Abandon metacritics

[Yerude]

I would realy enjoy if the metacritics wouldnt be available in steam anymore.
In the last few years i often read it and in my opinion, the metacritics became very very very corrupted with the years.
Some publishers always suffer of very bad metacritics because IGN, PC Gamer and so on ALWAYS - the reviews of them. In some cases, i am pretty sure, none of the journalists of IGN or PC Gamer ever touched the games they review.
I think there a some games where it feels obvious, the reviews are just bought by some big publishers, both postive and negative reviews. I mean, how can a game have a metacritics of ~40 rated by magazines, but on the same time 7+ rated by players?? This realy pisses me and it hurts if some realy great games (with also good reviews) are victims and cant do anything.

Steam shouldnt support this criminal behavior any more. In my opinion, the reviews of the players should realy be enough. If not abandon this stupid metacritcis completely, make sure its not the magazines rating shown up.

I hope this will get lots of + votes.(I know you cannot + vote, i meant lots of comments in general) I mean, it is the best for the players and customers and in my opinion steam was always the pioneer for everything. Maybe they could also become the pioneer for fighting "fake critics"

[76561198001062896]

Автор сообщения: Gus the Crocodile

Автор сообщения: Yerude

It is not even meta critics fault. It is the fault of the magazines and journalists.

Disagreeing with you is not a fault.

Reviewing existed before Metacritic; it isn't reviewers' fault that Metacritic indexes their scores, or that players or publishers treat Metacritic's aggregate scores as valuable. This continued insistence that reviewers are doing something wrong is gross.

and it feels like more and more like the usual "stop disliking games i like" charade

[DEVOLVE MINHA CACHAÇA!]

Sorry, but if you give greater value to a third party's opinion than your own, then you are the wrong doer here.

Metacritic is merely a group of reviewers with specific opinions that may or may not match your own opinion. Also, OP says Metacritic became corrupt, but when someone relies on someone else's opinion to decide whether or not they want to spend their money, OF COURSE this external opinion will turn into a business and people will pay other people to review something positively.

You don't just put someone else's opinion above your own in the first place, it makes no sense, lol.

[Yerude]

Dont be lazy, read everything i write and you know what i mean. It has nothing to do with my own opinion and my own critics, or if i care about metacritics ( i dont).

It is just that developers lose money directly or indirectly because of that.
And this is also bad for us. If valve will be the first who will do an official statement, that they dont care about aswell, there will be less pressure and less manipulating interest.

There is always a lose end where you have to start thinking. Who stops thinking about what can be done better, already stoped being best. If Steam should stay best, they have to lead quality ensurance and not following others.

[Sovietball]

Look. The metacritic score is as corrupt as the steam rating system. For the few who use that to base games off of they would complain saying how steam should remove reviews are they can be faked biased etc etc. It's a number which will not affect sales. Until you link me 10 indie game devs who actually hate this system FOR HURTING THEIR GAME then I will ignore you

[cinedine]

I agree, the less we see and hear of that cancerous aggragated scores, the better. Especially metacritic with its BS algorithm, trying to force point scales on people who deliberately don't give scores, and worst of all the fact that they will never revisted a score even after years of patching.

[Smugass Braixen-Chan]

I stopped following Metacritic when a bunch of butt-hurt Russian SJWs vote-bombed Company of Heroes 2 because "it made ze Fazherland look bad!"

Not that I trusted Metacritic before that, but it was a nail in the coffin for me.

[Cablenexus]

It's funny how Metacritics works with a system of "weighted reviewers" to who they assign weight by an invisible rating system based on invisible weight.
I always believed in their reviews till one of the best games of 2016 (Thea the Awakening) was giving a weighted score by a dead review site on a bahama server with merely 500 visitors a month. While every gamer in the world and every non weighted review site loved the game, the total Meta score was 5. Never visited that crap site anymore afterwards.

[DEVOLVE MINHA CACHAÇA!]

Автор сообщения: Yerude

Dont be lazy, read everything i write and you know what i mean. It has nothing to do with my own opinion and my own critics, or if i care about metacritics ( i dont).

It is just that developers lose money directly or indirectly because of that.
And this is also bad for us. If valve will be the first who will do an official statement, that they dont care about aswell, there will be less pressure and less manipulating interest.

There is always a lose end where you have to start thinking. Who stops thinking about what can be done better, already stoped being best. If Steam should stay best, they have to lead quality ensurance and not following others.

I get your point, but then read again what I said here:

Автор сообщения: Almost Nothing

Also, OP says Metacritic became corrupt, but when someone relies on someone else's opinion to decide whether or not they want to spend their money, OF COURSE this external opinion will turn into a business and people will pay other people to review something positively.

This is generating profit for both parties, otherwise Valve wouldn't care to put Metacritic widgets all around the store. While doing biased reviews keeps generating enough revenue, nothing will be done.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Metacritic is sorta crap. They gave Ys Origin a 76, for goodness's sake.

But Steam shouldn't just get rid of it. Steam should keep it, and then ALSO add the Metacritic user review score. And on the List View for your games library, have the Metacritic user review score and ALSO the Steam review score available as ways to sort your games.

[Start_Running]

Автор сообщения: Yerude

Dont be lazy, read everything i write and you know what i mean. It has nothing to do with my own opinion and my own critics, or if i care about metacritics ( i dont).

Yes it is.

It is just that developers lose money directly or indirectly because of that.
And this is also bad for us. If valve will be the first who will do an official statement, that they dont care about aswell, there will be less pressure and less manipulating interest.

"[lovejoy]Think of the children(developers)[/lovejoy]

Look, if you're going to take that approach then by your reasoning. ALL reviews should be removed from steam because they can all be paid for, manipulated, bribed etc. Wouldn't that be lovely.

[Yerude]

Автор сообщения: Almost Nothing

Also, OP says Metacritic became corrupt, but when someone relies on someone else's opinion to decide whether or not they want to spend their money, OF COURSE this external opinion will turn into a business and people will pay other people to review something positively.

This is generating profit for both parties, otherwise Valve wouldn't care to put Metacritic widgets all around the store. While doing biased reviews keeps generating enough revenue, nothing will be done. [/quote]

Yes you are right. There must be a reason why steam implemented Metacritics. There will be a contract i guess. And they wont do it for free. Metacritics will probably pay valve for it. I mean thats what can be expected. It wont be just a random circtumstance, you will see the metacritic and not the reviewers critic.

@Start_Running:
Yes you are right. All reviews could be manipulated in theory. But this is less likely happening.
Just paying the magazines like IGN money is more comfortable for publishers. And it is also less risky. The chance IGN will admit they get money for their reviews are almost zero percent.
They wouldnt shot their own legs. If i would run a publishing company for games or films, i would also try to pay the magazines for a better review. Its a business. And magazines will never talk about it.
Paying people for fake reviews is a high risk.

[Red Shift]

Автор сообщения: Yerude

@Start_Running:
Yes you are right. All reviews could be manipulated in theory. But this is less likely happening.
Just paying the magazines like IGN money is more comfortable for publishers. And it is also less risky. The chance IGN will admit they get money for their reviews are almost zero percent.
They wouldnt shot their own legs. If i would run a publishing company for games or films, i would also try to pay the magazines for a better review. Its a business. And magazines will never talk about it.
Paying people for fake reviews is a high risk.

You keep on harking on about this conspiracy... 0% percent chance? Yeah, give me a break. Some of these magazines have been going for 25 years or more, in all that time, are you seriously suggesting that there hasnt been one jilted ex-employee, one pissed off intern/work experience dude, one bitter ex-partner, one businsess rival, one investigative journalist, who wouldnt have been happy to spill the beans on any actual colusion?

Magazines exist on advertising revenue, not backhanders, their reputation is too important to this.

[suicidal.banana]

Автор сообщения: Yerude

Some publishers always suffer of very bad metacritics because IGN, PC Gamer and so on ALWAYS - the reviews of them.

They will obviously never admit this, but look around on the web man, its common knowledge that these 'reviewers' can be (and constantly are) bought.

Really, dont even look at any metacritic rottentomatoes or anything these days, its all posioned with fake reviews, either to spike or lower the score.

The best reviewer in the world is still you, you know what you like best.

This is one of the main reasons why theres a return policy on Steam, you can return a game if you simply dont like it, thats a valid reason that will get you a refund (provided you stay within that 2 hour limit)

[Washell]

Автор сообщения: Yerude

The chance IGN will admit they get money for their reviews are almost zero percent.

The fact that the main source of income for the gaming press is the gaming industry is denied by no-one and considered to be a real problem. Multiple attempts have been made over the years to sever that link, but it's not an easy thing to pull off in an age where print is down, and websites specialize in order to serve a specific audience.

Taking metacritic off Steam will do nothing to fix that problem, alienate the customers that did like it, and barely please you (and others like you) when it's something you can already just ignore. There's a lot involved in whether a game does well or not, and metacritic is only a tiny part of it.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Автор сообщения: Yerude

Yes you are right. There must be a reason why steam implemented Metacritics. There will be a contract i guess. And they wont do it for free. Metacritics will probably pay valve for it. I mean thats what can be expected. It wont be just a random circtumstance, you will see the metacritic and not the reviewers critic.

You can speculate all you want about whether Valve gets a financial cut from this, but I think it's more likely that this is basically a legacy feature.

1. Metacritic score display was implemented BEFORE the current review system was put in place. In fact it existed even before you could write a negative recommendation (all recommendations were assumed to be positive back in the day).

2. Publishers can choose whether to display a Metacritic score, if I recall correctly.