Poll: Critics, how can they get it so wrong (not on all occasions but)?

[rasputin0009]

*Sighs*

This poll is pretty stupid. First off, comparing numbers from Metacritic is really dumb because those numbers are as hard as an old mans's bones (you thought I was going to say penis - that's gross, you're gross).

Also, it doesn't matter if game critics are out of touch with the audience because they're reviewing a game on their opinions, not on the mass majority's. Food critics mostly think fast food is crap while millions of people fucking love McDonald's. The loud minority think CoD is shit, yet reviewers give it decent scores while the majority of gamers go and buy it. Yes, the industry most likely affects critics' reviews what with incentives and advertising revenue. Sony Entertainment was really bad for this a few years ago. I think they've toned down a little lately, or they could just be really good at it. So just find a reviewer you trust anx read their reviews.

Games that critics persuaded me into buying: Bioshock Infinite
Why: Apparently, it was really, really good and was constantly talked about.

Games that critics dissuade me from buying: SimCity
Why: Not because of DRM (I don't care, PC's always online anyways). But because of the traffic being broken late game and the inability to go back to previous saves of cities (I like messing around). Wouldn't have known that if it weren't for reviews.

Games that I bought despite critics' meh at best reviews: God of War Ascension
Why: I'm a God of War fan. Should have I listened to the reviewers? Probably. The game was pretty meh. The broken parrying was game-breaking for me. Camera was bullshit this time around (it was fixed in 3, why you change?). And they went fucking overboard on the quick time events (Santa Monica: "What?! You don't want QTE's in your QTE's?! Too late! Already in th... [Press R1 without any warning to continue this conversation ************! Oh you died! Start over by that pretty set piece we made for you! Here, we'll zoom out so you can see it better! Can't see what Kratos is doing? Here's some fucking enemies! Do you see the pretty set piece?! Do you? Fucking see it?! We made that for you! Look at it! Oh, you died!]").

 

[TheCommanders]

Ugh, Metacritc. Pretty much all of my complaints about it have been said so in short:

Critics have weighted scores, only know how to use the numbers above 6 (except for the token game now and then that all companies agree is fine to trash to try to maintain their integrity)

Users are petty and are only able to put a 1 or a 1 with a 0 after it. Few of them would even qualify as literate (you think I'm joking? read some of the user reviews... and you thought youtube comments were an intellectual wasteland...).

The real problem? Publishers actually take Metacritic seriously. I'm not making this up. The biggest things for them - of course - are sales and profits, but some companies actually have clauses in their contracts that affect the pay of their employees or developer subsidiaries based on Metacritic scores. Considering how ludicrously useless a number is as communicated a complicated opinion regarding a game, this seems like a horrible practice to me. Also considering that the studio behind a game seems to have a much larger influence on the score of a game than it's actual quality (except for the token indy game that all review sites agree to feature and praise every now and then to try to hang on to any semblance on indy cred they may have left (take a look at how the press handled Journey for an example))... that sentence probably doesn't work on any grammatical level any more by my point still stands. Metacritic is stupid, and fails to even serve it's basic purpose successfully, but - bafflingly - continues to be relevant.

PS - I may like parentheses a little too much (although nesting them is a fun and underused art (more people should do it D)))

 

[Rack]

Ultimately I think it boils down to that no-one is incentivised to offer fair and balanced criticism. A site that slaps a 9/10 fluff piece on the latest hype-bait will get more pageviews than one that properly deconstructs the game and posts legitimate criticisms. And that's even apart from the fact that properly analysing a game takes time. Not to mention game sites need to maintain a good relationship with publishers and being the one site that points out the Emperor isn't wearing clothes won't help them get ad revenue.

As for users? Well some will go to the trouble of providing valid criticism but most will just use whatever methods they can to fire off a quick burst of whatever emotion comes to them at the time. There's no need to do much else.

Even then the majority view is often woefully ill-informed, madeup of whatever grab bag of emotions comes out of the lowest common denominator giving the most cursory examination of a games strengths.

TLDR. No-one cares.

 

[IKWerewolf]

Because the scale isn't a straight line. 5/10 doesn't equal an 'acceptable' game that is just worth what you're paying for. Having a scale that has no actual definition given to it and the fact that nobody would adhere to it means it is nothing but nebulous.

How can reviewers be 'accurate' when the very scale they are using to measure a game's worth is nothing but inaccurate?

I prefer a 5 tier system of measurement rather than a numerical value.

1. A classic for the ages. (Skyrim)
2. A game that delivers well for what you pay. (Mass Effect III - if it had a better ending it would be a classic)
3. You get what you pay for. (Max Payne III)
4. Potentially niche game, or a game with some serious flaws: some may enjoy it but many will not. (Sim City - at least in my opinion)
5. A waste of a title, you are being ripped off if you pay its asking price. (War Z)

I prefer a non scoring review which states who its good for.

 

[Smeatza]

There's definitely a double standard in video game criticism.
Almost every review I read for the latest COD installment will say outright "it's essentially the same as the previous game" and get a 9/10.
Every review I read for the latest Dynasty Warriors installment will say "it's essentially the same as the previous game" and get a 5/10.

I personally think it's the same deal as the news media here in the UK.
If a reviewer does something the developers don't like then they will not give that reviewer exclusive information or games ahead of release date, in the future.

 

[putowtin]

Because gamers are morons who don't know how to judge for shit.

- ME3, even despite its all problems is not a 0/10.

the problem with the Mass Effect scores is, before the game was released people started giving it low scores because of the "Day 1 DLC" then fans started giving it high scores cause "Dude you can't rate a game before it comes out!"
Then the same fans started giving it low score because "you know"

For all its problems it was still my (and a lot of other gamers) game of 2012, yet its score (as given by gamers) is low, its score (as given by critics) is generally quite high, because the whole point of critics is to take a step back (if possible) from personal feelings.
A friend of mine used to write for a restaurant guide. One night she had to review a place where she knew (and personally) disliked the owner, she wanted to tell the world that it sucked and should be closed down, but she didn?t because the food was excellent.
A game may not be your thing, I don?t enjoy zombie games but because everyone raved about it I tried the Walking Dead, and though I thought the art style, gameplay, and story were brilliant I won?t be buying the second game, because I don?t enjoy zombie games! That?s how a critic has to look at things, see the bigger picture.

Gamers who review on sites like metacritic act as though every game should be made for them and their whims and give games bad scores when they aren?t.

With Mass Effect 3, even putting aside the ending, it is easy to see a huge disconnect from gamers to critics.

I don't recall a single review that mentioned the comedy animations or the increase in 'cinematic' dialogue which cut down on player interaction in the conversations. I could mention other issues but they've been gone over many times before.

Where were the reviews mentioning those issues? Why were they apparent to gamers from the off but seemingly invisible to the people reviewing the game.

Of course everyone has their own opinion. I don't like the first person view in games, so would review anything that used it less than someone who does like it.

But as I said, every reviewer not mentioning the issues with ME3? That seems to me to be far more than coincidence.

What if they only played it with combat settings? Doesn?t that remove most of the decision making cutscenes? (I?ve never played it on that setting I am there for the story!)

Skyrim is another example. How - out of ALL those reviews, reviewers and opinions - did not one reviewer pick up on the fact that the game was actually a bit dull? It was a veritable wankfest upon release, yet within a weekend of playing the penny had dropped with me that it was shallow and a bit boring.

You?re talking about personal choice; you don't like Skyrim, that doesn't mean everyone feels the same.
I love it
You don't
Neither of us is right neither of us is wrong because it's personal choice.

 

[veloper]

Ugh, Metacritc. Pretty much all of my complaints about it have been said so in short:

Critics have weighted scores, only know how to use the numbers above 6 (except for the token game now and then that all companies agree is fine to trash to try to maintain their integrity)

Users are petty and are only able to put a 1 or a 1 with a 0 after it. Few of them would even qualify as literate (you think I'm joking? read some of the user reviews... and you thought youtube comments were an intellectual wasteland...).

The real problem? Publishers actually take Metacritic seriously. I'm not making this up. The biggest things for them - of course - are sales and profits, but some companies actually have clauses in their contracts that affect the pay of their employees or developer subsidiaries based on Metacritic scores.

Crowd intelligence. When you let room full of people guess the weight of a big object, many guesses will be wildly off the mark, much too low or too high, but the aggregate value of all their guesses will be surprisingly accurate. The individuals themselves don't need to be all that smart and it still works.

Don't be so quick to dismiss metacritic based on the crude user comments or their exaggerated scoring. Personally I find the aggregate score to be more in line with what I would rate, than the scores in the big review mags.
The professional reviewers tend to hand out bigger numbers on average, which makes sense too, because you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

A game can sell poorly due to crappy marketing, unlucky timing, stiff competition and the game can ofcourse sell poorly because it's a bad game.
It may actually be fairer to judge a developer on just the quality of their work than on other, extraneous factors, that are out of their control. The problem then is who to ask. Destructoid still may occasionally bash a big bad game, but their reviewers may also overrate games and the final; verdict would be all be in the hands of one single reviewer. So aggregate scores.
Now I could think of many ways to improve the metacritic system, but it's still the best aggregate available right now and therefore that is what they use.

 

[briankoontz]

Game "journalists" are corrupted due to the control that publishers and their own companies exert on them and on their own material ambitions.

Corporations have most of the power, even wealthy gaming consumers (themselves ideologically in bed with corporations) relatively little, and the results are as we expect.

Those in the game media with ambitions toward wealth and power gravitate to wealth and power.

Truth doesn't pay nearly so well.

 

[Malisteen]

All of the above. The need to be on good terms with publishers & developers in order to get access to the news stories their readers want is a major problem. Also, Critics don't spend enough time with games. They need to have a review out on release day, which often leaves only a few hours with any given game. Not long enough to recognize how bad the problem really is if, say, the plot of a game never goes anywhere, or if it just starts lazily reusing level maps or the like (to pick on the escapist's DAII review).

 

[Yopaz]

Because gamers are morons who don't know how to judge for shit.

- ME3, even despite its all problems is not a 0/10.
- SimCity, despite its all problems is not a 0/10.

Basically, the audience overreacts. Since the reviewbombing is a thing now and people tend to bomb games for the most stupid reasons (oh no, Portal 2 had some minor cosmetics at launch, it clearly deserved to be reviewbombed! I should not have listened to the critics when I bought it but to the morons who wrote metacritic user reviews) and they are not capable of putting the bad things in relation to the good bits and judge based on that.

In the end, I would take even the Dorito guys 'opinion' of a game more serious than the sum of 1000 metacritic users (or gamers).

Thank you, this is too true.

Fans make bad critics. There are games I would have given a perfect score, while maybe deserving a 7/10. Lots of people will enjoy a game, but find a problem that causes them to give it a 0/10. I have also seen reviews from consumers stating nothing wrong, every adjective used to describe it was great or excellent. Score landed on 3/5.

Now another issue on the consumer side is the fact that we are really petty at times. A Memory of Light was released in January and the eBook version is coming next week. Because of this it got several 1 star ratings on Amazon. People who haven't read the book gives it negative reviews. This is a problem with pretty much every Call of Duty game and I suspect a lot of SimCity's negative reviews are because of annoyance over its DRM rather than the game's quality. Some of those reviews are likely written by people who haven't purchased it, some of it are from people who are having trouble playing it, some reviews are too low because it's not as good as SimCity 4, some reviews are too high.

Look at the Metacritic for SimCity, there are more positive reviews than mixed and the majority are on low. We are either high or low. The middle doesn't exist when we review.

Another problem is that games have set the bar of a good game at 7.5/10. Anything below that is crap and not worth looking into. That's a problem on the critics' side, but it pales in comparison.

There are of course prepaid review scores too. IGN getting a huge amount of money from advertising Kane and Lynch 2 couldn't post the honest review of the game where it was clear that it sucked.

In conclusion, critic scores and fan scores are different for a variety of reasons.

 

[Terramax]

Because gamers are morons who don't know how to judge for shit.

Likewise, I have VERY, VERY rarely seen a videogame that deserves a 9/10. Yet critics seem to throw them out left, right, and center.

 

[AT God]

I don't know if one side is better than the other but fans have to pay for their games and critics don't. When you drop 60 bucks on a game you are more likely to like it just because you don't want to feel like you wasted your money. When your job is to look at each game and have no monetary attachment to any game critics see things different than the fans do.

Gamers are emotional about games, however a critic isn't going to give a legitimate review about a game or series they are in dire love with and will give it a 10/10 no matter how bad it is. Critics also don't rate games on their attachment to the storyline, which is why ME3 has such a drastic difference between fan reaction and critic reaction.

I think critics should be used to judge the quality of the gameplay and mechanics, including the writing and structure of the story but not the story itself. Fans should be up to judge the story and emotion of the game.

Even though the Call of Duty games are the same crap every year, if you had never played a modern military FPS, CoD is probably a pretty good game, which is what critics have to view each game they review as, they cannot try and compare games because that isn't considered professional.

 

[putowtin]

snippy.

That's the thing though they blatantly ignored the problems Mass Effect 3 had like the horrible intro,the glitches,and and "that", hell some of them even attacked the fans.If you are a journalist of any kind then you have to remain objective and most of the game "critics were not objective as they attacked their own viewers and as a result Forbes had to call them out on it.

I personally find it rather sad how Forbes had to step in and speak for gamers when the gaming media was waging war against them and for what?Just to get in good with publishers and developers? The game media is not a media at all they are a marketing arm for the game industry and the sooner people stop going to them for honest opinions the sooner actual game journalism can happen.

When they don't mention glitches you have to wonder if they didn't have them/ see them. Lets face it sometimes they have a game for a day before they h ave to put out their review, lets face it do they have the chance to play all of a game before reviewing it.

And Mass Effect 3 is quite possibly the worst I have ever seen the whole fan vs critic row. You had critics that did'nt review games getting involved!

 

[Frybird]

Numerical or Percental Scores in Games are for idiots who are unable to form an impression based on opinions presented to them.

You can not apply a numerical value to something like a game, wich may not be the sum of it's individual parts. Same with Music or Movies. Yet everyone tries.

"The Walking Dead" (Adventure) for example, on pure Gameplay terms, is at best mediocre, and the shooting and sneaking is basically worse than in "The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct". Yet it's writing and it's presentation merit a higher rating. There is no way to give an objective numerical rating, no matter how you try to approach it, you pull a meaningless number out of your ass.

---

As for actual written reviews...

Critics tend to play more games, as in a lot more, and most importantly, they tend to play the best games and the games that are so awful that no gamer in this community would even touch them just "for fun". With that in mind, plus their subjective opinion, plus their personal preferences, plus their (hopefully) sense of journalistic integrity that prohibits them from endlessly bitching about games they don't like or grown tired of (after all, say what you will, on an objective level there hasn't been a really bad Call of Duty Game for a long time, regardless on how tired and repetitive the games seem in the larger context), its obvious that they view games differently than a guy who plays 2 or 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 games a year and pays hard cash for it.

 

[Thoughtful_Salt]

Because the scale isn't a straight line. 5/10 doesn't equal an 'acceptable' game that is just worth what you're paying for. Having a scale that has no actual definition given to it and the fact that nobody would adhere to it means it is nothing but nebulous.

How can reviewers be 'accurate' when the very scale they are using to measure a game's worth is nothing but inaccurate?

I prefer a 5 tier system of measurement rather than a numerical value.

1. A classic for the ages. (Skyrim)
2. A game that delivers well for what you pay. (Mass Effect III - if it had a better ending it would be a classic)
3. You get what you pay for. (Max Payne III)
4. Potentially niche game, or a game with some serious flaws: some may enjoy it but many will not. (Sim City - at least in my opinion)
5. A waste of a title, you are being ripped off if you pay its asking price. (War Z)

That's a 5 star system. Which you can then convert to a numerical value. For example, I gave Modern Warfare a 1/5 which would translate to about 20%, Or Assassin's Creed 3 2.5/5 which would convert to 50%. If a critic releases his system of scoring and stays relatively consistent then his basis for his numerical judgements become more clear. Destructoid posts their score system so that it's clear and precise what each value means, and they also state the reasons for retaining the ten point scale. I myself posted a video explaining my ratings system and my reasons for giving them out.
Find some critics you can trust is all, all we are here for is to try and ensure that you don't waste time you'll end up regretting down the line, after all, your time is the most valuable thing you possess.

 

[Squidbulb]

Just because a reviewer has different opinions to the general public, doesn't mean they're wrong. That's how opinions work.

Admittedly some places like IGN and Gamespot are probably just getting paid by the publishers or something (not always, but sometimes).

 

[Spud of Doom]

Ooh, I have the answer to it. Here's the real reason:

The internet is full of angry people, and they only go to Metacritic when they're angry and want to downvote a game.