Just because the game has a low, or mid score, doesn't mean you won't like it.

also just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good

Gaf loves to make fun of pop music and pop movies, yet somehow when it comes to video games, sales, concurrent steam players online, etc. mean the world to them

are the people who defend Monster Hunter as a good game on the basis that it has over 1 million players also willing to defend Taylor Swift as a good musician on the basis of her record sales?
 
Artistic said:
Is there any universal examples where this is the case?
Click to expand...
How could there be a case where it is universally true? The whole point is that people have different tastes. That one reviewer that gave the game a 90 might be the one with the same tastes as you.
For example I am playing through Control and loving it. It has an 82 metacritic - top score 100, bottom score 40. That's a 60 point range of reviews - from masterpiece to piece of crap. Those are the genuine opinions of two people who played it, expecting the average to somehow reflect your opinion is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
poppabk said:
How could there be a case where it is universally true? The whole point is that people have different tastes. That one reviewer that gave the game a 90 might be the one with the same tastes as you.
Click to expand...
It's very possible. I would think most things that are cult classics are not necessarily highly regarded by professional critics.
 
true, but still time is limited and games are plenty to check.
if you are getting low-mid scores in today's extremely inflated game-review env, thats a huge red flag.
 
Artistic said:
It's very possible. I would think most things that are cult classics are not necessarily highly regarded by professional critics.
Click to expand...

Nothing is going to be "univerally" liked, but I get what you are saying. Nier on PS3/360 was a game that reviewed fair but was well liked by a lot of gamers. I had a blast playing Too Human on 360. I think a lot of JRPGs have not great reviews but are well loved by fans, but I'd have to google to find an example.
 
This days, reviews should not be trusted especially from gaming journalist who are just pushing for politics and woke agendas. And reviews are subjective. Example there are many badly reviewed movies in the past that I enjoyed like Howard the Duck, Speed Racer, and Leagues of Extra Ordinary Gentleman. For games, my example are the RPG's Guardian crusade and Shadow hearts, this games received low scores but I enjoyed those games. Anyway if you really want to check on reviews it is much better to look on users reviews or from very based YouTube vloggers if you want too.

But the best is always trust you own instinct, feelings and conscience.

ec5adb12ac2ef9917c6cb23127c35290.jpg
 
Last edited:
AI Limit has a pc metacritic score of 76 it's a flawed game but it has a certain vibe that is doing it for me, most fun i had in recent soulslikes.
 
Last edited:
Hypereides said:
You might be neglecting to take into account that some of those people behind those review scores at times aren't necessarily qualified to make that assessment.

If you want to fully entrust your faith into that aggregate score, regardless of how its attained and where its derived from, then you do you. I guess it counts as a sound and "safe" approach to decision making.
Click to expand...
I agree that not all reviewers are actually qualified enough to share an objective score. But that's a problem only when we are looking at a very small sample size.

If we look at aggregate scores, the overall average irons out any such chinks and presents a much more comprehensive and well-rounded picture.
 
Loved plenty of games like Binary Domain, Sniper Elite 4, Zombie Army 4, Stranglehold, etc that got mid scores from reviewers.

On the other hand, plenty of games over 90+ on metacritic bored me so much I couldn't finish them.

Learned my lesson and stopped listening to the critics ages ago.
 
I played the shit out of Devil's Third. People that just read reviews of it missed out on a hilarious, janky romp. It was the Wii U's Deadly Premonition, but SIGNIFICANTLY better from a performance standpoint.
 
Heisenberg007 said:
I agree that not all reviewers are actually qualified enough to share an objective score. But that's a problem only when we are looking at a very small sample size.

If we look at aggregate scores, the overall average irons out any such chinks and presents a much more comprehensive and well-rounded picture.
Click to expand...
Again, you're making the assumption that most of these scores stem from a flawless evaluation process by the individual reviewers which quite often have honestly been more than questionable. At least for the better part of the past decade.

If you don't want to spend your time to do some personal desktop research and intead lean on their word to give you a hypothetical "well-rounded picture" then that's your call.
 
Last edited:
With all those fanboys, fanmagazines and paid shills i don't trust high ratings anyways since at least a decade.
 
Conversely, if a game gets good scores, it doesn't mean you would like it.

I fucking hate GTA, but people talk about like the second coming of Jesus
 
The way I see it is I have a relatively small and finite amount of time to play games now, as an old, so I would rather spend my time playing masterpieces than mediocre titles.

It takes me a long amount of time to finish games, so there is never a short supply between masterpiece releases. Review scores are important for me to figure out which games are likely to cut the mustard.
 
Last year, I played The Mobius Machine. Looking on OpenCritic, it has a rating of Weak.

I enjoyed it way more than the rating suggests. It's a good metrovania. Sure, it has some issues, but overall it's far from Weak.
 
Some of my favorite games over the years have had awful reviews and some of the most lauded games of all time have fallen flat for me. I threw in the towel of worrying about reviews years ago. I play games that interest me and can't tell you how much more I enjoy the hobby by ignoring reviews. Sometimes it doesn't work out and that's ok. But more often than not I enjoy the games I play.
 
Critics lately seem to overvalue production value, cinematics, and style, so a game that's limited in those but has good to great gameplay that score as mid-70s tends to be worth playing still. Or at least if it does something innovative. I wish critics would use the full scale though, more like how movies do. But they are so beholden to preview access for engagement clicks and early access review copies it seems part of the reason they hold back harsher criticism.
 
There are certainly outliers, but broadly speaking if a game scored under 70% in aggregate reviews during last 10-12 years (greater score inflation), I didn't enjoy it.

Yeah, there are outliers like reviewers hating on Hogwarts or KCD, but overall it kind of checks out. Above 70 it can be a total crapshoot.

And of course a game scoring higher doesn't mean one will like it, see Veilguard or even say Spider-Man 2 or TLOU 2 which I really disliked from narrative and character perspectives.
 
Opposite is true as well. Really comes down to genre. A perfect Metacritic score on a new FIFA or racing game doesn't guarantee I'll enjoy it. It's all about personal taste. Think of it like walking into a clothing store – you'll inevitably see something and wonder, 'Who would wear that?' Well, someone does.
 
diffusionx said:
name 37 examples
Click to expand...
I won't name you so much, but here are a few:

- Toy Story Racer - MS 76
- Suikoden 4 - MS 63
- Tales of the Abyss - MS 78 (ok, this one isn't that low, but still IMO a wonderful game)
- Honkai Impact 3rd - User Score 7.4

Sorry, can't give you much more examples, because I spent 99% of my time with games playing Metal Gear series.
 
San Dan Glokta said:
Give us a few examples
Click to expand...
Too Human, I think the game got destroyed behind the scenes even before it got shipped for whatever reason. I also understand not every game is treated the same but the best part is the consumer doesn't give a shit cause he's always right no matter what.

I won't mention a masterpiece cause it's pointless to offend someone but I'm sure almost everyone can pick their shitty 90+ Metacritic game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Insomniac won't share news just because you ask: "Things take time, resources, and the greenlight to share them"
2
55
1K
FoxMcChief replied
Has it always been like this?
2
60
163
Humdinger replied
Avowed Key Art: Does it Mean Anything or Just for Looks?
2
52
3K
Gamer_By_Proxy replied
  • Poll
How many hours do you usually give a game if it doesn't meet your expectations?
Poll  2
51
850
Represent. replied
[VGC] Nintendo explains why Switch 2 Game Chat screen sharing has a low frame rate
2 3
110
4K
Drell replied
Top Bottom