Since I really pay no attention to how users rate games on Metacritic, I enjoy getting a good laugh out of them sometimes. That being said, I really think Bencam's review needs to be immortalized in gaming history.
The Metacritic Users bomb Call of Duty again
- Thread starter Ironbat92
- Start date
I'm assuming that you want 5 to mean average but why? Scores don't work like that in grading other things so why should games get some special review scale? If you got 50% on a test in university you would not feel that you got an average grade. I know I would be thinking: wow I did really shitty on that test.Dexter111 said:...RedDeadFred said:
Can you explain this? Why not give every game a 10/10, everyone could be happy!
Seriously the "professional" Review ratings are inflated as all shit, 8 basically means "ass" and with AAA games it just seems to be different scales of 9s where a
9 is "meh, but it may be fun to play for some people"
9.2 is "alright game, you should try it if you have some money left in your sock drawer"
9.4 is "not bad, but it's got some faults"
9.6 is "pretty good, you might want to try this"
9.8 is "yeah we're getting there, play this game"
and 10 is "GOTY! DORITOS! MOUNTAIN DEW!"
They really need an 11 soon to be able to distinguish the actually good games.
For instance I've been voting on iMDB for several years and have over 1000 titles, only 2 of which I gave a 10 because they're "closer" to a 10 than a 9 with the last 2 movies rated as a 5 and a 3. I only gave about 30 titles a 9 and some of those are also a lot of "closer to a 9 than a 8"'s. You never see anything close to a 5-6 from "professional" reviewers for AAA games unless the game will come to life and personally eat your dog or something.
Now I do agree that there are definitely more 100% scores in gaming than there should be but I do believe that there are more games deserving of 100% than 0%.
To be honest, I'm not sure why you even brought professional reviewers into this discussion seeing as it's on user reviews. Especially IGN seeing as their reviews are probably the least professional of all the big gaming sites. The only thing I use them for is news because they tend to be first to a lot of things.
Aint really bothered on Metacritic. But I have looked at amazon and that's even more hilarious. 1/5 stars because they didn't get it on release. 5/5 stars because they didn't get it on release but know it's a good game. 5/5 stars and the tag line 'It's Call of Duty'
I'm much more willing to believe a 2/5 star rating if there's actual reasons for it than anything else.
It's the same with Black Ops Declassified. Which I found to be the biggest piece of crap ever. (easier than Rugrats and a shorter campaign too. Online is pretty much broken.) yet people are giving full marks because it's Call of Duty. (I actually saw a review trying to defend the 45 minute campaign by saying it's only there for people who commute o.0)
I'm much more willing to believe a 2/5 star rating if there's actual reasons for it than anything else.
It's the same with Black Ops Declassified. Which I found to be the biggest piece of crap ever. (easier than Rugrats and a shorter campaign too. Online is pretty much broken.) yet people are giving full marks because it's Call of Duty. (I actually saw a review trying to defend the 45 minute campaign by saying it's only there for people who commute o.0)
Ugh...really? Look, i'll admit it; when these review bombs happen as a result of the devs/publishers insulting the player base, like what happened with ME3, I can kinda get behind that. It's probably the easiest and most visual way to get a dev/publisher's attention that they don't like being treated like cash cows, especially when taking into account how heavily Metacritic is weighed upon in the publishers eyes.
But this? I mean come on. The game, as far as i've read up on, doesn't do anything that would insult the player base. I mean, ok, I guess the PS3 version is having some issues with it's online code or something. But really? Now it's just becoming "the thing" to do when a big franchise comes out, meaning it looses any sort of validity that "bombing" could have had.
But this? I mean come on. The game, as far as i've read up on, doesn't do anything that would insult the player base. I mean, ok, I guess the PS3 version is having some issues with it's online code or something. But really? Now it's just becoming "the thing" to do when a big franchise comes out, meaning it looses any sort of validity that "bombing" could have had.
Oh well, they're just fucking numbers. I'm inclined to believe the problem is ultimately caused by the type of people who'll take over this thread, whose sole interest is what the numbers are.
Perhaps if we were all interested in the shit that actually matters - you know, what's actually being said in the reviews - then review-bombing scores like this wouldn't happen in the first place.
Perhaps if we were all interested in the shit that actually matters - you know, what's actually being said in the reviews - then review-bombing scores like this wouldn't happen in the first place.
I probably would have rated Modern Warfare 3 lower, just because the campaign was pants on head retarded and the multiplayer felt pretty much like a rehash of 2, but I feel these scores are fair. Black Ops II is pretty much the best game the series has had in a long time and they hired some semi-competent writers for the campaign. I actually gave a shit about some of the characters, well done game.Twinkie said:
Having played some legitimately bad games in the past I can review a game based on its merits rather than just a knee jerk reaction.
And here I though the Escapist was the bastion of the resistance against companies and similar attempts of the 1984 chocolate ration effect.
And you know how publishers are countering that? By taking over the companies who break the norm. Destroy them from within or marginalize them to a point they are no longer a threat.
And you know how publishers are countering that? By taking over the companies who break the norm. Destroy them from within or marginalize them to a point they are no longer a threat.
The best part was all of the people who complained that Bulletstorm was a Gears of War clone. Yeah.Akalabeth said:
That was a thing that actually happened.
OT: This is my shocked face:
The funny part is that this Call of Duty has actually taken small, baby steps towards changing up the formula, at least for the campaign, and yet all of the people who hate it because it's CoD are review-bombing it anyway.
Oh, I know why it happened. But the fact that it happened at all was just ridiculous, because outside of "roided up space marines", Bulletstorm had barely more than a passing resemblance to Gears of War, and the rest of that passing resemblance was caused mostly by them using the same engine as Gears.NameIsRobertPaulson said:
I agree with your assessment of Bulletstorm, but it was still a pretty unique shooter when taken as a sum of all its parts and compared to a lot of other shooters released these days.
A lot of professional reviews are basically paid for and the whole rating scale is centred around 8 rather than 5, so I'm not surprised that the reaction is 0/10 scores that give equally valid critical analysis, which is to say that some reviews that give 9 and 9.5/10 from people who should know better are as substantial as the word "ass" and a 0/10 from someone who at the very least hasn't conveyed any real thought.
Lol wat? This has to be the biggest lie... People giving it full marks?Tiswas said:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-vita/call-of-duty-black-ops-declassified
It has a 33. That's hardly giving it full marks, doesn't even have 1 positive review. Granted it's a bit different with the user scores.
Meh, I don't care much about reviews nowadays. GI gave The Last Story a 6 and I like the game.
And I care much less about user reviews from people who just wanna crap on a popular franchise and feel like the next Jim Sterling.
Hold on, though. I must admit I'm not a big CoD fan. I want to be but all those assholes online drive me off. But regardless of that, all CoD games are fun to some degree. I mean, I've seen way worse games, games that you can even play because they're that bad (See: Sonic the Hedgehog 2006).
So I say fuck those guys. They don't know how to be objective. See, I could review FIFA or Madden or whatever and complain about how it's the same crap as last year's. But I wouldn't be objective because 1. I hate sports games and 2. I literally only play them like once per year. Therefore, my review is worth nothing.
Oh, internet. You're full of immature pricks.
And I care much less about user reviews from people who just wanna crap on a popular franchise and feel like the next Jim Sterling.
Hold on, though. I must admit I'm not a big CoD fan. I want to be but all those assholes online drive me off. But regardless of that, all CoD games are fun to some degree. I mean, I've seen way worse games, games that you can even play because they're that bad (See: Sonic the Hedgehog 2006).
So I say fuck those guys. They don't know how to be objective. See, I could review FIFA or Madden or whatever and complain about how it's the same crap as last year's. But I wouldn't be objective because 1. I hate sports games and 2. I literally only play them like once per year. Therefore, my review is worth nothing.
Oh, internet. You're full of immature pricks.
Some of them raise some pretty decent points to be honest.
They're well thought out, raise some decent points.
Just because you're not hired by a company doesn't mean your opinion is entirely worthless.
These people are unhappy with a game, they show this. I've yet to see a game with a bad User Score that I disagree with.
They're well thought out, raise some decent points.
Just because you're not hired by a company doesn't mean your opinion is entirely worthless.
These people are unhappy with a game, they show this. I've yet to see a game with a bad User Score that I disagree with.
I think you should read this [http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/10/26/all-the-pretty-doritos-how-video-game-journalism-went-off-the-rails/].Awexsome said:
As for the scores? I haven't played ME3, but for any CoD-games after CoD4 I'd give them a 6 or 7 at best. They're functional and can be good for dumb fun, but they're really not anything special.