Metacritic is becomming less and less usefull as it's users abuse the ratings.

Why is it so hard for people to just "play fair" and rate the game like a normal, unbiased, human being instead of a rabid fanboi or hater?

I don't think I even look at ratings anymore unless is some obscure indi game on Steam.

Originally posted by Psychow

Metacritic is becomming less and less usefull as it's users abuse the ratings.

 

Why is it so hard for people to just "play fair" and rate the game like a normal, unbiased, human being instead of a rabid fanboi or hater?

 

I don't think I even look at ratings anymore unless is some obscure indi game on Steam.

I completely agree. 

Originally posted by neobahamut20

1. Paid work (EA pays people to do that crap & to censor boards like this one too - BUT, I am not saying they did anything in this case, just stating a known, proven example)

Sorry, but this one is not true. You don't have to pay people to write crap on forums, they do it when they are supposed to be working.

Really, I mean a post like this already the game has barely been out 24 hours and yet its a fail, sure whatever......

I'm not a fanboy but come on...

Like people are not getting on there just to down vote it, because WOW eats babies and kicks kittens....

Just look at the reviews on there everything is 0 or 10....

The reviews on these sites are so biased that it just can't be belived I mean there never is a middle ground its always the same thing people either gave it a 10 or a 0......

Originally posted by Foomerang

Gw2 fanboys making alt accounts and bash wow. Then proclaim on their main account that they "never troll other game forums". Happened yesterday a couple times and at least once again today...

This is one of the weirdest comment I have ever seen on a forum. What possible kind of motivation would someone who's enjoying GW2 have to go to the bother of creating an alt account just for the purpose of bashing wow? Does it sound logical or even likely?  This is the kind of comment that would make a science fiction robot from the 60s rock back and forth stammering 'illogical, illogical does...not...compute' before falling over making 'bzzt bzzt' noises. 

Originally posted by Psychow

Metacritic is becomming less and less usefull as it's users abuse the ratings.

 

Why is it so hard for people to just "play fair" and rate the game like a normal, unbiased, human being instead of a rabid fanboi or hater?

 

I don't think I even look at ratings anymore unless is some obscure indi game on Steam.

This is filled with flaws and unfortunately for you, I like to point out bullshitters.

First, Metacrititc is not less useful nor more useful. It is a popular marketting tool. You seem to not be able to make the difference between a metacritic score and a user score. The metacritic scores are taken from actual critics and averaged out from there. Sure each critic can be bought off to give a high score _SW:TOR   but it remains widely used as a first glance reference, even appearing on Steam. As Steam is still gaining in popularity, so is the "usefulness" of metacritic. Many will simply not look at a game with a metacritic score under 50. 

The user score is where users rate a game. That score, as all user scores has always and will always be completely worthless. Humans will always rate emotionally and bitter users are far more tempted to write off their emotions on a game than happy users are. (The why is explained in a previous post of mine in this thread)

Then you seem to seriously question why people can't play fair. A valid question with a stupid assumption. The assumption that normal humans are unbiased. Everyone is emotional, even those who do this daily and have their perception included in the actual metacritic score. Life is not fair, humans are not machines. In fact, humans are emotional meatbags with an ego. So the question you are really asking is, why can't humans be objective?

Well objectivity is actually a concept taught along with critical thought. A society able to function with a majority of critical thinkers is unknown to mankind. It is far more efficient for those in charge (corporations, not your Dear Government) to keep people emotional. So from day one, you are taught to live an emotional life. As such, you are sold happiness, along with the concept that money does buy happiness, if only for a little while. However, as true as it might be, it remains an excuse, an excuse fabricated through fear. The only ones to blame are your parents as they have failed you. So why aren't people objective? Because they were let down, by parenting failures and so, they never learned it.

Lastly, your nonsensical rambling makes sense, you make a perceptual judgment of Metacritic's usefulness, as it relates to you alone and emotionally state that you dont look at them.... EXCEPT if its an indie game on Steam. So you go asking why people can't be objective and your very next statement is one that relates and is affected by your own personal perception. Well, the answers you seek fellow human, you stare at them in the mirror and yet remain too blind to notice them.

Originally posted by neobahamut20

Originally posted by Psychow

Metacritic is becomming less and less usefull as it's users abuse the ratings.

 

Why is it so hard for people to just "play fair" and rate the game like a normal, unbiased, human being instead of a rabid fanboi or hater?

 

I don't think I even look at ratings anymore unless is some obscure indi game on Steam.

This is filled with flaws and unfortunately for you, I like to point out bullshitters.

 

First, Metacrititc is not less useful nor more useful. It is a popular marketting tool. You seem to not be able to make the difference between a metacritic score and a user score. The metacritic scores are taken from actual critics and averaged out from there. Sure each critic can be bought off to give a high score _SW:TOR   but it remains widely used as a first glance reference, even appearing on Steam. As Steam is still gaining in popularity, so is the "usefulness" of metacritic. Many will simply not look at a game with a metacritic score under 50. 

The user score is where users rate a game. That score, as all user scores has always and will always be completely worthless. Humans will always rate emotionally and bitter users are far more tempted to write off their emotions on a game than happy users are. (The why is explained in a previous post of mine in this thread)

 

Then you seem to seriously question why people can't play fair. A valid question with a stupid assumption. The assumption that normal humans are unbiased. Everyone is emotional, even those who do this daily and have their perception included in the actual metacritic score. Life is not fair, humans are not machines. In fact, humans are emotional meatbags with an ego. So the question you are really asking is, why can't humans be objective?

Well objectivity is actually a concept taught along with critical thought. A society able to function with a majority of critical thinkers is unknown to mankind. It is far more efficient for those in charge (corporations, not your Dear Government) to keep people emotional. So from day one, you are taught to live an emotional life. As such, you are sold happiness, along with the concept that money does buy happiness, if only for a little while. However, as true as it might be, it remains an excuse, an excuse fabricated through fear. The only ones to blame are your parents as they have failed you. So why aren't people objective? Because they were let down, by parenting failures and so, they never learned it.

 

Lastly, your nonsensical rambling makes sense, you make a perceptual judgment of Metacritic's usefulness, as it relates to you alone and emotionally state that you dont look at them.... EXCEPT if its an indie game on Steam. So you go asking why people can't be objective and your very next statement is one that relates and is affected by your own personal perception. Well, the answers you seek fellow human, you stare at them in the mirror and yet remain too blind to notice them.

Sure buddy you keep telling yourself that...

No one is stopping you from using it but don't try and say that this site is useful when its filled with hate rants for reviews I mean gimme a break....

Someone seems a little angry, I mean its a review site it can't possibly invoke this kind of passion from you to defend it.....

Especially when the site is so biased.... It always goes by the FOTM game and if you can't see it, then there is not much anyone can say.....

Originally posted by nationalcity

Someone seems a little angry, I mean its a review site it can't possibly invoke this kind of passion from you to defend it.....

I don't believe he is defending it per se, he's pointing out the flaws in the posters reasoning. 

Originally posted by nationalcity

Originally posted by neobahamut20

Originally posted by Psychow

Metacritic is becomming less and less usefull as it's users abuse the ratings.

 

Why is it so hard for people to just "play fair" and rate the game like a normal, unbiased, human being instead of a rabid fanboi or hater?

 

I don't think I even look at ratings anymore unless is some obscure indi game on Steam.

This is filled with flaws and unfortunately for you, I like to point out bullshitters.

 

First, Metacrititc is not less useful nor more useful. It is a popular marketting tool. You seem to not be able to make the difference between a metacritic score and a user score. The metacritic scores are taken from actual critics and averaged out from there. Sure each critic can be bought off to give a high score _SW:TOR   but it remains widely used as a first glance reference, even appearing on Steam. As Steam is still gaining in popularity, so is the "usefulness" of metacritic. Many will simply not look at a game with a metacritic score under 50. 

The user score is where users rate a game. That score, as all user scores has always and will always be completely worthless. Humans will always rate emotionally and bitter users are far more tempted to write off their emotions on a game than happy users are. (The why is explained in a previous post of mine in this thread)

 

Then you seem to seriously question why people can't play fair. A valid question with a stupid assumption. The assumption that normal humans are unbiased. Everyone is emotional, even those who do this daily and have their perception included in the actual metacritic score. Life is not fair, humans are not machines. In fact, humans are emotional meatbags with an ego. So the question you are really asking is, why can't humans be objective?

Well objectivity is actually a concept taught along with critical thought. A society able to function with a majority of critical thinkers is unknown to mankind. It is far more efficient for those in charge (corporations, not your Dear Government) to keep people emotional. So from day one, you are taught to live an emotional life. As such, you are sold happiness, along with the concept that money does buy happiness, if only for a little while. However, as true as it might be, it remains an excuse, an excuse fabricated through fear. The only ones to blame are your parents as they have failed you. So why aren't people objective? Because they were let down, by parenting failures and so, they never learned it.

 

Lastly, your nonsensical rambling makes sense, you make a perceptual judgment of Metacritic's usefulness, as it relates to you alone and emotionally state that you dont look at them.... EXCEPT if its an indie game on Steam. So you go asking why people can't be objective and your very next statement is one that relates and is affected by your own personal perception. Well, the answers you seek fellow human, you stare at them in the mirror and yet remain too blind to notice them.

Sure buddy you keep telling yourself that...

No one is stopping you from using it but don't try and say that this site is useful when its filled with hate rants for reviews I mean gimme a break....

 

Someone seems a little angry, I mean its a review site it can't possibly invoke this kind of passion from you to defend it.....

 

 

Another statement based on emotions. That's weak.

I do not defend it, I'm just being objective about it. From my eyes, the universe doesn't revolve around me. You should really work on your reading comprehension, it is lacking.

[edit: removed what could have been read as an ad hominem  attack]

Originally posted by Ren128

Originally posted by Eazydzzz

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/world-of-warcraft-mists-of-pandaria/user-reviews?sort-by=date&num_items=100

 

Just thought I would share.

 

A 3.3 seems a little high.  I am pretty angry about spending $40 on MoP!

 

Seems like most scores are either very low (0-2) or very high (8-10) with hardly anything in-between, meaning MoP polarised people. 

Which WoW has ALWAYS done.

I liked WotLK. I know there were people who didn't care for that expansion but I did enjoy it. I started playing mid-WotLK so that might explain my fondness for the game. When cata came out I was pretty excited for it. It ended up being an ok expansion. My favorite part was Uldum and the whole Indian Jones theme quest series.

I really wanted to get excited for MoP. I played in the beta. And I ended up getting bored with it. So I was leveling a rogue for a while as I waited for MoP to be released. Then I pre-purchased GW2. After their first BWE, I couldn't go back to playing WoW. It just didn't hold a spell over me like it used to.

I didn't buy this expansion. I'm not going to sit here and rant and rave about how Blizzard sucks. When I was playing the game, I honestly had fun and enjoyed my time spent there. But they have made a lot of changes this time around that I just don't like. And of course, they've been promising to update the older character models and still haven't done so.

I honestly hope that people who did buy MoP are enjoying it. I don't think that this expansion is going to slow down the inevitable decline of WoW. The game is just getting old and everyone knows Blizzard's main focus is on Titan right now. After playing GW2, I simply can't justify paying $15  a month in addition to the expansion purchase price just to access to their game.

Originally posted by Nitth

It hasnt even been out a day lol..

and players already are 90 and done all heroics :)

Originally posted by Foomerang

Gw2 fanboys making alt accounts and bash wow. 

Good one.  Some of us actually l ike WoW too you know.

Well you should not even care about 0-2 points since only trolls put them with pure anger. Only diffrence is when 0-2 are vast majority of reviews and with some good arguments (at leasat some of them). 

I know that Blizzard would not release anything bad in every aspect so I expect that right now MC is just battlefield Trolls vs Fanboys.

Originally posted by expresso
Ah nothing like waking up to metacritic in the morning for your daily dose on nonsense.

+1, it is laughable

I never pay attention to rating. If I am interested in something I wait to see if there are huge reports on technical issues. I think I will choose what I find is entertaining, definitely don't use review sites to make my decisions.

Launch was a bit frustrating at 11pm in the UK, with mad lag - it was funny though seeing those gyrocopters trying to take off.

Blizz should have this stuff on lock by though now tbh.

That said, I had work next day so I hit the sack, logged in around 6pm the day after, and things were much better. Once I got into Jade Forest proper, I was impressed. Enjoyed the artwork, quests were pretty seamless, and it generally felt good to be back in new content all on one continent - that's where cata didn't quite hit the spot for me.

As for all the panda-rama, what stands out for me isn't the fact that they are cuddly bears - more that they are the chilled masters of zen and martial arts badasses. I could actually feel myself relaxing as I walked around the garden with lorewalker cho... 

Recommended.