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"

[Sovietball]

It's a score

It doesn't matter

Just research the game and don't base off of metacritic

[Yerude]

You dont know for sure. And despite that , it is also a question of manners and norms.
Why not deactivate metacritics? It is manipulating. It is not about me, it is a general thing.

[Sovietball]

Yerude eredeti hozzászólása:

You dont know for sure. And despite that , it is also a question of manners and norms.

The score doesn't matter. It's a opinion. Like the steam reviews. If you trust a review score your an idiot. You should research it anyway. Besides, I doubt even 30% of the steam user base even use meta critic for their games

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

ive never based a purchased of a metacritic score. they have never been accurate for my taste in games.

and there is no "+ votes" on the forums for anything. why? they dont mean a thing for anyone.



edit:

Commissar Quacklordington eredeti hozzászólása:

Besides, I doubt even 30% of the steam user base even use meta critic for their games

just posted my reply right after this.

[Yerude]

Also idiots do buy games, or not. And this is not the problem. If they dont care anyway, there is no need to let it stay. It is just something negative for smaller publishers. Why implementing such negative stuff?

This is like honoring the magazines for paid fake reviews. Why doing so, if a boycott is a possability.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Different groups of people not thinking the same things is normal.

Weird how you don't consider the possibility of "corruption" on the user side, where anyone can rate the game without so much as seeing a screenshot of it. PC Gamer can't review-bomb a game, but website full of angry internet idiots can.

Metacritic is dumb, sure. Review scores are dumb anywhere. So I have no problem with Valve not making use of that site. But allegations of misconduct should come evidence, not a vague "feeling", otherwise I can just as sensibly request your post be removed because I'm "pretty sure" your opinion has been bought.

[Red Shift]

I value a professionals opinion over someone like yours (OP) any day of the week.

[Yerude]

Some of you may want to think this is only a matter of opinion. Which is fine for me.
But trying to think how the developers feel or have to handle it, it is very different.
I think the steam reviews itself are more than enough. The reviews on steam are just more honestly. The metacritics are just fake. Thats my point.
I dont dislike negative review in general, i dislike fake negative reviews.

Ah i dont think No Mans Sky is a very good example.
The tons of bad reviews is easy to explain. No Mans Sky is one of these many games which were hyped as hell. Part of it, was a very manipulating advertising and the developers were very bold and just promised so many features. The main issue with games like nms is, that you buy the idea of a game, without checking, if the devs did it all done. Additional it is a sci fi game which always suffers of high expectations because sci-fi is a little bit like modern romance, so every buyer has its own dreams and expects a very deep highly immersive feeling.
Because so many players "just bought" nms via Pre-Order, tons of players were disappointed soo. Because open world games in general know very well, how to make the player stay more than 3 hours (same problem with some sh||ty early acces survival games) to prevent the buyer from using refunds. This is also an additional reason why players were pissed so much.
They felt betrayed.

If we are talking about a high reach game like no mans sky, a game EVERYBODY KNOWS, it is pretty easy to understand, metacritics journalists like ign and pc gamer will try to side with the community. I mean, they are not dumb. They know exactly lieing with critics for games like nms, nobody would ever give a damn to them anymore.
Fake Reviews and bought critics is always a problem for smaller, less known titles. Which COULD be great, but will get downbeated because the rival games dont want them to stay in their way. These are mostly more regular games, not tripple AAA, but not bad games either.
Something like 70-80% positive reviews on steam. They often suffer realy bad reputation because magazines like pc gamer finish of these titles (because they get paid for that).

Ever thought about what developers may think about? Ever thought this could be a reason for an investor, if the developer will get money for a second part of the game, or if dlc's and addons will be made? Did you never heard about contracts, where the devs only get higher bonus payment if the metacritics is 80% or above? You probably think, why should i care? Because some stupid journalists manipulate if a game you like will have a future or banished forever. So you should care. Valve should care, too.

edit:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/no-mans-sky/critic-reviews?dist=neutral
You see? Everyone knows, whats going on with nms.
IGN gave a 70!(70 is quite good for small publisher games) and this review : "No Man's Sky is not the fever dream I imagined when I saw the first trailer. However, it is still an amazing technical feat, even if it's still rather full of bugs."

Come on... it is still an amazing technical feat, even with tons of bugs????
I mean, there are other games with almost no bugs, decent graphics, good gameplay..., which suffer a IGN score of 30 or 40.

Check this out:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/deadfall-adventures/critic-reviews?dist=negative
Deadfall got a 40 of IGN
"It's an uninspired retread of good concepts, and an unfortunate visitor into a genre with some genuine giants. It might take you on a long trip across the globe to visit some attractive locations, but by the end the only temples I cared for were throbbing away in my head."

It is on sale on humble bumble, check out the game for yourself.
It doesnt get quite the highest players score aswell, but it is genredepending. People expect this game to be more like indiana jones or tomb raider, what it isnt. Thats why many people dislike the game. Thats okay, nobody wants a 80 or 90 for this game.
But just play it, and you will see, the negative metacritics reviews are just lies.
It is just not true. No matter if you like or dislike the game. It is fake.
In my opinion, this is a way to cheat to prevent games like deadfall becoming an own brand.
It is like "we already have uncharted and tombraider, we dont want others to rival us"
But deadfall isnt just what IGN claims. It is neither uninspired, it is nor unfortunate a genre liker want to play some cheap uncharted copy. It is just not true.
And most players know that exactly. Everbody knows that, who realy played deadfall.
It is like, you probably like the setting of indiana jonse, tomb raider or uncharted, but you may not like the gameplay. I dont like to climb around on rocks like tomb raider. I dont like to hunt wolves or jump over cliffs and craft a torch or whatever else. This game, is simply DIFFERENT. Not worse. And it is not even lieing. They do not even advertise the best game in history (like no mans sky). They are only advertising, a great shooter with indiana jones genre. Thats all, thats fine, its great. The game is fun, its a great shooter. Gunplay is great. Its no tripple A, but it could become one.
Thats my problem with meta critics. Titles like that, wont get a second chance to sell a second title. Would like to have Deadfall 2? With better graphics, better actors, better motion capturing? Well, have luck finding investors, if every corrupted PC Gamer journalist will sabotage your sales. This is whats happening. Valve is able to do something against. Why not benefit of chances?
It is not just the Score, it is also the articles the people read. There are still many people reading games articels of IGN or PC Gamer or in germany it is Gamestar or PC Games.
People do fall for it. Of course they do, they dont want to waste money. (except they get influenced by advertising, nms is a verye extreme example)

Just another example, and you will laugh about :) This is a good example, for the power of electronic arts.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fifa-17
84 metascore vs 4.2 User score.
Funny, with deadfall the journalists just complain about, other games would do exist which would be better (and this isnt even true, because there are no other shooters like that)
And the same magazines, do exactly the complete opposite for Fifa17.
NOTHING changes every year in Fifa. They are always adjusting some values for some variables. Add some few animations, do little things. Next Fifa, it is like a full price patch. Not even enough to be called an addon. There are no additional features. No new game modes, no Futsal, no sports halls. I wouldnt say fifa is a bad game, but why 84 metascore, if the game is almost the same like fifa16, fifa15 or fifa14.
It is because the journalists get paid to come up with new childish reasons to buy this game. The magazines are the advertising itself.
Ok lets be honest, with fifa17 there is a new feature, a new story mode. It is fair, to give this game a good metascore. 70-80 would be still good and fair. Because the story isnt even made well. It is just like "we dont want to offer alot new, but somehow, we have to..."

[Yerude]

The journalists are also humans and not objective. There is no need to be objective in a review.
You are right, it is as simple. And this is, why reviews are always the better choice. Because they are honest, it is the truth. Metacritics is just a paid score. It is like advertising. The more money you pay, the more influence you will have on it. Sure, bad games wont become game of the year. But you can easily make your game get advertised via metacritics with a 20 score better than it deserves. A realy bad game of EA will always be better, than a realy good game of a no name publisher. Especally, if the no name publisher decieds to sell a game of the same genre. No Name publishers dont have the big money for advertising. If EA decides to buy negative reviews for other games, they cant do anything about.
It is not even meta critics fault. It is the fault of the magazines and journalists.
The so called calculations can easily get misused. You can always say "this feature weights more than that because..." just imagine foolish reasons.

[Dirty Dan]

cSg|mc-Hotsauce eredeti hozzászólása:

ive never based a purchased of a metacritic score. they have never been accurate for my taste in games.

and there is no "+ votes" on the forums for anything. why? they dont mean a thing for anyone.

:qr:

edit:

Commissar Quacklordington eredeti hozzászólása:

Besides, I doubt even 30% of the steam user base even use meta critic for their games

just posted my reply right after this. :taloslol:

If they don't mean anything and people don't use it, wouldn't it make sense to just get rid of it?

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Dirty Dan eredeti hozzászólása:

If they don't mean anything and people don't use it, wouldn't it make sense to just get rid of it?

there are no + votes on the forums.

where do you see + votes?

[Gus the Crocodile]

Yerude eredeti hozzászólása:

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.

[Dirty Dan]

cSg|mc-Hotsauce eredeti hozzászólása:

Dirty Dan eredeti hozzászólása:

If they don't mean anything and people don't use it, wouldn't it make sense to just get rid of it?

there are no + votes on the forums.

where do you see + votes?

:cwat:

I was talking about the metacritic score.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Dirty Dan eredeti hozzászólása:

cSg|mc-Hotsauce eredeti hozzászólása:

there are no + votes on the forums.

where do you see + votes?

I was talking about the metacritic score.

and my original reply was directed to the op who thinks + votes exist here.

stay focused!

[Start_Running]

Yerude eredeti hozzászólása:

Also idiots do buy games, or not. And this is not the problem. If they dont care anyway, there is no need to let it stay. It is just something negative for smaller publishers. Why implementing such negative stuff?

This is like honoring the magazines for paid fake reviews. Why doing so, if a boycott is a possability.

You don't lkike Meta critic. Others onn Steam might find the reviews there in line with their preferences. YOu use what works for you. They use what works for them. A'ight?