Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
that mean a great game 10 years ago, could be medum today or brand new game is bad as hell compare to others, its simple just a Review how user see it.
And that explan alot why some older games can be better, because there was not any better at that time,
This is same as saying ifyou never played impossible mission on C64 ( most next gen people will not know what the hell im talking about. ) but compare to other games from back then most will agree that was one of the kind, so it has actual nothing to do if you like the game or not, ofc many did but now later we are at steam so thats why you see masterpiece for every generation have higher score then others.
so its actual a good help for you, what other people like or played then games was released.
its seen there are games that did not made it and they should call it bad timeing, then its released then a big title got released sametime , and that is this score judge mistake or flaw.
no player no reviews . bad meta score. ( so there is no perfect system )
and you could have google this.
i agree to that, i dont follow what other think in what games i like.
For Metacritic, I suggest don't bother with the critics reviews as often enough they got caught fluffing reviews because they got something in return to give good review, or got caught because they couldn't have things their ways, and gave bad review, yes it's real problems with those critics, you're far better off reading users reviews than critics that how it is sometimes on Metacritic, if you want real honest reviews.
Steam don't have much relations to Metacritic at all really, as Metacritic just a free online review site, yes Metacritic can easily be abused for review because it's a free service anyone can bot on, and fluff things, or demote things. It already been proven someone giving example proven how it easily done which Metacritic got upset about it.
Then you read the bad ones. Do they affect you? No?
Then you read the better ones, do they convince you?
Then you make a choice.
Detail does not a good game make.
Graphics does not a good game make.
Sound does not a good game make.
And so on.
So it doesn't matter if Mafia has the most detail ever concevied in a game. It's irrelevant to whether it's good.
You know what DOES make a good game? A good game. In other words, it's the sum of its parts.
Also, you seem to not understand what metacritic is. It's an AGREGGATE of various review scores. That's it.
So, it's just an average of sorts across what many outlets scored. Nothing more.
Go look at any game, especially ones which have some controversy about them and compare the users' score with the critic score - notice the WILD difference, especially on something like a Star Wars game?
The problem here is that reviews should only EVER BE GUIDES AT BEST. No reviewer professionally wants to be the one that risks the wrath of angry star wars fans so would deliberately score a game higher, and yet if it IS actually a pile of crap, the users won't hold back. Ergo, that's why the disparity happens.
This just demonstrates how you cannot trust what they say.
So, how you should use it is in the loosest possible terms - say, if a game scores above a 70, then chances are it's pretty good. That's it.
Don't get hung up on scores, especially when you have no context on how that score was amalgamated. Furthermore, scores are nigh on useless anyway, so you shouldn't hold ANY stock in them.
For instance, if you see a game and it scores 70%, absent of any other detail. Does this tell you it's a quite poor game, but has some neat ideas, and endearing play, or does it tell you it's a well polished game but a bit boring? It can't. You simply cannot get anything out of it.
So, your best bet is to throw all the ideas you've out the window, because if you hold onto them, you're going to buy some really crap games in future and waste your money.
I would also add that the best approach I've found is to find two things. Reviewers, whether in video, text, picture or whatever, that you agree with. And reviewers who are POLAR OPPOSITE to you.
The ones that are polar opposite to your tastes are really helpful, and should never be overlooked.
I've many a game where reading up on it, I couldn't tell if it was say, grind heavy or not, and a reviewer I disagree with expressed they hated it because it had a fair bit of grinding. I like that, so I buy it and am not disappointed.
just because we call them GTA clones, some of them actual stand very well at its own and should not be seen as a clone.
Im totally agree with you,
Yet at least in the Steam we can see some account's info with positive or negative reviews to guess if its real
So why the hell the Steam with the better system to rate is putting the metacritics on the page?
The name it self is so misleading like it is something from verified reviewers at least,
Specially for the younger costumers (kids) it can mislead them heavily.
Then you will see what it can give you.
I like to read there at times.
Not sure how it could mislead heavily....... if you read.
Its like steam reviews. With a number
But additionally you can compare it somehwat with the user score.
That way it is meta score and meta critic.
I think you just misunderstood it.
No again, you are misunderstanding what it is and how it works.
Metacritic is a META CRITIC. It's an amalgamation tool for ALL reviews. It's simply making a calculated average.
That's what you're not reading correctly.
And again, even if you try to compare as you have done with Steam's user reviews, you're still doing it wrong, because you're putting too much emphasis on the details. Scores and reviews should be treated as VERY ROUGH guides only.
Again, scores are useless too.
So the only issue here is you not grasping how you're supposed to view it.
These are some stupid sites like this one: ggsgamer.com
Sure there are some acceptable sites too, but not most of them.
And guess who make these stupid sites for just scoring the games?
The expensive magazines with paying readers have a credit for their review.
Still I know no magazine with 100% no siding, yet at least some ppl pays for them.
Kingdom come: Deliverance
ppl on steam: 80% user score: 80 Metascore: 76
Grand theft auto V
ppl on steam: 80% user score: 84 Metascore: 97
Now can you see how its works?