Metacritic is useless

[Lunatix]

This website are just impostors it's not the first time i remark they are hidding bad reviews for some new games, last example in date Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee - New 'n' Tasty you can see a lot of green reviews but the 6 yellow and 1 red are hidden of course. Now we have the steam recommendation system, i don't think we need these impostors now and trust me this website will die quickly once it's not on steam anymore.

[teknocack(The Colonel)]

Bottom line for me is that Valve just made it a little harder to shop intelligently. Made it harder for me, their customer. Stores that make it harder for customers to shop as they wish(especially when they take away a tool that is used more than many would think, a tool Valve have provided easy access to for a long time), they tend to start losing those customers. Things like this represent a change in mindset, away from the customer. I find this troubling.

[Zeetarb]

I would actually prefer the metacritic user scores than the "professional" ones, over the last couple of years I've found it increasingly hard to trust reviewers as sensible, but at least user scores should give you some overall sense of the game's quality. If there's a campaign of hate to drive the score down then someone's done something to annoy people, which might be something worth knowing about (i.e. Sim City Always Online DRM, Mass Effect 3 ending lies, Dragon Age 2 deterioration vs. I'm sure there are non-EA examples as well).

With the Steam reviews I find the positive ones are rarely ever worth looking for - the negative ones are the ones I want to see. I'm not going to buy a game without any negative reviews - no game is perfect, I just want to know if the things it gets wrong are going to be deal breakers or not.

[BanOphobia My Struggle]

+1 User scores generally are closer to my own scores. Popular games get rated too high by Pros to be trustworthy anymore and I only like watch IGN/Gamespot videos reviews if I can't find anyone elses. I'd get more honesty out of a troll review than a Pro review thesedays.

[crunchyfrog]

blackelemental eredeti hozzászólása:

It IS useless, so I simply ignore it in the same way that I ignore reviews from sites like IGN. The numerical reviews don't always reflect an actual game, especially when bugs/problems/gameplay issues are fixed after the Metacritic score is written in stone.

And this is a perfect example of you no tusing the site correctly, as I detailed in the post RIGHT ABOVE yours.

[Charlie]

♫TGC> The Gamer Complexity eredeti hozzászólása:

Only my opinion matters...

...when I buy a game for myself.

True, in a review I mainly look at how well the game runs and I will decide if the gameplay/story is good.

[kitekrazy]

BrainHumper eredeti hozzászólása:

I look for technical issues in reviews mainly not if someone subjectively enjoyed the game or not. I have more than a few games rate below 50 metacritic score and really enjoyed them.

That's where I read the Metacritic user reviews, then Steam forums.

[Pnume]

If you know how to read it Metacritics is very useful.
It's just not straightforward.

[Rockets]

they need to post the average hours player play the game. I only care about the hours I am entertained.

[Jetra]

<<{BLS}>>Baja eredeti hozzászólása:

they need to post the average hours player play the game. I only care about the hours I am entertained.

Hours played isn't necessarily a great way to determine whether or not a game is fun, at that point you'd be comparing content to price which is another section altogether. For example, quite a number of games I've played and beat in under thrree hours, yet I had extreme fun for it whereas another game I beat in a little over an hour, quite a number of people praised, I personally did not like overall. It had some fun things, but for $20 of empty gameplay, yeah, that's not worth it.

Metacritic works for what it does, condensing all user reviews into one number. I don't think it's meant to be the final say of whehter or not a game is good or bad. I'm sure many use it as a point, but if you don't see what people have to say about it, you're going to miss out on a lot of potentially critical information.

[crunchyfrog]

<<{BLS}>>Baja eredeti hozzászólása:

they need to post the average hours player play the game. I only care about the hours I am entertained.

The thing is, that might be relevant to YOU, but that is not major point for the majority, not is it a very good metric at all on the whole - it's WAY too narrow, and about as much use in itself as
scores are (which is, not at all).

And for that reason, it's not a good idea to post it, otherwise you'd have to include just s much other stuff that a few people equally find important to them, which'd create a confusing clutter.

Better you just use a site like howlongtobeat.com, even though it's not well populated with data

[SpawnCap]

I just go to bottom of list and select show all reviews on metacritic. The problem with metactitic is a lot of people will put up a bad review, saying they hate the game, and they'll put it up for all platforms when you know the people didn't purchase the game for all those platforms and play it. And a lot of them just look for the most popular game and put up a bad review on a game they never played because they think it's cool. I check metacritic and other review sites, but I mainly check youtube for gameplay videos because then you can see if the gameplay is what you like or not.

[Space Coward]

You act as if we didn't know MetaCritic was ♥♥♥♥.