scambammer Sep 21, 2013 @ 6:55am
Metascore critic rating
getting awfully tired of most of my favorite games being underscored very visibly on Steam with this bs Metascore crap...you go 'What? this game is awesome how on Earth is it getting a 67?' so you click to see the ratings only to find that 7 people of 10 gave the game 8+ out of 10...the players rate it 8+...and then you see that some tard who probably didn't even understand what he was doing and likely played it for 10 min gave it a 6...then shockingly you realise that some megatard who has no business giving anything a rating at all gave it 1/10...so now because less than 20% of the people asked to rate the game rated it less than a 8/10 the game gets to be known as a 67?...so that thousands of potential players immediately skip looking at it because of damning numbers that 'must be true'?...and who blames them really (the customers seeing the 67 and never looking again) because we live in an age of videogame bombardment, I can literally find a new game to love every single day of my life so why focus on the ones rated 60-something...

I HATE this age of kids all thinking they are game reviewers...Christ half the 'reviews' you see online are kids fumbling through something they dont understand completely yet while critisizing it all the while...

/endrant

*takes a deep breath*
Last edited by scambammer; Sep 21, 2013 @ 8:52am
Showing 1-15 of 39 comments
< >
scambammer Sep 21, 2013 @ 7:14am 
the tard who gave the game 1/10 has made 27 metacritic game reviews...26 of the 27 reviews got a 1 or 2/10....1 review ('Black' for original xbox) he gave 10/10!!!???!?!???!??!?..why are people like this allowed to review games exactly?..all this guy does is try to ruin peoples rep all day long it looks like...he even said in his Legend of Dungeon review 'in 3 minutes of play I have over 800 characters of complaints'...well I hope you are reading this you tard but 3 min is not enough time to review anything but your shortsighted stupidity and probably your breath and sexlife..
SugokuPuddi Sep 21, 2013 @ 8:27am 
Metascore isnt created upon User-Reviews. The 67 is made up on Critic Reviews (larger Game magazines/communites etc.)

67 is quite low, a game like LoD doesn't deserve something like this. And if I read the lower reviews it seems like they didn't even played the game for more than 2 hours.

Anyway, Steam won't change the Metascore, but it is sure that its underrated. Hope most of the people don't go by the Metacritic Score, they should check reddit or watch some gameplay if they are interested in this game.
Landozelig Sep 21, 2013 @ 2:41pm 
I personally never go by the Metascore. I check out the Steam forums before I buy a game to see if the overall tone is good or bad (realizing most complaints are from a vocal minority who are having problems). Developer input/response is also a big decider for me. If the developer is locking threads left and right and ducking questions, I'll pass on a game. On the other hand, when a developer is very cool and involved in the forums explaining things (like the LoD devs), I will buy that game. I've own games I've never even played yet because I liked the developers on the forums and wanted to support them.
llammahed Sep 21, 2013 @ 3:22pm 
I learned quick that Metascore is innacurate for sevarl reasons. Two of them being the fact that my tastes don't equal that of the collective reviewers and the score is often tainted with ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥s who prize a certain quality such as graphics, or sound, over another or rate the game comparitively to a game of it's genre.

I feel your pain, but I would honestly hope that every Steam user comes to grips at some point in their personal career in video game happiness that Metacritic, and even others such as IGN and Gamespot cannot truly inform you of your personal gaming experience with the title.
scambammer Sep 21, 2013 @ 4:29pm 
Originally posted by llammahed:
but I would honestly hope that every Steam user comes to grips at some point in their personal career in video game happiness that Metacritic, and even others such as IGN and Gamespot cannot truly inform you of your personal gaming experience with the title.
one can only hope my friend...one can only hope..
Last edited by scambammer; Sep 21, 2013 @ 4:30pm
sere Sep 21, 2013 @ 8:48pm 
reviews, critic or user, are nearly obsolete. message board discussions are more informative for both the quick overview and the finer details. there is less writer career ego to filter and a good bit of loud biased is skipped from the emo "must be heard" amateur reviews. i know i am guilty of issuing biased user reviews but the hypocrite in me ignores most of them and just spends 5 minutes reading message boards to see what sort of gameplay questions are being asked and to see how the game's flaws and strengths are impacting the player.

have faith that the reasonable gamers are greater in number than the "1/10" ♥♥♥♥♥ and that there is an overlap of players who are more vocal about their "in the moment" feelings than their long-term appreciation of gems like "legend of dungeon".

kane and lynch was the final nail in the coffin for professional review credibility.. that was several years ago. "crowd review" was never credible to begin with.
Edock Sep 22, 2013 @ 12:07am 
I hear you man. Actually a couple hours ago I suggested this game to one of my friends and he said quote "It only has a 67 metacritic score <_<". I don't blame him for saying that, but I wish some more well known critics reviewed the game. It seems like a few that reviewed it were just doing it for attention or to get more views.

My friend did end up buying it and had a lot of fun with it. :D
Last edited by Edock; Sep 22, 2013 @ 12:08am
scambammer Sep 22, 2013 @ 4:51am 
Originally posted by Edock:
Actually a couple hours ago I suggested this game to one of my friends and he said quote "It only has a 67 metacritic score <_<

8(
Artyom Sep 22, 2013 @ 8:42am 
Legend of Dungeon 65, while Spelunky 91… What the hell, really… It deserves at least 75 or 80. 65 score gives makes me sad, totally :'(

I can't remember any better and funnier co-op beat-'em-up roguelike game. I just can't understand why people don't like it, meh :(
Artyom Sep 22, 2013 @ 8:49am 
I think people get it in a wrong way. The game is simple and fun (just like The Binding of Isaac), some of arcade, some of rogue. Dunno, I loved the result RobotLovesKitty come up with :)
Last edited by Artyom; Sep 22, 2013 @ 8:50am
Mountain_Man Sep 22, 2013 @ 12:50pm 
Originally posted by sere:
kane and lynch was the final nail in the coffin for professional review credibility..
That's one of the most misunderstood cases in gaming journalism. Jeff Gerstmann was fired not because he wrote a negative review but because he wrote a snarky and unprofessional one. Anybody who paid attention to the story beyond the initial controversary found that when GameSpot edited and reposted the review, it featured a more professional tone that was, if anything, even more bitingly critical than what Gerstmann had written, and it retained its original 6.0 score. That certainly doesn't sell the narrative that GameSpot was "paid off" to write a more positive review.

You can see a comparison of the original review and GameSpot's edits at the following link.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/05/comparison-shows-significant-edits-to-gerstmanns-kane-and-lynch-r/
Last edited by Mountain_Man; Sep 22, 2013 @ 12:51pm
sere Sep 22, 2013 @ 1:16pm 
Originally posted by Mountain_Man:
Originally posted by sere:
kane and lynch was the final nail in the coffin for professional review credibility..
That's one of the most misunderstood cases in gaming journalism. Jeff Gerstmann was fired not because he wrote a negative review but because he wrote a snarky and unprofessional one. Anybody who paid attention to the story beyond the initial controversary found that when GameSpot edited and reposted the review, it featured a more professional tone that was, if anything, even more bitingly critical than what Gerstmann had written, and it retained its original 6.0 score. That certainly doesn't sell the narrative that GameSpot was "paid off" to write a more positive review.

You can see a comparison of the original review and GameSpot's edits at the following link.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/05/comparison-shows-significant-edits-to-gerstmanns-kane-and-lynch-r/

so in other words, it was the final nail in the coffin to professional review credibility
Mountain_Man Sep 22, 2013 @ 2:40pm 
Originally posted by sere:
Originally posted by Mountain_Man:
That's one of the most misunderstood cases in gaming journalism. Jeff Gerstmann was fired not because he wrote a negative review but because he wrote a snarky and unprofessional one. Anybody who paid attention to the story beyond the initial controversary found that when GameSpot edited and reposted the review, it featured a more professional tone that was, if anything, even more bitingly critical than what Gerstmann had written, and it retained its original 6.0 score. That certainly doesn't sell the narrative that GameSpot was "paid off" to write a more positive review.

You can see a comparison of the original review and GameSpot's edits at the following link.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/05/comparison-shows-significant-edits-to-gerstmanns-kane-and-lynch-r/
so in other words, it was the final nail in the coffin to professional review credibility
No, the facts do not support your assertion.
sere Sep 22, 2013 @ 4:09pm 
Which of the so-called facts is upholding professional review credibility? You even misrepresented the joystiq piece, which of itself is still damning to the professional review establishment.

We aren't arguing why he was fired (well, you seem to be) because it doesn't matter if he was fired for sawing off his boss's fingers or wearing a neo-nazi t-shirt, the fallout of the allegations and the interpretation of the general gaming public resulted in the faith of the professional review taking a nosedive.

Who cares what of the he-said she-said is true or false, the gaming public's view of professinal reviews was never the same afterwards and that is undeniable.
Mountain_Man Sep 22, 2013 @ 4:59pm 
Originally posted by sere:
Which of the so-called facts is upholding professional review credibility? You even misrepresented the joystiq piece, which of itself is still damning to the professional review establishment.

We aren't arguing why he was fired (well, you seem to be) because it doesn't matter if he was fired for sawing off his boss's fingers or wearing a neo-nazi t-shirt, the fallout of the allegations and the interpretation of the general gaming public resulted in the faith of the professional review taking a nosedive.

Who cares what of the he-said she-said is true or false, the gaming public's view of professinal reviews was never the same afterwards and that is undeniable.
I've not misrepresented anything. The Joystiq article is proof that GameSpot's edits did not soften the critical tone of the review or make it more positive -- if anything, the professional tone comes across as even more scathing than the original review -- nor did GameSpot change the original score, so this entire narrative that developed around the story that GameSpot was "bought off" to write a more positive review is simply not supported by the facts.

However, I will concede your last paragraph, that the case did tarnish the reputation of gaming journalism in the eyes of the public, but as I noted, above, that's largely because the gaming public is not aware of the facts of the case and instead bought into a false narrative.
Showing 1-15 of 39 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50