• Major_Wuss - February 5, 2009 6:28 a.m.

    I don't rely on Metacritic when i make a game purchase, but look to it for things such as what people thought of it. It is however, very unreliable. Read this review for Gears of War 2- The Truth gave it a 0: I thought this was a racing game. I mean, "gears"... doesn't that sound like a racing game to you? But it was really just a bunch of weird looking creatures running around blowing each other's skulls off. Not a face car to be found. They should have renamed this "shoot the screaming beast in the face 2" or something. Typical Microsoft false advertising. I suspect this game is only played by teenage bed-wetters who cannot read. Worst ever! Shame on you Microsoft!
  • Red - February 5, 2009 3:14 a.m.

    I've pretty much given up on review scores. In the end, my opinion is what really matters. Go in expecting the worst, and maybe you'll be surprised when it doesn't completely suck dick. If all else fails, take the game back to GameStop and threaten to kill the clerk if you don't get your money back.
  • Jbo87 - February 5, 2009 2:30 a.m.

    @ cart00n "Uh, a 5 is STILL the average score in the eyes of critics - it is only the READERS mistakenly assuming that anything under an 8 means the game sucks". That's not really true is it? The 10/10 review system has effectively made 7 the average score. If my memory serves me Gamesradar did a feature recently about the worst games that scored a 7, suggesting to me that 7 is the standard by which a half decent game is judged. Also on Metacritic if a games score is below 70 then it falls into the lesser category.. Say what you want about the READERS making these assumptions but the evidence to the contrary is there to see.
  • cart00n - February 5, 2009 1:19 a.m.

    Uh, a 5 is STILL the average score in the eyes of critics - it is only the READERS mistakenly assuming that anything under an 8 means the game sucks. A 7 is still a good game, it just has flaws, or it just missed seeing its full potential. Take Force Unleashed for example - it's a perfectly fun game, but the controls can be a little sketchy, and, lets face it, it's not really "unleashed" (should've been M rated!). So it rates a 7. Still doesn't suck, tho...
  • crazytar - February 5, 2009 1:01 a.m.

    instead of giving a general review for the entire game, make it based on different parts of the game such as music and visuals (similar to how gamespot does it) but don't factor any of that into the "total" score of the game, simply because there wont be a total score. also, get only reviewers who are interested in whatever the genre is and get them to do the review because sometimes this isnt the case and it creates expectations that one genre just cant easily live up to. reviews should only be critical of the strengths and weaknesses of a game (like the "you'll like' and "you'll hate" section at the end of each GR review but bigger and more in depth). i dont know if metacritic does this but do they seperate user scores from critic scores?
  • Geigan - February 5, 2009 12:40 a.m.

    General rule of mine. Never swear in posts or it might be banned. Still not sure how strict GR is on that
  • GoldenMe - February 5, 2009 12:36 a.m.

    @Geigan You can swear, you know. Your Grandma ain't gonna be on the Internet any time soon.
  • Geigan - February 5, 2009 12:27 a.m. A little friendly advice. Try not to respond to the idiot. It makes you less of a fanboy by miles. When people look at that guy and read his review they mark him under the ****tard category. So when anyone tries to rebuff said ****tard people the ****tardedness rubs off on you in their eyes. If everyone just ignores the idiot he will just go away. But when people try to express their opinion that his opinion is wrong it usually starts a fight between him and you. Which makes everyone watching shake their heads at the two ****tards going at it even if one of them isn't a ****tard.
  • Synster - February 5, 2009 12:23 a.m.

    User reviews on almost every site are the part of the sole definition of Fanboys. I've never trusted them, and I will always refuse to trust them no matter how much I've been bought into a game. I'll still soley think "Some Playstation/Xbox fanboy at this very moment is trying to rack up the score to a perfect 100, as the other is trying to drag it down." I've seen multiple threads about this how some of the people are saying "Lol. Killzone 2 6.4. Stupid Xbots" Seriously? Have any of you seen the Halo Wars user reviews? A bloody 0.2. Now look who's calling the kettle black. Now then. For the most part I trust this site, GamesRadar, and out of the most, IGN. Not a whole lot of others because they seem to be slightly passive and ignorant about bits and pieces of Games these days. I occasionally trust MetaCritic, though I don't think it's ruining Gaming as a whole, people rely on buying games too much out of review scores these days. Though to me, It's still a bit more valid than other sites because it takes a rough average of sites and sees the Generalized score. Now sometimes this can be a bit over the top because of Official Magazines and the such, but hey? What can you do?
  • mirthor - February 5, 2009 12:09 a.m.

    i think metacritic is good and bad. i love that you can find out about a game you were sketchy on and then make an educated judgement on that topic. i also think that it prevents people from playing games that they might actually love.
  • Sabtos - February 5, 2009 12:08 a.m.

    I'm glad this was addressed somewhere. For a time with LBP there was a disclaimer you had to click on to actually view the user score because it was being spammed with bad scores. It's ridiculous people would vote for a game they haven't played. Guess that's what happens when you give a voice to a bunch of 8 year olds.
  • cheapojoe - February 5, 2009 12:03 a.m. and Jbo87 You guys are both right. Jbo is right about the scoring guide. It is critically flawed. In a society were students are given rank based on a letter grade, the C & B students are passed off as inferior. Much like video games, if a game is given a 7 or 70%, the community perceives it as a "might as well never been made" title. This just isn't true. I think we need to change the review system to a more qualitative grading system. More of an expectations guide. is very correct as well. Metacritic is a flawed system because of the number grades given. As Corsair said, people need to pick a critic who matches their tastes in gaming and just follow them. Any half-wit can grade a game.
  • - February 4, 2009 11:41 p.m.

    I agree with Corsair89. User reviews are generally a waste of time. If they are not extremely biased to a system then they are just stupid! (At the risk of sounding like a fanboy myself): I was reading through some user reviews on Metacritic and saw one where a man had given Left 4 Dead a 2 because the guns werent as realistic as he thought they should be! Here is exactly what he said: "And the best gun is the repeating shotgun and the worst is the pump action shotgun. The best weapon Should be the AR-15(M16) but it is not really here except as a visual. I think the programmers should portray it as a pellet pistol because that's all the damage I can do with the game version! The programmers should go out and try some of the guns at the shooting range or at least talk to people familiar with the weapons. I have a problem with the reality of changing the magazine and clearing a dud round etc, but give me a 300 round can and not the 50 round, or give a realistic hit level for the zombies. 4000 hits to take down a Tank!?Way too much. For Example,with the AR-15, I can kill you with less than the 20 rounds in a small clip in about 5 seconds, break every bone in your body and you'd be dead before the 10th round; so 4000 hits without any visible damage and having to change clips at least 20 times in teamwork or depend on fire or something else to stop the attack, is crazy." It goes on, with him griping about how he wants tracer bullets and such. You should not base your entire review on two things, the tank is full of muscle and is essentially, a tank, so it should run faster than a little human. Also, he shouldnt be comparing the guns with the guns in the real world just as common sense... In this one I may sound like a major fanboy but ya... I was reading some ocarina of time reviews and some people wrote the reviews (in 2007 mind you) about how the graphics sucked and the world was too small. The game was made in 1999! the graphics will definetly suck compared to today. Its just unfair to compare it to crysis or something. The game was huge back then and is still quite a large map, sure it isnt as big as say GTA IV but this was on a cartrdge. Its amazing that the music was able to fit on that thing! I do apologize for the extremely long post and hope I havent made anyone to mad at me :P
  • ELpork - February 4, 2009 9:53 p.m.

    Never EVER read or trust the "user" review's. Almost all of them consist of nothing but fanboy dribble for one side or the other.
  • Jbo87 - February 4, 2009 8:48 p.m.

    To be honest I find the use of the review system to be pretty flawed. I personally can't come up with a better way of judging the quality of a game but as seen as the current system is so established then it should at least be used sensibly, i.e. on an out of 10 system 5 should be average as opposed to 7. If a game doesn't get over a 7 its relegated to obscurity. Also Metacritic sucks balls. Soemthing I've noticed is that higher profile games get more reviews posted hence evening out the score should there be one or two that are less than flattering.
  • BluePikmin - February 4, 2009 8:27 p.m.


Showing 41-56 of 56 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.