Journalists just can't seem to connect with their audience today

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/rage

Game industry journalists score: 80

User / Fan review score: 3.3

Did gamers call it like they saw it and the industry is obviously corrupt, or do you guys think Rage is much more deserving from fans, and agree with the journalists?

To me it appears the journalists are completely out of touch with their Fans. We've seen it here on GiantBomb with the increased subscriber content due to disgruntled fans and lost subscriptions.

It is Internet people that rate the games. I honestly don't put my trust in that one bit. It's just outraged people (that might not even played the game) that is overreacting. A 3.3? Really? Come on! People on the Internet likes to be on the extreme side either way so no... I don't take that review score seriously.

Wait, why is the second one the only one with a decimal? Are they different rating systems? It would help to show that.

Anonymity on the internet leads to hyperbole. Games are either 10/10 masterpieces of 0/10 piles of trash. There is nothing in between. This tends to skew averages heavily.

While you can often use "professional" review scores as a measuring stick, you can not do the same with user reviews. User review need to be read since they will often down rate a game based on personal expectations and not the game itself. Figure a user giving Fallout 3 a score of 1 because it wasn't the shooter they were expecting and they hate RPGs.

@Video_Game_King said:

Wait, why is the second one the only one with a decimal? Are they different rating systems? It would help to show that.

I have no clue why the later number uses a decimal other than the wild guess is the sample size is bigger?

Anyways... Here's a sterling example of my observation. The Binding of Issac got an 85 from journalists, and an 8.4 from fans/users. Clearly Metacritic reviewers know about the games they are passing judgement on, and judge them quite fairly, giving a 5 dollar budget title a high score because it's fun and full of value.

When it came to a big AAA publisher like Bathesda, and AAA legendary studio ID software...

I hesitate to accept the score of 80 from journalists, when my personal experience playing the game is around the 3.3 which fans gave it.

I'm personally inclined to say the journalists are out of touch with their public, or throughly corrupt, either suits them well considering almost all journalism mediums are disappearing at a rapid pace.

It did not surprise me at all to see the most optimistic and apologetic of the GB staff review this title for them.

@Buzzkill: So wait, journalists are somehow out-of-touch with the audience because people are ragebombing Rage's user score because of all the problems the PC version has been having, just like people ragebombed Portal 2 because they were pissed about the ARG? Uh okay dude.

80 is the new 50.

@Jimbo said:

80 is the new 50.

This I'm inclined to believe. They are too afraid of being cut off to give it anything less. Gold stars for everyone amirite?

Most of the time, crazy user reviews on Metacritic are just the result of a bunch of 4chan kids who think they're funny.

@FreakAche said:

Most of the time, crazy user reviews on Metacritic are just the result of a bunch of 4chan kids who think they're funny.

They've proven that's not the case with the Binding of Issac. Why give an obscure indie budget title a sterling score then a AAA title a shitty score? The users have dialed in, it's the journalists who are out of touch.

No idea about your specific example, but something I have always said is that journalists never appropriately take into account the cost of a game and how much that means to real people.

I personally find both professional and anonymous user reviews pretty useless nowadays. 
 
I generally find forum and podcast discussions (though they often require a fair amount of filtering) to be much more insightful.

@Buzzkillsaid:

@FreakAche said:

Most of the time, crazy user reviews on Metacritic are just the result of a bunch of 4chan kids who think they're funny.

They've proven that's not the case with the Binding of Issac. Why give an obscure indie budget title a sterling score then a AAA title a shitty score? The users have dialed in, it's the journalists who are out of touch.

A Triple-A title is far more appealing to troll-bomb.

Take a look at how many people gave Rage a zero out of ten. Zero. Think that over for a moment.

How many games have you ever played that could truly be worthy of having a score of zero? That there's nothing redeeming about it at all?

It's a PC review, they bitch about everything

No idea about your specific example, but something I have always said is that journalists never appropriately take into account the cost of a game and how much that means to real people.

@Jimbo said:

80 is the new 50.

I have to be honest, 80 is my 50 when it comes to my marks in college. But for games, I guess it's becoming the new standard. I can understand the rage* over the game on PC. Those texture/performance bugs are a giant FUCK YOU to the PC userbase.

*Zing.

@Buzzkill said:

@FreakAche said:

Most of the time, crazy user reviews on Metacritic are just the result of a bunch of 4chan kids who think they're funny.

They've proven that's not the case with the Binding of Issac. Why give an obscure indie budget title a sterling score then a AAA title a shitty score? The users have dialed in, it's the journalists who are out of touch.

Because one is a small indie title with minimal exposure that is succeeding on word-of-mouth and doesn't have gigantic issues, and the other is a heavily advertised, hugely hyped new game from a behemoth developer that has had major, game-breaking launch issues on one platform. That doesn't prove shit, especially when I can cite a ton more examples of games getting ragebombed by Metacritic for petty, nonsensical reasons, like how Portal 2, easily one of the top-rated games of this year, was at a 4.7 on Metacritic in its first week because people were furious about the ARG and claimed that the PC version was a console port, or the recent examples of Bastion and Toy Soldiers: Cold War.

Stop arguing as if The Binding of Isaac is evidence that Metacritic users are fair and impartial. History has proven that they aren't.

Journalists aren't supposed to pander to the wants of their fans. They're also not supposed to pander to the wants of the publishers though, however. And the latter happens pretty often.

Movie critics abstain from watching previews and trailers of things for a reason. If you get swept up in every fever of hype like most game reviewers do, it will color your perception. 'Well this game is supposed to be great, so I'll overlook xyz where I wouldn't if I came into this blind". etc

But also, deriving anything substantial from a metacritic user average is silly.

This case is as easy to understand as any. The pc version was released with a tonne of bugs for ATI graphics cards specifically. Anyone who bought if with an ATI will rate 0. Some people may have had issues with Nvidia also, they will have given it a 0 too. The game lacks graphics settings and a lot of people thought it was something it was never going to be. So yeah.. reviewers have better expectations and understand what they are getting in to, they also often review console versions which in this case had a tonne less bugs and worked better. So there you go...reviewers are still in touch.

Here's some choice fan ratings from the PS3 , 360, and PC versions respectively:

"Giving it a 0/10 because it's unplayable with the horrendous screen tearing. yes, I have updated drivers, yes, I googled solutions, tried forcing vsync, etc. all of that did not fix the problem & for a good developed game, should not be necessary in the first place. Junk, don't waste your money." [He appears to be rating the PC version, although this counts toward the PS3 score.]

"I have been anticipating this game since seeing it at quake con 2011 , and pre-purchased the game through steam. I believe they tried to take on too much the race car game and fps in one, as one review i read put it without mastering either. The wasteland is not like fallout an ultimate sand box but a car game in itself. The story is absent ten hours in to the game ,and Ive yet to determine an antagonist or even a general reason for me being in the game at all. You get quest complete in three minutes rinse and repeat. I will shelve this game for dark souls today. Graphics is the only reason i gave any points at all." [See above]

"This game is **** Not only it looks better on consoles, ID and Bethesda only added an option to the game for anti-aliasing and no other graphical options, the key binding is TROLLING me. So far I have gotten into the game is after the intro. After that, I get HUGE lag spikes in the game that happen every second or so which make it 100% impossible for me to play. Unless you enjoy walking 10 meters in 10 minutes. With loads of lag. So basically I wasted 60 dollars and couldn't even finish the first level of the game. Way to go id. I will clap for you all the way to hell. The only reason why I'm giving this game a 1/10 instead of a 0/10 is because of the mediocre enough intro movie that didn't suck as much as the game."

Sure, if game journalists used such stellar logic in determining their score, they'd be more "in touch" with a certain segment fan base--but would that be a good thing? I honestly get the frustration that each of these people feel--and I wouldn't say it's not somewhat justified in the case of the PC version--but in each case they seem to be born of immediate frustration or the disappointment of strange expectations rather than careful thought and consideration of the game's own merits.

Game didn't have Nvidia issues. Or, its issues weren't any different than what people on consoles had issues with. Occasional popin, etc. The limited graphics options were a bummer though because it made it harder to get around those issues and it seems weird for a PC developer to force you to go into a dll to fix some shit. But a game isn't a bane on the universe for having occasional popin.

Well, user reviews are written by retards, and game "journalists" usually know what to look for in a good game. So they can't connect with retards, sure... but that's not very important, isn't it?

Journalists connect just fine. They just don't connect to whiny little douches feeling the need to express everything, not just how they want it on the internet with endless complaining. News flash for those people, life's going to be hard. So save a rope.

@emergency: I have an Nvidia card. I'd still give the game a 3 to 4 under user reviews. I'm not surprised when people compare it to DNF.

Your logic is ridiculous. Do you know why they don't ask everyone in the US to vote for the Academy Awards? Because often movies that are objectively well written, strongly acted, and inspired aren't enjoyed by a wide viewing audience. People go and see LOTS of bad movies though and enjoy them. Do I fault someone for enjoying something that is bad? No, but I do fault people who can't see the good in something that is genuinely well made. The same goes for video games and user reviews. Critics are supposed to be able to separate their fandom and the hype from the objective reality of a product. Whether or not they always succeed is questionable, but I would trust them over a bunch of raving members of the general public any day.

Case and point, Taylor Lauther's "Abduction" currently sits at a critic score of 5% while the audience score sits at 49%. Do I think the audience got this right? Or do I think there are a lot of tween girls and middle aged women who really like "that guy from Twilight"? You decide.

Bitchy fanboys down vote everything on metacritic.

@Concise said:

Sure, if game journalists used such stellar logic in determining their score, they'd be more "in touch" with a certain segment fan base--but would that be a good thing? I honestly get the frustration that each of these people feel--and I wouldn't say it's not somewhat justified in the case of the PC version--but in each case they seem to be born of immediate frustration or the disappointment of strange expectations rather than careful thought and consideration of the game's own merits.

If a game's technical failures are because of the designers failures, then they become apart of the game's "merit", and I'm still waiting for the day a journalist comes out with the balls to say , "I will not review this AAA title" because it is so god damn bad/broken. Some games with all the merit in the world should not warrant good reviews based on "potential". That would be unprofessional.

Dude, why do you have to be such a Buzzkill?

I don't care about scores, I care about facts.

@Buzzkill said:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/rage

Game industry journalists score: 80

User / Fan review score: 3.3

Did gamers call it like they saw it and the industry is obviously corrupt, or do you guys think Rage is much more deserving from fans, and agree with the journalists?

To me it appears the journalists are completely out of touch with their Fans. We've seen it here on GiantBomb with the increased subscriber content due to disgruntled fans and lost subscriptions.

If by audience you mean people like you: paranoic pc zealots .. I wish for the sake of their own mental health, Journalist stay this way.

A well adjust self respected adult knows Metacritic user section is to be avoid like the plague.

User reviews, namely anonymous reviews on sites like Metacritic, are dumb and do not warrant any kind of consideration. Who cares?

@DonPixel: God, speak English.

Bastion

Toy Soldiers: Cold War

Dragon Age II

Portal 2

And now, I guess, RAGE

These are just a few of the games that have been review-bombed, almost all of which have been talked about across this site, both on the Bombcast or in the News section. So no, I think that journalists are just fine, it's the trolls that are the issue.

@Buzzkill: Look at sample sizes. You can't compare a sample size of 28 for The Binding of Isaac and a sample size of 236 for Rage. You need to learn what t-scores and z-scores are buddy.

@Buzzkill said:

We've seen it here on GiantBomb with the increased subscriber content due to disgruntled fans and lost subscriptions.

I don't really pay attention anymore, so I don't know how factual this is, but if that's true, fuck those guys. There's plenty of content to be had on Giant Bomb... What they need to work on is pacing it. One day we'll get one Quick Look, then the next day we'll get three short ones.

@goodwood said:

@Buzzkill: Look at sample sizes. You can't compare a sample size of 28 for The Binding of Isaac and a sample size of 236 for Rage. You need to learn what t-scores and z-scores are buddy.

I'm not here to learn, the scores have it all planned out for me. Just follow the journalists scores and there will never be a bad game again. Every one is worth purchasing!!! /sarcasm

@CounterShock said:

Bitchy fanboys down vote everything on metacritic.

Why didn't they down vote Issac?

Reviewers =/= Journalists

@BrockNRolla said:

Your logic is ridiculous. Do you know why they don't ask everyone in the US to vote for the Academy Awards? Because often movies that are objectively well written, strongly acted, and inspired aren't enjoyed by a wide viewing audience. People go and see LOTS of bad movies though and enjoy them. Do I fault someone for enjoying something that is bad? No, but I do fault people who can't see the good in something that is genuinely well made. The same goes for video games and user reviews. Critics are supposed to be able to separate their fandom and the hype from the objective reality of a product. Whether or not they always succeed is questionable, but I would trust them over a bunch of raving members of the general public any day.

Case and point, Taylor Lauther's "Abduction" currently sits at a critic score of 5% while the audience score sits at 49%. Do I think the audience got this right? Or do I think there are a lot of tween girls and middle aged women who really like "that guy from Twilight"? You decide.

5% + 49% = a shitty movie. The critics and fans were both correct in your example, a poor one at that.

@sugetipula said:

Dude, why do you have to be such a Buzzkill?

Funny thing, I picked the name on advice from a friend that me, being a PC elitist was going to participate in a forum full of mostly console tards. He thought anything I'd have to say would be a buzzkill to them. So far so good.

@ryanwho said:

Journalists aren't supposed to pander to the wants of their fans. They're also not supposed to pander to the wants of the publishers though, however. And the latter happens pretty often.

Movie critics abstain from watching previews and trailers of things for a reason. If you get swept up in every fever of hype like most game reviewers do, it will color your perception. 'Well this game is supposed to be great, so I'll overlook xyz where I wouldn't if I came into this blind". etc

But also, deriving anything substantial from a metacritic user average is silly.

I agree with this. Reviewers often get way into the hype of games. Hell, just look at Giant Bomb for proof. Listen to the way they dismiss or put down games THEY themselves gave four of five and gushed about for the first week it was out.

Dear Metacritic. Go fuck yourself.

@Buzzkill said:

@CounterShock said:

Bitchy fanboys down vote everything on metacritic.

Why didn't they down vote Issac?

cus no one cares about that game, is not even in the top 30 at steam.

@DonPixel said:

@Buzzkill said:

@CounterShock said:

Bitchy fanboys down vote everything on metacritic.

Why didn't they down vote Issac?

cus no one cares about that game, is not even in the top 30 at steam.

Journalists care about it. They gush over who did the sound and the fact it's by the super meat boy guys.

@Chop said:

@ryanwho said:

Journalists aren't supposed to pander to the wants of their fans. They're also not supposed to pander to the wants of the publishers though, however. And the latter happens pretty often.

Movie critics abstain from watching previews and trailers of things for a reason. If you get swept up in every fever of hype like most game reviewers do, it will color your perception. 'Well this game is supposed to be great, so I'll overlook xyz where I wouldn't if I came into this blind". etc

But also, deriving anything substantial from a metacritic user average is silly.

I agree with this. Reviewers often get way into the hype of games. Hell, just look at Giant Bomb for proof. Listen to the way they dismiss or put down games THEY themselves gave four of five and gushed about for the first week it was out.

Thank you for enforcing my point. Even the Giantbomb crew dismisses or puts down games THEY themselves gave four out of five stars when the title first launched.

I'm not sure it's Metecritic's problem. I think it's the Journalists too afraid of being fired like Jeff was, if they give a bad review to a AAA title.

Haha. Okay, you lost me when you suggested that Metacritic user scores have any merit whatsoever. I mean, for fucks sake, Patrick even did an article about Bastion getting troll-bombed a week or so ago.

@TekZero said:

While you can often use "professional" review scores as a measuring stick, you can not do the same with user reviews. User review need to be read since they will often down rate a game based on personal expectations and not the game itself. Figure a user giving Fallout 3 a score of 1 because it wasn't the shooter they were expecting and they hate RPGs.

That is a heinous crime and should be punished swiftly.

Also, unless I can read the reasons as to why a score was given by a user(s) I don't trust it/them.

@Buzzkill: Reviewers are more willing to accept for the limitation of consoles and take texture pop ins or other flaws of the game for what they are. Users, not so much. Look at Battlefield 3 Beta reactions. It's a beta. Nothing is written on a stone and yet people are saying "Oh, I'm not gonna buy this game!"

We're actually putting stock in Metacritic user reviews now?

Oh boy.

@nohthink said:

@Buzzkill: Reviewers are more willing to accept for the limitation of consoles and take texture pop ins or other flaws of the game for what they are. Users, not so much. Look at Battlefield 3 Beta reactions. It's a beta. Nothing is written on a stone and yet people are saying "Oh, I'm not gonna buy this game!"

People are saying they won't purchase BF3 because of a long list of reasons. EA's past history, Origin, Battlelog, the Hype, the fact it's a buggy mess where I can crawl under every map and tag players....

EA is digging its own grave. This thread is about Journalists being out of touch with gamers, and metacritic is shaping up to be a nice barometer. The more gamers question it, the more journalists and fanbois denounce it. The more I question everything...