag every time.

 

[Punished Miku]

I can't even reconcile the disparity between my opinion and most of you guys on here.

 

[Gp1]

 

[Hypereides]

Ignore it. You know your own taste better than some overglorified tastemakers. Conduct some research, investigate quality footage (by skilled gamers) and form your own conclusion. Aggregate user impressions only if necessary.

The reality is that both user and critic scores are flawed in nature since they're both often driven by different ideas of what constitutes a game is good or bad. Scores are only good for entertainment, but nothing else. Taking them at face value, especially by thinly veiled activists, is a sure way to disappointment.

 

[Deleted member 848825]

And be more wary of publishers who are reluctant to allow wide access to their games. Veilguard has half the number of reviews as Astro Bot on metacritic, for example. That is by design and should be a red flag every time.

Thats a good point. I also respect your take on decent reviewers - the problem I have with that is, I may not agree with their tastes all the time. And I might agree with Matty one day and not the next.

I'd like something like Steam does but prior to any money being spent. Just allow an 1hr trial on every digital game. At least I'd be able to see if it's technically good. And if its done as a trial then no refunds needed.

 

[Danjin44]

I can't even reconcile the disparity between my opinion and most of you guys on here.

Then play what you like decide based on your own taste, that’s what I do.

 

[Three]

Hiring based on competence and merit.

But would you accept a former employers reference or will you hire them to find out yourself?

 

[Z O N E]

Game journalism isn't what it used to be. It died around the end of the the PS360 era.

Now it's all about making sure the game ticks off certain criteria from a checklist.

 

[winjer]

But would you accept a former employers reference or will you hire them to find out yourself?

I have seen a few sites that hire based on previous written work. If the work is of quality and fits the style of the site, that person gets hired.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

"we".

example:

i was craving a management game, first idea: "oh, city skylines is popular and well regarded" i type on Google: "does CS has a campaing?" i read a couple of answers between reddit and the steam forums. then i thought: "what about those anno games?"..ok. then i typed: "what is the best anno game?" now I have two options. then i used MC to check their scores. and finally i search for deals.

no need to read reviews from critics or fans.

 

[Bernardougf]

You cant ... too much personal bias, political views and access/gifts rolling around, most of the time the people reviewing dont even look like they care about what they are doing.

The mainstream media is dead and obsolete... any awards/grades/reviews are X FOR DOUBT. No matter the game.

User reviews, some few youtubers/streamers , forums... and than make your choices.

Metacritic/Rottentomatoes means fucking nothing anymore. For the ones who can see behind the bullshit.

 

[lifa-cobex]

- See trailer. You'll know if your interested or not.
- Get information on release from forums/ youtubers to see if it runs well and has features that was intended in said game.
- Ignore user reviews
- Critic reviews are an embarrassing thing. Also ignore.

 

[SJRB]

 

[FrankWza]

Context is key. Like most things. Too many people scroll down to the score.

 

[Zathalus]

Simple. Don’t blindly follow aggregate website like Metacritic. Find a handful of reviewers whose taste mostly align with yours. Most of the big sites have a rotating list of reviewers while other just outsource it. Someone like ACG is somebody you identify with as it is a person, not a corporation. When’s the last time anyone cared who at IGN reviewed what?

Even then the “problem” is overblown. Most critic and user reviews are not that dissimilar from each other. Even the recent Dragon Age controversy is dumb, sure tons of outlets gave it really high scores, but quite a lot of them gave it poor scores.

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

No need for reconciliation, as these sites/"journalists" are nothing but paid marketing freelance services. You have to be absolutely braindead, dumber than a piece of bread to think they're anything else than astroturfing assets. They compliment the automated bot networks that post positive comments under trailer videos.

 

[Felessan]

We have devs with potential bonuses being tied to high metascores, critics over scoring DEI titles and a flat out rejection of all this pollution except in the 'too big to fail' titles.
We just get the usual cycle of love bombing and review bombing. I'm pretty sure everyone is tired of it so how do we move on in a meaningful way?

History goes in circles.
Just wait until it converges again.
Even though it heavily influenced ooutside, it's still a market economy - if "magazines" get out of touch with market - they will eventually fail and thing gets back to normal. Though it might take some (really some) time.

 

[Topher]

Thats a good point. I also respect your take on decent reviewers - the problem I have with that is, I may not agree with their tastes all the time. And I might agree with Matty one day and not the next.

I'd like something like Steam does but prior to any money being spent. Just allow an 1hr trial on every digital game. At least I'd be able to see if it's technically good. And if its done as a trial then no refunds needed.

For me, the key with those guys is that they explain the game well enough that I can usually determine if it isn't for me. But yeah, demos and trials would be ideal.....or......refund policies like Steam has where you can get your money back after limited play.

 

[Parazels]

I watch a walkthrough to understand, if I like gameplay or not. Only my opinion matters.

Reviewers and "kind" players praised such SHITTY games as Perfect Dark 1, Conker, Bioshock Infinity and Titanfall 2.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

Not all games have this disparity.

151 critic reviews about in line with over 5,000 user reviews.

105 with over 2,000.

48 with over 1,200.

It now should be pretty obvious when to have your guard up. Good examples being Hogwarts Legacy and Veilguard.

 

[Ozriel]

Easy solution?

Read the bloody reviews. That’s how they’re meant to be used. Read up on the gameplay, combat, story etc from reviews and it’s easy enough to suss out if the game was scored on its merits or if the reviewer had a soft spot for its politics.
Unless it’s Steam reviews from verified purchases, user reviews are usually of a lower rung of importance or credibility.

Critics and "kind" players praised such SHITTY games as Perfect Dark 1, Conker, Bioshock 3 and Titanfall 2.

Wut?

 

[BigBeauford]

 

[Kacho]

Reviewers and "kind" players praised such SHITTY games as Perfect Dark 1, Conker, Bioshock 3 and Titanfall 2.

You ok, bro?

 

[bender]

I'm pretty set in my ways and with as much video coverage we get on games these days, I rarely look at reviews outside of trying to fill holes in Fanatical bundles.