Originally posted by VassagoMael
Hah, I like the Diablo 3 score of metacritic. 88/100 by critics and 3.8 by users.

This is the ultimate testimony of what "proffesional critics" and big video games developers have become. Yes, they sold milions of copies of Diablo III, but they are shooting themselfs in the foot.

Originally posted by Azrigal

Well thats certainly new, Video gamers being overly emotional over a video game rather than judging it for what its worth.

Compared to the antics that happen in the console game market, it sounds (almost) tame :P

Why are you reading high-intensity mindrot, Cres? :baffled: 

Aren't we getting enough of the same drama-opera here?  We'll try harder!

Originally posted by Azrigal

Well thats certainly new, Video gamers being overly emotional over a video game rather than judging it for what its worth.

 

 

+1

It happens to WoW all the time.  Hating on "Game X" is the cool thing to do, so I'm going to do it too!

Originally posted by Creslin321

So I was reading some user review on metacritic, and I basically relearned why user reviews are generally completely unreliable.  I know that GW2 has some flaws...but just look at some of these quotes from negative reviews:

"Unfortunately this is about the same as Guild Wars 1 so not exactly sequel-worthy." 2/10

"The overflow system is a disgrace. PvE is ripped from Warhammer," 2/10

"It's supposed to be the second coming of Jesus Christ in gaming history. Instead we are left with a game, that tries to do innovative stuff, but unfortunately fail miserably. Once you're past all that shine and glimmer, you'll see the game for what it is: A good RPG. Nothing more, nothing less." 3/10 (a good RPG gets 3/10...really?)

"Mediocer graphics, buggy gameplay, server congestion, how can you seriously give this piece of cr** a good grade?" 0/10

"10/10 ? no game is worth 10/10 unless you're a fanboi, specially one with so many basic problems.. It's tries so much, taking the best bits of other games and molding them together but only manages to totally drop the ball. Same old generic fantasy world thats been seen countless times, cutesy WoWlite graphic's that while not bad scream childish." 0/10 

Really?

What about those who are giving GW2 10/10? would they be classified as metacridiots too?

Metacritic used to feel somewhat usefull. But once people firgured out how to manipulate the numbers, the info gathered has become less usefull. Depending on the amount and score of "fake" reviews, the legitimate player reviews lose meaning. So if hater bots give 300 fake 0's, that will far outweight Honest-Joe's well thought out 8.5 review.

Once again, this is why we can't have nice things...

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Originally posted by Deto123

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

9.36/10 on mmorpg.com... crushing any game released since WoW (and possibly even WoW, I wasn't reading this website back then I think).

'nuff said.

Hype, not ratings....

Ratings now.

Lol, how many people hit 10 10 10 10 10 10 , just because they can. These rating things are flat out stupid on the high and the low end.

And how many haters hit the minimal scores everywhere just because they can?

Both type of scoring are same... meaningless and worthless, so why single out only one side?

The 10's and 0's even each other out for the most part is a lie - all scores would then be 5.0 average.

If there are more fans than haters, the 10's will be greater in number than the 0's so the average will be higher than 5.0.

You see this with Diablo 3 - more "haters" registered and/or reviewed 0 or less thus you see the 3.8 so it IS an indicator that Blizzard screwed their fans big time - even if the critics liked the game.

So all the 10's and 0's do count and do matter - it helps push the average and helps give a general sense of community / fan reaction to the game - nothing objective or "review" about it at all but it is a finger on the pulse of the community reaction.

I don't see what the big deal is about those reviews. They are opinions and people are entitled to them. 

You see this with every single game that is released. So again not sure why those seem crazy or what makes them anymore idiots than people who do it for other games.

The entire attitude of game fans out there is getting pretty sad to me. I don't like game A so I am going to make it my personal agenda to bash it to death.  

I love game B ... what someone else does not like it... they are idiots who don't know what they are talking about and don't have any experience.... blah blah blah...

Why can't we just be happy that we have games to play and leave it at that. This industry is hurting and I blame the fans almost as much as the companies.

Originally posted by BadSpock

The 10's and 0's even each other out for the most part is a lie - all scores would then be 5.0 average.

If there are more fans than haters, the 10's will be greater in number than the 0's so the average will be higher than 5.0.

You see this with Diablo 3 - more "haters" registered and/or reviewed 0 or less thus you see the 3.8 so it IS an indicator that Blizzard screwed their fans big time - even if the critics liked the game.

 

So all the 10's and 0's do count and do matter - it helps push the average and helps give a general sense of community / fan reaction to the game - nothing objective or "review" about it at all but it is a finger on the pulse of the community reaction.

 What? No it wouldn't. The point was that they discount each other out. Not that it would give an overall average between the two.

Originally posted by dirtyd77

I don't see what the big deal is about those reviews. They are opinions and people are entitled to them. 

You see this with every single game that is released. So again not sure why those seem crazy or what makes them anymore idiots than people who do it for other games.

The entire attitude of game fans out there is getting pretty sad to me. I don't like game A so I am going to make it my personal agenda to bash it to death.  

I love game B ... what someone else does not like it... they are idiots who don't know what they are talking about and don't have any experience.... blah blah blah...

Why can't we just be happy that we have games to play and leave it at that. This industry is hurting and I blame the fans almost as much as the companies.

 

 

Fans like OP are as sensitive as those who dislike GW2 and want to give it low ratings? Both are two sides of same coin but they will never admit this. So while they are busy slinging mud at each other. People like me or you who could care less about this internet fued between haters and fans..well we can only ...

/facepalm.

As far as a review goes:

10 is quite possible even outside of the blind fanboi conclave. Honestly, almost every credible gameing news site has been anxious about the release of the game. Im not saying i personally would give it a 10, to me no game is perfect, but I can see it happening.

Conversely, anyone who gives it a 0/10 is a fool voting on personal hatred rather than sense. Even if you dont like the game, its clear that its well made in many respects.

Reader reviews are abitrary and unreliable gushing of emotion without much common sense to back it up.

Originally posted by Wickedjelly

Originally posted by BadSpock

The 10's and 0's even each other out for the most part is a lie - all scores would then be 5.0 average.

If there are more fans than haters, the 10's will be greater in number than the 0's so the average will be higher than 5.0.

You see this with Diablo 3 - more "haters" registered and/or reviewed 0 or less thus you see the 3.8 so it IS an indicator that Blizzard screwed their fans big time - even if the critics liked the game.

 

So all the 10's and 0's do count and do matter - it helps push the average and helps give a general sense of community / fan reaction to the game - nothing objective or "review" about it at all but it is a finger on the pulse of the community reaction.

 What? No it wouldn't. The point was that they discount each other out. Not that it would give an overall average between the two.

I am saying that the do not discount each other out.

If the game is badly received by the community or people are pissed off/angry, many more will come to metacritic and rate a game a 0.

If the game is well received and people are happy/excited, many more will come to metacritic and rate a game a 10.

They do not balance each other out, if the game has more 10's than it has 0's by a significant margin, in means there are more fans and less haters which means the game was better received by the gaming community at large.

Each individual "review" doesn't matter - in fact best to ignore the dumb stuff most people write - but the average score is still important.

Obviously not an exact science - more people are likely to rate a game worse if they dislike it than there are people who are likely to rate a game if they enoy it.

But at the same time, if people are really hyped about a game or are "defending" their game/community than you may see things go the other way.

It's all funny numbers, but the POINT is that you can see/feel out trends.

Originally posted by stragen001

Metacritic is about the most unreliable source there is for reviews.

The users there only ever give exrtemely low, or extremely high reviews. You rarely see a genuine review, just haters giving games 0 or 1 /10 and fanboys giving 10/10.

Hate to tell you this but that's human nature. You either like something or you don't. THAT'S genuine. Its the "I like/dislike something THIS much" approach that is spurious. People who fill out serveys usually have strong feelings one way or the other. Which explains the seemingly unusual number of ones twos nines and tens, and very few threes through eights. This is because those people without strong feelings either way can't be arsed to post.

The OP is discredited pretty much...

However, isn't metacritic overall very positive?

An 8.2 is pretty good on that site.

---

Originally posted by Wickedjelly

---

Originally posted by BadSpock The 10's and 0's even each other out for the most part is a lie - all scores would then be 5.0 average. If there are more fans than haters, the 10's will be greater in number than the 0's so the average will be higher than 5.0. You see this with Diablo 3 - more "haters" registered and/or reviewed 0 or less thus you see the 3.8 so it IS an indicator that Blizzard screwed their fans big time - even if the critics liked the game.   So all the 10's and 0's do count and do matter - it helps push the average and helps give a general sense of community / fan reaction to the game - nothing objective or "review" about it at all but it is a finger on the pulse of the community reaction.

---

 What? No it wouldn't. The point was that they discount each other out. Not that it would give an overall average between the two.

---

Originally posted by BadSpock

I am saying that the do not discount each other out.

If the game is badly received by the community or people are pissed off/angry, many more will come to metacritic and rate a game a 0.

If the game is well received and people are happy/excited, many more will come to metacritic and rate a game a 10.

They do not balance each other out, if the game has more 10's than it has 0's by a significant margin, in means there are more fans and less haters which means the game was better received by the gaming community at large.

Each individual "review" doesn't matter - in fact best to ignore the dumb stuff most people write - but the average score is still important.

Obviously not an exact science - more people are likely to rate a game worse if they dislike it than there are people who are likely to rate a game if they enoy it.

But at the same time, if people are really hyped about a game or are "defending" their game/community than you may see things go the other way.

It's all funny numbers, but the POINT is that you can see/feel out trends.

 I agree with your second portion but really your first post really didn't make a lot of sense. It does give you a feel for the community and the overall sentiment towards the game. It doesn't work the way you countered though. There are more than simply the extremes which is why it makes no sense to say if they discounted each other the average would be a 5.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

That doesn't even make sense. The Metacritic user score is an average of all the scores, so if only two people voted, one a 10 and one a 0, the user score would be an average between the two. That's part of the definition of the user score.

The problem isn't with Metacritic, the problem is with how people are trying to use it. It's not an indicator of how much each individual likes the game, it's an indicator of what percentage of people fall into the "Like It", "Hate It" or "Do Not Care" categories. With the current Metacritic user ratings, out of every 100 people who try the game, you can expect 71 to like it, 8 to be iffy about it (really, that's a not like it) and 20 people to dislike it. And that's it.

 

Ah yeah...you essentially said the same thing I was saying just in a longer paragraph. That was my whole point is that the extremes do not equate the average. Hence why they're the extremes.

Oy vey

Do they effect the score? Of course...but they are minimal compared to those that actually give some credence to their review in most cases and fall somewhere in between.

Originally posted by Wickedjelly

Originally posted by BadSpock

I am saying that the do not discount each other out.

If the game is badly received by the community or people are pissed off/angry, many more will come to metacritic and rate a game a 0.

If the game is well received and people are happy/excited, many more will come to metacritic and rate a game a 10.

They do not balance each other out, if the game has more 10's than it has 0's by a significant margin, in means there are more fans and less haters which means the game was better received by the gaming community at large.

Each individual "review" doesn't matter - in fact best to ignore the dumb stuff most people write - but the average score is still important.

Obviously not an exact science - more people are likely to rate a game worse if they dislike it than there are people who are likely to rate a game if they enoy it.

But at the same time, if people are really hyped about a game or are "defending" their game/community than you may see things go the other way.

It's all funny numbers, but the POINT is that you can see/feel out trends.

 I agree with your second portion but really your first post really didn't make a lot of sense. It does give you a feel for the community and the overall sentiment towards the game. It doesn't work the way you countered though. There are more than simply the extremes which is why it makes no sense to say if they discounted each other the average would be a 5.

Sorry my first post was a bit confusing.

I just kept seeing people say that "All the 0's and all the 10's discount/cancel out each other" which is 100% false.

Only if there are the exact same number of 10's and 0's and no other ratings other than 10's and 0's, which simply doesn't happen.

So I postulate that all the 10's and 0's help give a sense of how generally well received a game is or not.