Is an 8 to 9 a terrible review score?

[zealo]

It is absolutely not. Doubly so when the last mainline entries into the series where as divisive as the FF13 trilogy.

It being well received by both press and early impressions from gamers should be seen as a very good thing by longtime fans, rather than chastising press for not giving it a 10/10 GOTY score if it has flaws.

[Alvito]

Way better then a 0 to 7. What is important to look at is if it was a sponsored rating and how much time they spent on it. Say when SWTOR was named game of the year and 9/10 by IGN and it was only out for 5 days for that year and was a hot mess at the time. Unfortunately the scores people/companies give is swayed by far too many things other then the quality of the game. So you are left to figure it out for yourself. Ultimately what you rate the game at is all that matters. You could love a 0/10 game and hate a 10/10 by others standards. Make some choices for yourself and have a good time doing it.

[Tech614]

Way better then a 0 to 7. What is important to look at is if it was a sponsored rating and how much time they spent on it. Say when SWTOR was named game of the year and 9/10 by IGN and it was only out for 5 days for that year and was a hot mess at the time. Unfortunately the scores people/companies give is swayed by far too many things other then the quality of the game. So you are left to figure it out for yourself. Ultimately what you rate the game at is all that matters. You could love a 0/10 game and hate a 10/10 by others standards. Make some choices for yourself and have a good time doing it.

What the hell are you talking about? Portal 2 won GOTY at IGN in 2011 and SWTOR wasn't even nominated. http://www.ign.com/wikis/best-of-2011/Game_of_the_Year

[Deleted]

The only way to judge a game before playing it yourself is to take a look at negative reviews and watching gameplay footage yourself.

You have to ignore the good ones. That's just how it is. They are so biased, it's just not worth it looking into.

Take Dragons Dogma for example. The game looks pretty good, has an "interesting" pawn system, a very nice spell/combat system

People rate it 100/100, 10/10.

But the game is as big as Skyrim and has no fast travel (or horse, or car and you use stamina to run), the pawns won't shut the fuck up for even a second, there are only like...15 enemy types, monsters respawn at the same spot and you can't fast travel, which means you are backtracking the same way, fight the same monsters even if you freaking one shot them, it doesn't matter.
Poor UI+Controls.

How can something like this get a perfect score? This is why an 8-9 might be bad, you have kids that can't handle the fact that their favorite game is actually "not that good" and try to pump it up so that they don't feel bad or something. It's as if you dislike one of their favorite things, they get angry.
On the other hand, you will probably never see a 0/100... or very, very rarely. Which means a 50/100 game is not average, but seriously bad.

[Sevarin]

I don't trust any scoring system, even user scores are just arbitrary numbers and I've seen scores on metacritic and steam trashed by people who are campaigning over some outrage or other rather than rating the quality of the game.

sounds like gtx 1080s some months ago when amazon was over charging the hell out of them. most of the cards had 1 star reviews because of the price.



ive personally never listened to any metacritic crap, because they are NEVER accurate to my tastes and preferences. EVER. i will however go by user reviews taken with a grain or twenty of salt.

in the end, odds are what i like, and what the people that review the games like, do not align. i personally hate games where you have to stealth around all game, yet they get outstanding reviews most of the time. im the type that enjoys games like half-life, but dont really like games like CoD much at all, yet most people ive talked to think half-life is mediocre at best, and games like CoD are god tier.

[RobertoCarlos]

I'm have become picky over the last 20 years. When I check the meta scores of the games in the past, 9/10 is a great game, 8/10 is a medicore/ok game, 7/10 already sucks and 6/10 and lower is complete trash.

I bought FF15 and played it for 2 hours now and 8/10 fits with my experience. It's good so far, but I'm not really impressed and the setting, acting and story is pretty cringeworthy. The modern setting with cars and smartphone makes many action of the protagonists illogical or downright stupid. Fighting random creatures and finding magic crystal near the road also feels strange and wrong. The worlds of the other Final Fantasy games, even in a "modern" steam punk scenario didn't feel so off and absurd. The battle system also makes little sense in a modern world Why swords if you could just buy a modern AR-15-like semi-automatic or a hunting rifle to kill wild animals. Why do you kill random gigantic scorpions to pay for your repair bill in a '60s style US gas stop. Stuff like that. I will continue to play it, but it's very surreal even for a fantasy game. It rubs me the wrong way all the time.

Sounds like you take games too seriously and forgot how to just enjoy them and go with the feel and theme of the game.

I'll never let reviewers decide what I enjoy or don't enjoy. And reviewers are people at the end of the day who are biased and bribed, so yeah. No thanks.

[Sweetimpact]

[Tech614]

In the 7th gen maybe.

There have been very few 90+ metacritic games in the 8th gen. Witcher 3 and MGSV being the only 3rd party ones I can think of.(With the other ones being mostly Sony or Nintendo first party games.)

Games as a whole have been reviewing 5-10 less then they would have in the 7th gen when everyone was still overwhelmed by hollywood budget gaming.

[Segus1992]

Citation needed.



Can you spell it out for me, then? Because I'm still not seeing it in the slightest.

Honestly, if you believe in professional reviews there's really no way I could possibly spell it out for you. That's fundamental -- basic level stuff.

- - - Updated - - -

The metascore is 91, the user score 7.5. Makes it a solid 8/10.
It destroyed the old vanilla style dungeon gameplay where you had to be careful and replaced it with brainless aoe bombing. Naxxramas was turned into a joke, Trials felt rushed and lazy and ICC went way too long. Ulduar was a masterpiece and Icecrown questing zone was also awesome (except for the phasing problem in groups). So it was good, not great.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/world-of-warcraft
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/wo...urning-crusade

Let's not pretend like the metascore means anything, as those are professional reviews, though I guess your entire argument falls without that, as neither of these games even get into your "good" category without it.

Also, you yourself said 8/10 is "mediocre/ok", so what's "solid" about that?

EDIT: Here's something you can both chew on, I'd be delighted to hear your arguments about it.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii 88 metascore, 4.0 playerscore - a game that was god awful at launch (the playerscore has risen from 2.9 since, iirc), and I say that as someone who loves Diablo to bits. How are professional reviews relevant here?

[Edge-]

Honestly, if you believe in professional reviews there's really no way I could possibly spell it out for you. That's fundamental -- basic level stuff.

So...that's a no then? Because I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean.

Professional reviewers have existed for decades, and will continue to do so. They're not inherently a good or bad thing, so I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to given the multitude of legitimate and bullshit gripes that I've seen levied their way (in terms of games) lately.

[Segus1992]

So...that's a no then? Because I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean.

Professional reviewers have existed for decades, and will continue to do so. They're not inherently a good or bad thing, so I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to given the multitude of legitimate and bullshit gripes that I've seen levied their way (in terms of games) lately.

You must have your head pretty far into the sand if you don't know what I'm talking about. I'm saying professional reviews are bullshit. Obviously they're not ALWAYS paid (bribed), but the fact that some (many) ARE makes all of them illegitimate. Take a look at my edit in the post you quoted. I'd like to see your argument for it.

Please do surprise me with something else than "it was a great game".

[Deleted]

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii 88 metascore, 4.0 playerscore - a game that was god awful at launch (the playerscore has risen from 2.9 since, iirc), and I say that as someone who loves Diablo to bits. How are professional reviews relevant here?

How are player reviews revelant here?
Nostalgia-babies that can't judge a game fair and square. Butthurt after butthurt, the game is not even close to a 4 or 0 when there are still so many people playing it and many of them have spent over several hundreds of hours.

If I have to choose between a professional review and a player review, I'll always pick the professional one, because that is at least remotely fair and not biased.


Just look at this shit
"Its like they looked at everything I liked from diablo 2 and removed it to make this game. The graphics are nice but it's a repetitive grind game...."

Durr (because D2 isn't?) ? Bandwagon + Echo chamber, that's what player reviews are.

[dope_danny]

Only if you were groomed by IGN and its like it is.

[Segus1992]

How are player reviews revelant here?
Nostalgia-babies that can't judge a game fair and square. Butthurt after butthurt, the game is not even close to a 4 or 0 when there are still so many people playing it and many of them have spent over several hundreds of hours.

If I have to choose between a professional review and a player review, I'll always pick the professional one, because that is at least remotely fair and not biased.

Spoken as someone who neither played early vanilla D3 nor has much experience with professional reviews and actual outcomes of games.

Reviews are made for the launches of games. What D3 was later in the game (although it even sounds as if you're talking about the current game, which is not even close to what it was) is irrelevant. I'm not saying that as an opinion either - the reviews come in when the game is released (or before, for the professional ones) from professional reviewers and players, and very few (if any) come after.

I tried to love Vanilla D3, I sank 300h into my main character before finally giving up. In my best day I wouldn't have given that experience more than 6/10, and that's being generous.

[Deleted]

I played Vanilla D3 too, but the review I quoted was from november 2016 and a 1/10.
If you honestly believe d3 is a 1/10, then you are as biased as the thing you try to argue against.

So...? And D3 only became "bad" when it became obvious that Inferno was way too hard.

The game mechanic itself, the way it plays, the "oompf" you get when you use skills are 10/10 in the ARPG genre.

[Edge-]

You must have your head pretty far into the sand if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Again, there are a ton of criticisms that have been levied, especially recently, so I can't read your mind as to which you you're specifically talking about. Sorry for not being a mind reader?

I'm saying professional reviews are bullshit.

This should be interesting.

Obviously they're not ALWAYS paid (bribed),

They rarely ever are, actually. Hence why the only incident someone can cite amongst the media in recent years is the kerfluffel with Jeff Gerstman when he reviewed Kane and Lynch for GameSpot from 2007. A review which scored the game poorly, where the drama was around Squeenix pressuring GameSpot to fire him for the low score. So not even evidence to support that companies pay for good scores.

If you have any confirmed instances of reviewers being paid for high scores in recent years, I'm open to looking at them. There's been shenanigans with YouTubers, but that's a different ball of wax.

Unless you mean reviewers are paid to review games by the sites they work for (or are freelancing for), in which case...duh, it's a job.

but the fact that some (many) ARE makes all of them illegitimate.

I'll wait for you to establish evidence of this, especially amongst the bigger, more prominent sites. Because I keep seeing people claim this, but nobody has been able to link any actual evidence to support this beyond talking about their "feels".

Take a look at my edit in the post you quoted. I'd like to see your argument for it.

Yes, the Diablo 3 metascore and user score are very different. And? They're two entirely different things and I wouldn't expect them to sync up every time. Between people review bombing user scores (either positively or negatively) out of fandom/hate or people posting post-launch scores/updating theirs (media reviews have their first score posted and they are never updated), it's a painfully unreliable metric. Even moreso than metacritic scores from critics, which are largely pointless as well.

Still not proof of anything, yo.

[Segus1992]

I played Vanilla D3 too, but the review I quoted was from november 2016 and a 1/10.
If you honestly believe d3 is a 1/10, then you are as biased as the thing you try to argue against.

So...?

Did you even read the post? Is cherry picking really the way you're going to argue about a launch as horrific as Vanilla D3?

Yes, few reviews will trickle in later, but the ratio of good to bad player reviews was even worse at launch than it is now.

[minteK917]

I always looked at this way:

10: Instant Classic
9: Excellent
8: Really Good
7: Like mostly by fans of game genre
6: Only hardcore fanbois of the IP will like this
5: Bargain bin game you take take when offered free
1-4: Trash

This is exactly my scoring system as well. 5 should mean its a game that is playable. Kinda like an essay at 50%, its bad, but you can probably read it. 6 means its passable,if its of a franchise you like, youll like it for that reason. 7 average, if its tied to a genre you like or a franchise you like, its actually a good game. 8 a good game all around. 9+ something that rises above genre and franchises for most people. 10 is kinda subjective from people to people, it means perfection. So its really just a 9+ that hits every notes right for that one person/reviewer.

[Segus1992]

Yes, the Diablo 3 metascore and user score are very different. And? They're two entirely different things and I wouldn't expect them to sync up every time. Between people review bombing user scores (either positively or negatively) out of fandom/hate or people posting post-launch scores/updating theirs (media reviews have their first score posted and they are never updated), it's a painfully unreliable metric. Even moreso than metacritic scores from critics, which are largely pointless as well.

Still not proof of anything, yo.

Show me one AAA game (ie a game with a budget that would allow for economical persuasion of reviewers) that has significantly higher playerscore than professional reviewer score and I'll knit you a fucking hat.

Your argument for why professional reviewers said D3 Vanilla launch was an 88/100 is "people hate on popular things", but you also said people do the reverse - so I'd like to see such a case.

I'm not hopeful though, as you're clearly going to take the "show me an article of this happening or it's definitely never a thing" route. It's called experience, and I'd expect someone who moderates an online forum to at least have some of that.

[Sky High]

I will outright buy a game with a 7.5-8 score if it seems like the type of game I would enjoy.