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

Who gives a shit what games are rated besides the people involved in marketing said games? Buy what you like. If Rage was rated 100 out of 10 and every review shot rainbows into my eyes I still wouldn't buy it because I don't like FPS. Doesn't mean its a bad game. Gamez jounralizm isn't out to get you.

@benjaebe said:

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.

I own Bastion and a signed CD. The narrator was annoying and the game was so Meh I uninstalled it before finishing. Metacritics were not all that far off.

@Buzzkill said:

@benjaebe said:

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.

I own Bastion and a signed CD. The narrator was annoying and the game was so Meh I uninstalled it before finishing. Metacritics were not all that far off.

That doesn't change the fact that they got bombed by a bunch of 0/10 reviews with no text from new users. Everyone knows Metacritics user rankings are useless, it's kind of pointless to try and use them to justify your argument.

@Buzzkill: Do you or do you not agree that most user scores are hyperbolic in nature?

@rebgav said:

@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.

Oh, a sample size of two games - one that you like and one that you don't. Retard science ftw?

Considering your sample size is 2 quotes I'd say we're even. ;)

People having different opinions? Those out of touch bastards.

@Aishan said:

@Buzzkill: Do you or do you not agree that most user scores are hyperbolic in nature?

I agree that all scores are hyperbolic in nature. It is of my observation that user scores today are becoming more accurate than Journalists scores.

I've proved it in this thread so honestly I'm just answering to humor you.

Critics = Generally know what they're talking about.

Fans = Generally the people you meet on Xbox Live.

@otoboke said:

Critics = Generally know what they're talking about.

Fans = Generally the people you meet on Xbox Live.

Since this thread is all about the fans becoming the actual critics, and the critics being corrupt, I endorse this. At least those Xbox live players actually are playing the game, and not playing 20m of it then forgetting all about it until a marketing memo arrives months later telling them how to write their review.

Metacritic user reviews, clearly the most reliable source on the internet. Oh wait...

@Milkman:

Yes they are becoming so, which is why the industry is threatened by, and trying to regulate it.

@Buzzkill said:

@Aishan said:

@Buzzkill: Do you or do you not agree that most user scores are hyperbolic in nature?

I agree that all scores are hyperbolic in nature. It is of my observation that user scores today are becoming more accurate than Journalists scores.

I've proved it in this thread so honestly I'm just answering to humor you.

Something cannot be both hyperbolic and accurate.

I liked Bastion, but I guess my opinion is wrong, because 4chan says so.

@Buzzkill said:

@Milkman:

Yes they are becoming so, which is why the industry is threatened by, and trying to regulate it.

LOL. The "industry" created Metacritic as a means to impose easier baseline scores and thus make the market more predictable. It worked. Metacritic is trash and people like you and Hitman who judge the value of games and journalism by it are equally trashy. Btw, are you Hitman?

@Buzzkill said:

@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...

See, i don't think journalists are out of touch at all. I think it's purely the users who only want "perfect" games that satisfy their expectation, which, let's be honest, will never happen. IGN gave 8.5, Metacritic gave 8.0 and Giant Bomb gave 4 stars(which, if you HAVE to convert it into percentage, it would be 80%). If what you're saying is right, that would mean not only Metacritic, but other reviewers are also out of touch. I honestly don't think that's the case. I wasn't talking about why people are not buying the game when I used Battlefield 3 beta as an example. I was saying that to show that people want their games to be perfect even if it is only a beta. Users are sensitive to a lot of stuff and they are not going to overlook whereas reviewers know the limitation and take it as what it is. That is not reviewers being out of touch but being professional. At least that's how I would take it.

@Buzzkill said:

@otoboke said:

Critics = Generally know what they're talking about.

Fans = Generally the people you meet on Xbox Live.

Since this thread is all about the fans becoming the actual critics, and the critics being corrupt, I endorse this. At least those Xbox live players actually are playing the game, and not playing 20m of it then forgetting all about it until a marketing memo arrives months later telling them how to write their review.

man you are pathetic if you actually think that's true

Some are, but some arnt, if your looking at the score of the game, and not the content of the review, YOUR DOING IT WRONG

I actually place very little in the score from reader reviews. Even more so than the "professional" reviews, you really need to read the body of the text to see how people justify the score.

Just to reiterate here ...

@Milkman said:

Metacritic user reviews, clearly the most reliable source on the internet.

@Buzzkill said:

Yes they are becoming so.

I think we've seen enough.

@drag said:

Just to reiterate here ...

@Milkman said:

Metacritic user reviews, clearly the most reliable source on the internet.

@Buzzkill said:

Yes they are becoming so.

I think we've seen enough.

Yup.

I think too many people here are taking this thread a little too seriously.

Blanket statement.

• Bastion sucks.
• Metacritic user scores are accurate.

One of those sentences is false, because Meticritic users rate Bastion at 8.6

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/bastion

After what Ars Technica said about Rage I don't understand how it can have scored highly, because that review is so damning it's hard to imagine somebody enjoying it, unless they've not played an FPS since 2001 so anything would wow them.

@Sooty said:

After what Ars Technica said about Rage I don't understand how it can have scored highly, because that review is so damning it's hard to imagine somebody enjoying it, unless they've not played an FPS since 2001 so anything would wow them.

Exactly how I felt as well, and I'm on record for enjoying Rage, just it's a very love/hate relationship. Shame on Journalists who caved in and gave this AAA higher than it deserved.

@Dagbiker said:

• Bastion sucks.
• Metacritic user scores are accurate.

One of those sentences are false, because Meticritic users rate bastion at 8.6

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/bastion

I said Basion was "meh" not that it sucked. It just didn't grasp and hold me, so by mid way through, I was through with it.

@Aishan said:

@Buzzkill said:

@Aishan said:

@Buzzkill: Do you or do you not agree that most user scores are hyperbolic in nature?

I agree that all scores are hyperbolic in nature. It is of my observation that user scores today are becoming more accurate than Journalists scores.

I've proved it in this thread so honestly I'm just answering to humor you.

Something cannot be both hyperbolic and accurate.

More accurate and Accurate are two different things. You sound as bad as the users you're trying to discredit. Users who are becoming more accurate than journalists should not surprise you.

It's Metacritic. The user reviews there are complete ass.

@rebgav said:

@Sooty said:

After what Ars Technica said about Rage I don't understand how it can have scored highly, because that review is so damning it's hard to imagine somebody enjoying it, unless they've not played an FPS since 2001 so anything would wow them.

Have you played it, or did you just read a review and accept it as gospel?

I've played it, I'm not saying it doesn't feel competent, but if the plot and characters are that weak then I'm not willing to sink additional hours into it. It's just another FPS with some mini-games packaged with it, if it doesn't have a good story, is very different or has excellent multiplayer it's not getting played. I'm having serious FPS fatique these days. Oh and fuck those guys for doing such a terrible job with the PC version, then blaming AMD. It's pathetic and I expected better from Carmack, but this isn't the first time they've put out a mediocre game on a kinda nice looking engine. It's Doom III all over again.

and that review isn't the only one that complained of poor story and characters.

@JordanK85 said:

There's a big difference between reviewing a game and playing a game. A game reviewer has to play a game and then review it. A player only has to play a game and then, if they feel like it, rate it. I refuse to call what random people on the internet write as a review because there's no accountability for what they write and they only do so if they feel strongly one way or another about a game. A game reviewer goes into a game knowing that they'll have to write a review so they're actually going to be actively measuring and thinking about the experience while they play. A player has no obligation to rate a game and so will not be thinking about the game's pros and cons while playing.

Reviewers seldom finish games. In most of the recent "our last game saves" and quicklooks, several staff is on record for claiming they never completed said game, or gave up on it the moment they no longer had to review it.

There's a big difference between reviewing a game and playing a game. A game reviewer has to play a game and then review it. A player only has to play a game and then, if they feel like it, rate it. I refuse to call what random people on the internet write as a review because there's no accountability for what they write and they only do so if they feel strongly one way or another about a game. A game reviewer goes into a game knowing that they'll have to write a review so they're actually going to be actively measuring and thinking about the experience while they play. A player has no obligation to rate a game and so will not be thinking about the game's pros and cons while playing. A review is therefore almost always more accurate to the actual experience of playing. Notice I say review. I'm not referring to the dumb arbitrary numbers that are assigned to games by reviewers and raters. I could go into why I think these numbers are meaningless but other people have written about that and it's a little off topic.

@JordanK85 said:

A game reviewer goes into a game knowing that they'll have to write a review so they're actually going to be actively measuring and thinking about the experience while they play. A player has no obligation to rate a game and so will not be thinking about the game's pros and cons while playing.

It's quite possible to think of the experience, and pros and cons after playing a game, unless you have a five second memory.

@Sooty said:

@JordanK85 said:

A game reviewer goes into a game knowing that they'll have to write a review so they're actually going to be actively measuring and thinking about the experience while they play. A player has no obligation to rate a game and so will not be thinking about the game's pros and cons while playing.

It's quite possible to think of the experience and pros and cons after playing a game, unless you have a five second memory.

Observation is either an activity of a living being, such as a human, consisting of receiving knowledge of the outside world through the senses, or the recording of data using scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during this activity. An observation can also be the way you look at things or when you look at something.

I've observed you're crafting an awful lot of excuses.

edit btw I'll be stopping replies for the live show. Lets see how our resident journalists handle this new DLC.

@Buzzkill said:

@Sooty said:

@JordanK85 said:

A game reviewer goes into a game knowing that they'll have to write a review so they're actually going to be actively measuring and thinking about the experience while they play. A player has no obligation to rate a game and so will not be thinking about the game's pros and cons while playing.

It's quite possible to think of the experience and pros and cons after playing a game, unless you have a five second memory.

Observation is either an activity of a living being, such as a human, consisting of receiving knowledge of the outside world through the senses, or the recording of data using scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during this activity. An observation can also be the way you look at things or when you look at something.

I've observed you're crafting an awful lot of excuses. :D You should stop now before you hurt yourself ;D

...a lot of excuses for what? Disliking Rage?

...no accountability

@Sooty: You should be bright enough to follow this thread if you read it from start to finish.... aren't you?

@Buzzkill said:

@Sooty: You should be bright enough to follow this thread if you read it from start to finish.... aren't you?

I didn't read it all!

@Sooty said:

@Buzzkill said:

@Sooty: You should be bright enough to follow this thread if you read it from start to finish.... aren't you?

I didn't read it all!

It's ok I forgive you. It's expected around here. I've yet to see any solid examples were Journalists went out of their way to score a good game high where the users scored it poorly, but I've listed sterling examples of how Journalists score highly on AAA games when users have scored them poorly. I rest my case and I'm going to go enjoy the live stream.

@Buzzkill: @Buzzkill said:

@JordanK85 said:

There's a big difference between reviewing a game and playing a game. A game reviewer has to play a game and then review it. A player only has to play a game and then, if they feel like it, rate it. I refuse to call what random people on the internet write as a review because there's no accountability for what they write and they only do so if they feel strongly one way or another about a game. A game reviewer goes into a game knowing that they'll have to write a review so they're actually going to be actively measuring and thinking about the experience while they play. A player has no obligation to rate a game and so will not be thinking about the game's pros and cons while playing.

Reviewers seldom finish games. In most of the recent "our last game saves" and quicklooks, several staff is on record for claiming they never completed said game, or gave up on it the moment they no longer had to review it.

But the players seldom finish before rating themselves. You even admit to having passed judgement on Bastion when you haven't finished it, and concluded it's a "meh". You really found a 85/100 troll topic. This has been a user review.

@Buzzkill said:

@Sooty said:

@Buzzkill said:

@Sooty: You should be bright enough to follow this thread if you read it from start to finish.... aren't you?

I didn't read it all!

It's ok I forgive you. It's expected around here. I've yet to see any solid examples were Journalists went out of their way to score a good game high where the users scored it poorly, but I've listed sterling examples of how Journalists score highly on AAA games when users have scored them poorly. I rest my case and I'm going to go enjoy the live stream.

Dragon Age II comes to mind. No idea how that game did favourably, BioWare deserved way more flak over that game. I guess a lazy game deserves lazy journalism, right?

Needless to say, I am never reading a PC Gamer review again.

I think some of the "professional" ratings are rather doubtful as well. Honestly, some of the reviews I've seen I swear I could have written better myself.

Don't know if it's already mentioned, but none of those press reviews are reviews of the actual PC version. They're from either console version, which were the only ones being sent out (GEE I WONDER WHY). That's why there's a huge gap (since the PC version is broken and the users experienced this), but yeah this is common and it's because of the Internet and that people like to bitch. If a version of a game is broken, much more so, since the defenders of that platform will storm out and call bullshit.

If some people here can't realize the fact that Buzzkill is a useless piece of dogshit troll from reading this thread, then look at him in the TNT chat. No one should be taking anything he says seriously.

@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

I think Jeff does a really good job of checking himself on game hype, and his apathy while criticized by many people on this site helps him check against being swept up unjustly into a those situations by developers and publishers.

It seems brad tweeted not to buy rage on the PC. He must being getting paid off. Explains the new Ferrari Brad bought.

@bradshoemaker Brad Shoemaker

Yep, Rage is pretty much unplayable on our office PC (w/ ATI card). Not sure how Nvidia is faring at the moment, but I'd avoid it either way

@Buzzkill said:

@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.

This whole post is laughable.

@rebgav said:

@Sooty said:

After what Ars Technica said about Rage I don't understand how it can have scored highly, because that review is so damning it's hard to imagine somebody enjoying it, unless they've not played an FPS since 2001 so anything would wow them.

Have you played it, or did you just read a review and accept it as gospel?

I've played it, I'm not saying it doesn't feel competent, but if the plot and characters are that weak then I'm not willing to sink additional hours into it. It's just another FPS with some mini-games packaged with it, if it doesn't have a good story, is very different or has excellent multiplayer it's not getting played. I'm having serious FPS fatique these days. Oh and fuck those guys for doing such a terrible job with the PC version, then blaming AMD. It's pathetic and I expected better from Carmack, but this isn't the first time they've put out a mediocre game on a kinda nice looking engine. It's Doom III all over again.

and that review isn't the only one that complained of poor story and characters.

Fucking nailed it. The game is ass but the journalists pander to it. Even Penny Arcade justifies my thread.

Also.....

@Sir_Lizardman said:

It seems brad tweeted not to buy rage on the PC. He must being getting paid off. Explains the new Ferrari Brad bought.

@bradshoemaker Brad Shoemaker

Yep, Rage is pretty much unplayable on our office PC (w/ ATI card). Not sure how Nvidia is faring at the moment, but I'd avoid it either way

If I were Brad's boss I'd fire him for that Tweet. He gave the game 4 stars then says shit like that? Credibility out the window IMO.

@Krisgebis said:

@Buzzkill: @Buzzkill said:

@JordanK85 said:

There's a big difference between reviewing a game and playing a game. A game reviewer has to play a game and then review it. A player only has to play a game and then, if they feel like it, rate it. I refuse to call what random people on the internet write as a review because there's no accountability for what they write and they only do so if they feel strongly one way or another about a game. A game reviewer goes into a game knowing that they'll have to write a review so they're actually going to be actively measuring and thinking about the experience while they play. A player has no obligation to rate a game and so will not be thinking about the game's pros and cons while playing.

Reviewers seldom finish games. In most of the recent "our last game saves" and quicklooks, several staff is on record for claiming they never completed said game, or gave up on it the moment they no longer had to review it.

But the players seldom finish before rating themselves. You even admit to having passed judgement on Bastion when you haven't finished it, and concluded it's a "meh". You really found a 85/100 troll topic. This has been a user review.

User reviews count for a lot more than jouralism reviews. We hold the money, we spend the money, we bitch when our money goes to shit products. We count on journalists to bitch for us, but instead they work against us. Thanks for proving my point.

You really are Hitman, aren't you?