Ghoul Feb 7, 2013 @ 11:15pm
Metacritic's Website Sucks
I felt the need to post this. It's upsetting to know metacritic is deleting negative feedbacks. I read a few and they are legitimate yet they are deleted. So far, I read a few posts from friends on facebook that they posted honest bad reviews and they have been banned from the website. I suspect EA is paying off money to keep their reviews in the positive side.

I no longer trust in Metacritic's website.
Showing 1-12 of 12 comments
< >
[dirrty]gsharp Feb 7, 2013 @ 11:36pm 
Originally posted by Ghoul:
I felt the need to post this. It's upsetting to know metacritic is deleting negative feedbacks. I read a few and they are legitimate yet they are deleted. So far, I read a few posts from friends on facebook that they posted honest bad reviews and they have been banned from the website. I suspect EA is paying off money to keep their reviews in the positive side.

I no longer trust in Metacritic's website.

Can't say that I blame them. Have you actually read some of the user reviews? A large number are:

  • people who flame the game but also admit they didn't even try it;
  • people with generic hatred for $publisher and attack anything produced by publisher;
  • the anti-DRM folks who tank a game review just because it has DRM;
  • plus the generally atrocious user reviews where they talk like a child;
  • and the hardware ones where people are complaining because a game doesn't run at max everything on their 4yo laptop with Intel graphics.

There might be some gem user reviews but they are buried under the metric ton of crappy reviews.

(also, I'm not a DRM fan...but to tank a review because of DRM is just silly. )
Last edited by [dirrty]gsharp; Feb 7, 2013 @ 11:39pm
Τhe Rolling Cheese Wheel Feb 7, 2013 @ 11:52pm 
Which is why steam needs a proper review system for users that bought the game asap. The faster we completely phase out metacritic, the better.
[dirrty]gsharp Feb 8, 2013 @ 12:09am 
Originally posted by The Rolling Cheese:
Which is why steam needs a proper review system for users that bought the game asap. The faster we completely phase out metacritic, the better.

What was that one suggstion? Steamcritic?
Ganger Feb 8, 2013 @ 1:19am 
Originally posted by Ghoul:
I no longer trust in Metacritic's website.

I never trusted their scores ever, i agree with what [dirrty]gsharp stated above about people just hating on a game for what ever reason.

Is it me or is the big AAA+ titles the ones that get all the hate, troll and spam on metacritic. I do like the idea of Steamcritic but again you will get people just hating on a game just to hate even tho they have invested hundereds of hours of gameplay into the said game, COD anyone ?
Last edited by Ganger; Feb 8, 2013 @ 1:20am
[dirrty]gsharp Feb 8, 2013 @ 9:10am 
Originally posted by Ganger:
Originally posted by Ghoul:
I no longer trust in Metacritic's website.

I never trusted their scores ever, i agree with what [dirrty]gsharp stated above about people just hating on a game for what ever reason.

Is it me or is the big AAA+ titles the ones that get all the hate, troll and spam on metacritic. I do like the idea of Steamcritic but again you will get people just hating on a game just to hate even tho they have invested hundereds of hours of gameplay into the said game, COD anyone ?

With a "Steamcritic", we could at least confirm the reviewer actually owns the game before they wrote the review.

You might have an idea about including a reviewer's gameplay total as part of the review. Reviewers with hundreds or thousands of hours of gameplay and thus had more time to explore the game might get more weight than someone who played a game for ten minutes then flamed it in a review.
Zefar Feb 8, 2013 @ 9:28am 
User reviews for like 95% of the time will be so horrible that they are not worth reading or taken into account.

MetaCritic only use is to look at the average score from known review sites and completely ignore the user reviews.

It wouldn't matter if Steam had some Steam Review system too. Users just can't review a game good. It's either max score or lowest score for a SINGLE reason most of the time.
[dirrty]gsharp Feb 8, 2013 @ 10:41am 
Originally posted by Zefar:
User reviews for like 95% of the time will be so horrible that they are not worth reading or taken into account.

MetaCritic only use is to look at the average score from known review sites and completely ignore the user reviews.

It wouldn't matter if Steam had some Steam Review system too. Users just can't review a game good. It's either max score or lowest score for a SINGLE reason most of the time.

Have you found any decent user-based review site / system? Or are we trying to shove a square peg into a round hole, so to speak.
Last edited by [dirrty]gsharp; Feb 8, 2013 @ 10:41am
Tangerine Dream Feb 8, 2013 @ 10:47am 
Just let it be the way it is. Metacritic gives a generalisation of a score,even if a poor one.

Metacritic has a huge range of games with reviewes, wich individual reviewers can't cover in such high ammounts, so trusting scores to 1 certain reviewer is just tarded.

And if you are going to buy a game or have interest in it then the metacritic score should not be the first thing to matter when considering purchase.

Unless you guys want to create your own reviews site where you review pretty much every steam game that is released, this being many.

Lets face it, its either metacritic or nothing.
[dirrty]gsharp Feb 8, 2013 @ 10:51am 
Originally posted by Frosty The Reindeer:
And if you are going to buy a game or have interest in it then the metacritic score should not be the first thing to matter when considering purchase.

But it is a factor in at least some decisions...otherwise, we wouldn't see Metacritic scores on some Steam store pages.

Ok, getting back on topic. Do you have any problems with Metacritic removing posts -- for whatever reasons?
Dreakon Feb 8, 2013 @ 1:32pm 
Originally posted by Zefar:
User reviews for like 95% of the time will be so horrible that they are not worth reading or taken into account.

MetaCritic only use is to look at the average score from known review sites and completely ignore the user reviews.

It wouldn't matter if Steam had some Steam Review system too. Users just can't review a game good. It's either max score or lowest score for a SINGLE reason most of the time.
This. Agree with everything you said.

As bad as critic reviews can be, they don't even come close to the pathetic reviews of individual users. Wah, they can be bought off. Wah, so and so reviewer/site hates first person shooters. Wah, they gave COD a 9 and only gave BF3 an 8.

At least they aren't giving games a 1 because the idiot forgot to update DirectX when his friend built his computer for him, and the game won't load.

And as a collective, the average of critic reviews tends to not be particularly far off base.
Power of Seven Feb 8, 2013 @ 2:06pm 
The problem with Metacritic is that they assign a score to games (or anything, really) even if there's only four or five reviews. Aggregate reviews tend to be fairly accurate, but only if you have a large enough sample size. This means Metacritic tends to harm indie games more than help, because a single bad review will drop a score by 20 points.
Zorlac Feb 8, 2013 @ 3:17pm 
The user review section of metacritic is useless. I mean seriously, people giving games a score of zero that they've never even played, and admit they haven't played? Why would you WANT a system like that? I agree with the fact that steam needs a review system for users who have BOUGHT and PLAYED the game before they can review it.
Showing 1-12 of 12 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Feb 7, 2013 @ 11:15pm
Posts: 12