No Man's Sky: Proving that User Reviews are Useless

[MCerberus]

When it mellows out they are actually useful. Also helps when looking at reviews for games that aren't over-hyped.

I use Steam User-Reviews for games I am unsure about. But you have to ya know, use your own sense and logic when reading them.

Yeah, if you're not cherrypicking the worst, and actually use your mental filters like you normally would, it's pretty useful. The people who love it, love it, and aren't claiming anything that the people who hate it aren't. Both agree that it's basically a big, empty, place to explore and stick your name on stuff. The people who are excited by that, and not bothered by FOV issues, repetitive and shallow gameplay, are genuinely excited.

A good tip is to sort user reviews by "Most helpful"

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/no-mans-sky/user-reviews

Example:

snip

And yet the Metacritic system doesn't display that. In order what's "front paged" is: fanboy, PR shill, fanboy, fanboy in Spanish, fanboy, legitimate negative review, troll.

And it's funny since this year had so much "the critics are wrong" "crowdsourcing is the best results" that the first impressions contains subjective but reasoned critique along with a general assessment that's useful (from the sound of it, it looks like the relaxing game that I've been wanting when my WoT teams keep disappointing me), and also IGN.

More to the point, the numeric ratings for both are actually used in the industry and, in this day-and-age of reporting, can color professional reviews. Luckily we're not looking at a normal situation, since the publisher Sony did this as a hype exercise (mission accomplished) but other places, notably WB, have used metacritic and user scores to punish devs. In a system where points given out by Chris Hardwick have more meaning.

Learned that long time ago, you can't trust user reviews or critics. The only person that can convince you to buy a game is yourself.

A lack of a functioning heads-up system really leaves you at the mercy of the industry PR machine

 

[Raddra]

Anyone that rates a game 0-4 after spending over 24 hours on it deserves to be ignored.

if a game can grip you that long, its nowhere below a 5. It evidently captured your interest for a whole day.

If a games really bad, I usually give it up in less than 2 hours.

 

[CritialGaming]

snip

This was one of those well-written reviews I was talking about above. The reviewer didn't like the game, but none of his points felt like fan-boy rage or anything like that. Everything written here seems genuine and well put together. It highlights a lot of flaws in the game and seems like something people should read before rushing out to buy the game.

NMS overall seems to have a very specific target audience in mind. And you really have to be part of that audience to "get it", casual players are going to get bored.

I definitely get why people could easily get bored with this game, but that user's review did seem to have a "put the hype in its place" tone to it. Did he mistype when saying he visited only 3 planets? It seems like to get anywhere near the center of the galaxy you'd be visiting far more than that, not to mention being able to accumulate the feedback needed for such a critique.

He never says he got to the center of the galaxy. This is merely reporting on what he has experienced thus far.

Anyone that rates a game 0-4 after spending over 24 hours on it deserves to be ignored.

if a game can grip you that long, its nowhere below a 5. It evidently captured your interest for a whole day.

If a games really bad, I usually give it up in less than 2 hours.

So you basically have to ignore every professional review everywhere. Because they will sink 10-60 hours into a game they hate to make sure they review it properly. Amateur reviewers tend to exaggerate their play time to give more credibility to their statements. Which is why they are amateur I suppose. But so long as what they say seems to come from some sort of sense, i will ignore their playtimes and simply process what they are saying for good information.

 

[Caedite Eos]

snip

This was one of those well-written reviews I was talking about above. The reviewer didn't like the game, but none of his points felt like fan-boy rage or anything like that. Everything written here seems genuine and well put together. It highlights a lot of flaws in the game and seems like something people should read before rushing out to buy the game.

NMS overall seems to have a very specific target audience in mind. And you really have to be part of that audience to "get it", casual players are going to get bored.

I definitely get why people could easily get bored with this game, but that user's review did seem to have a "put the hype in its place" tone to it. Did he mistype when saying he visited only 3 planets? It seems like to get anywhere near the center of the galaxy you'd be visiting far more than that, not to mention being able to accumulate the feedback needed for such a critique.

That seems like missing the point, especially when the pitch is, "Spend many many MANY more hours of doing what you've already done, with only procedural variations in cosmetics to break the pace, because I don't remember Peter Molyneux's 'Curiosity'!"

It's not like game mechanics are going to spring into being as you trudge the interminable distance to the galactic core; you're gather to upgrade your gathering tools and storage to gather more. What exactly do you imagine is in the "center" of the galaxy?

My guess is, a little easter egg.

 

[bluegate]

What exactly do you imagine is in the "center" of the galaxy?

My guess is, a little easter egg.

Nothing worth the time getting there, that's for sure.

My guess would be a stats screen of sorts showing how many planets you visited, animals you saw, how many people came across your worlds, etc.
Maybe even a nice map of the universe displaying your path taken.

Or if I'm to be really pessimistic; a message with some quote that boils down to; "It's about the journey, not the destination.".

 

[Blitsie]

After spending about 200 hours on No Man's Sky I can safely attest to the fact that it feels as though there isn't any point to what you do in the game.

You'd think after a tenth of it he'll realize it, probably had to spend so much time to be completely sure.

....Has the game even been out for over 200 hours? Even if he got a leaked copy which came out like what, just over a week ago? That still means the guy put at least a good few 24 hour sessions in which is a bit on the extreme side. Unless this guy is pulling everyone's leg and we're taking him too seriously haha

But regardless its all bullcrap I wouldn't trust though.

Judging from what I've read and seen, it's essentially a survival game at heart with light sandbox and space-sim elements, and you'll only enjoy it if stuff like that tickles your fancy, otherwise you'll end up being bored out of your mind.

 

[RaikuFA]

"IGNORE THE GOOD REVIEWS THEY ARE XBOX GAMERS."

Wat?

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

*SIGH* That's why you ignore the asshats and edgelords, and you look for the reviews that go in depth about what was good and what was bad. Sorry if you have to do some homework on your part, but those cretins do not suddenly invalidate "non professionals".

 

[The Lunatic]

Well, user reviews are a decent general indicator about a game's state.

No Man's Sky, for example, a lot of people feel very betrayed about the last minute "It's not actually multiplayer!", thing.

So, it's understandable there's going to be some backlash. So, you kinda have to consider these things.

 

[Yoshi178]

You'd be better off by going to either Twitch or Youtube and watching the actual gameplay yourself.

what gameplay?

 

[shrekfan246]

Anyone that rates a game 0-4 after spending over 24 hours on it deserves to be ignored.

if a game can grip you that long, its nowhere below a 5. It evidently captured your interest for a whole day.

If a games really bad, I usually give it up in less than 2 hours.

Just because you're "interested" in continuing to see something that doesn't make it "good".

Also, your standards for giving up on something aren't universal.

 

[Rangaman]

The reviews so far are complaining because, apparently, there's not much to do.

This, of course, leads to the question,"Are all hype-mongers born with a spike in their brain?" The game was never touted as being the next Skyrim or Witcher 3 people. It was always going to be an Elite: Dangerous/Starbound-style exploitative sandbox game.

Also, anyone who gives a functional game a 0 deserves to be crucified by Metacritic and left in the Sahara Desert.

 

[Einspanner]

The reviews so far are complaining because, apparently, there's not much to do.

This, of course, leads to the question,"Are all hype-mongers born with a spike in their brain?" The game was never touted as being the next Skyrim or Witcher 3 people. It was always going to be an Elite: Dangerous/Starbound-style exploitative sandbox game.

Also, anyone who gives a functional game a 0 deserves to be crucified by Metacritic and left in the Sahara Desert.

Unless, you know, they just really dislike the idea of a big Skinner Box, who's designer forgot to include a reward mechanism that works for most of us?

 

[Dalisclock]

Learned that long time ago, you can't trust user reviews or critics. The only person that can convince you to buy a game is yourself.

So, how do you pick what games to buy, out of curiosity? Screenshots? Gameplay videos that may or may not reflect the game actually released? Trailers? Press releases?

Or do you just buy games blind and hope they end up good?

 

[Dalisclock]

Anyone that rates a game 0-4 after spending over 24 hours on it deserves to be ignored.

if a game can grip you that long, its nowhere below a 5. It evidently captured your interest for a whole day.

If a games really bad, I usually give it up in less than 2 hours.

It's also possible they were trying to play for a decent amount of time to head off complaints of "You obviously didn't play long enough" and "You were just about to get to the good part".

Hell, I've seen people that whine that a review was worthless because the reviewer didn't complete a game, regardless of the reason for non-completion(such as bugs, a final section that was way too frustrating, was contemplating suicide out of sheer boredom, game doesn't actually have an ending...).

 

[Rangaman]

The reviews so far are complaining because, apparently, there's not much to do.

This, of course, leads to the question,"Are all hype-mongers born with a spike in their brain?" The game was never touted as being the next Skyrim or Witcher 3 people. It was always going to be an Elite: Dangerous/Starbound-style exploitative sandbox game.

Also, anyone who gives a functional game a 0 deserves to be crucified by Metacritic and left in the Sahara Desert.

Unless, you know, they just really dislike the idea of a big Skinner Box, who's designer forgot to include a reward mechanism that works for most of us?

Whose, not who's. Anyway, what did you expect? It was always a sandbox. If you bought it regardless, that's your fault for being a bellend, not the game's fault for being what it advertised. Reward system? Are you one of those achievement junkies?

If you mean an in-game reward, what should they reward you with?

Has it occurred to you that you are looking for the wrong qualities in this game?

 

[Cowabungaa]

I'll say it regardless of how elitist it sounds:

Most people, whether they watch movies or play games or listen to music or whatever, have neither the care nor the ability to concern themselves with a work's quality outside of their own personal taste. To put it in the simple example that I always use; the fact that I don't care in the slightest about football doesn't mean that FIFA is then a shitty game.

That's why if I look at user reviews I only pick out those that either go beyond their own tastes or acknowledge their tastes and clearly review something within those boundaries. Or, y'know, funny bullshit. I fondly remember the Steam User Reviews of DayZ, those were some good laughs...

Find a reviewer who has similar opinions to you, and they'll give you a better impression. Alternatively, watch it on Youtube.

No, not similar opinions. That way you just nestle yourself in an echo chamber. More like find a reviewer who can quantify his opinions, acknowledges his tastes and is willing to judge something regardless of his tastes. Those people make for good and useful reviewers.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Nope. If I'm looking for reviews for consumer advice, I want someone with similar views. Reviews aren't telling me what to think, it's not an echo chamber, they're telling me what they thought about the game. For that, I want someone who's tastes are like mine. It's no echo chamber of any sort. I'm literally taking in someone else's view on something I don't yet have a view on. Exactly the opposite of an echo chamber.

That's not what I mean with echo chamber. I mean that if you end up with a group of people who think alike you're just going to confirm each other's biases and viewpoints. What I argue for is also (not just, both are useful) looking for reviewers who will challenge your perspective, make you look at things from angles you wouldn't have considered on your own or through people who think like you. For instance, a few years ago I started playing and loving a game because a reviewer I follow, TotalBiscuit, didn't like it. It made me consider the game from a different angle.

Bottom-line is that I'd argue that you don't just look for people who think like you but get more varied opinions and viewpoints. Not as much games you'd dislike, but games you'd perhaps not considered before. I only have a relatively small overlap with TotalBiscuit in terms of videogame taste for instance, but that's partially why I value his views on games that might interest me so much. He can spot things in a game that I might not spot because of my viewpoint. And with that information I might reevaluate my opinion or tastes. He might also talk about games I wouldn't have considered before but give reasons for his like or dislike that end up agreeing with my tastes. That happened with FTL with me.

Quantifying opinions, by the way, is being able to say exactly why you like or dislike what you like or dislike. Adding an elaborate "because" to your opinions. Because it's with that information you can truly compare their opinion about something with your tastes and make an informed decision.

 

[Rangaman]

The reviews so far are complaining because, apparently, there's not much to do.

This, of course, leads to the question,"Are all hype-mongers born with a spike in their brain?" The game was never touted as being the next Skyrim or Witcher 3 people. It was always going to be an Elite: Dangerous/Starbound-style exploitative sandbox game.

Also, anyone who gives a functional game a 0 deserves to be crucified by Metacritic and left in the Sahara Desert.

Unless, you know, they just really dislike the idea of a big Skinner Box, who's designer forgot to include a reward mechanism that works for most of us?

Whose, not who's. Anyway, what did you expect? It was always a sandbox. If you bought it regardless, that's your fault for being a bellend, not the game's fault for being what it advertised. Reward system? Are you one of those achievement junkies?

If you mean an in-game reward, what should they reward you with?

Has it occurred to you that you are looking for the wrong qualities in this game?

That sounds like exactly what everyone was saying when people were questioning if there was enough to do in the game to maintain engagement. And now that reviews and videos are out, the answer seems to trend towards "no". It's really rather strange to go straight to ad hominem, calling someone a bellend, and trying to imply that they may not like it because they may be an achievement junky. Screw achievements, a reward mechanism is something that occurs in the game. "What should they reward you with"? They already do. Mining something collects it, going somewhere means you're in a new place, etc. Doing things in the game should have a tangible effect on the world and your experience, the core loop of gameplay needs to have momentum, the player has to want to do something, to get to something. To which some people have been saying "eh". A lot of it boils down to doing the same thing, which isn't super engaging.

You can see what I mean here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aLNKkjzoWQ

"It's a lot of filling up things with things so that you can go to things to do more things, to fill up more things, to do more things".

You know, how most survival games end up working. Collect, build, upgrade, repeat. A style of gameplay that's become oversaturated and a lot of people are already tired with. Still, looks more interesting than Starbound turned out to be, I'll probably pick it up when it's cheap.

I admit I was a bit rash, but it pisses me off immensely when people assume that developers automatically know what they (as in that specific player) want in the hot new game from [insert bad joke name here] Studios.

I have said to my PlayStation Nation friend multiple times that the game would be Starbound in 3D, and he didn't listen to me. But when I asked him what he thought it would be, he just repeated what the devs said. It just seems (to me at least) that people were excited for a game that they didn't actually know much about, other than it was really big.

I can appreciate that, contrary to the Starbomb song, Minecraft is not for everyone. But...ugh, I've said enough in this comment already.

 

[Einspanner]

The reviews so far are complaining because, apparently, there's not much to do.

This, of course, leads to the question,"Are all hype-mongers born with a spike in their brain?" The game was never touted as being the next Skyrim or Witcher 3 people. It was always going to be an Elite: Dangerous/Starbound-style exploitative sandbox game.

Also, anyone who gives a functional game a 0 deserves to be crucified by Metacritic and left in the Sahara Desert.

Unless, you know, they just really dislike the idea of a big Skinner Box, who's designer forgot to include a reward mechanism that works for most of us?

Whose, not who's.

And we're done.

I'll say it regardless of how elitist it sounds:

Most people, whether they watch movies or play games or listen to music or whatever, have neither the care nor the ability to concern themselves with a work's quality outside of their own personal taste. To put it in the simple example that I always use; the fact that I don't care in the slightest about football doesn't mean that FIFA is then a shitty game.

That's why if I look at user reviews I only pick out those that either go beyond their own tastes or acknowledge their tastes and clearly review something within those boundaries. Or, y'know, funny bullshit. I fondly remember the Steam User Reviews of DayZ, those were some good laughs...

Find a reviewer who has similar opinions to you, and they'll give you a better impression. Alternatively, watch it on Youtube.

No, not similar opinions. That way you just nestle yourself in an echo chamber. More like find a reviewer who can quantify his opinions, acknowledges his tastes and is willing to judge something regardless of his tastes. Those people make for good and useful reviewers.

People who can explain why they liked something, or why they hated it, in detail are the best. If someone raves about a game not having an element I despise, that's just as valuable to me as talking about something that I love. Being informative and honest is what matters the most, and being an experienced gamer who recognizes tired tropes and bad design. That they like the same games as you only matters insofar as they'll only be reviewing games they like, so you probably need some basic taste similarities.