The reason Metacritic - and people - suck.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dragon-age-ii

Look at those user scores. Whatever happened to being average? I hate the internet.

Breaking News: People are fucking idiots!

We know. Metacritic user reviews is the least useful tool to use for buying advice.

Metacritic only sucks if you care about it. Let go.

Yeah Thems games should be hella lower. Still people are fucking mouth breathers, what do you expect man.

What should they have rated a game that wasn't working?

Oh people have sucked for a long time before Metacritic. I think it was at the dawn of Sumerian civilization when some guy did some annoying thing and everyone looked at each other and thought "what the fuck is that guy's problem?". And humanity was never the same.

Oh calm down, no one uses the user scores for actual buying advice anyway.

The people giving DA:2 3s and 4s or lower, and writing 3 paragraphs talking about how they dumbed it down are fine.

@Brodehouse said:

Oh people have sucked for a long time before Metacritic. I think it was at the dawn of Sumerian civilization when some guy did some annoying thing and everyone looked at each other and thought "what the fuck is that guy's problem?". And humanity was never the same.

Remember that ass hole Eve, who got us all kicked out of Paradise, yah, she was the first.

I have no sympathy for Dragon Age II.

@GenocidalKitten said:

Also while zeros for DA:2 are unjustifiable, the people giving it 3s and 4s and writing 3 paragraphs talking about how they dumbed it down are fine.

I can justify it: They think the game is 0 out of 10. People do have some extreme opinions about everything, games included.

To OP: If you expect user reviews to be at all well-thought out or reasonable to random internet guy #1523243426 you need to rethink that belief.

Does anyone actually use the average Metracritic user score to determine anything? I hope not; and if someone does, they probably deserve what happens.

@sthusby said:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dragon-age-ii

Look at those user scores. Whatever happened to being average? I hate the internet.

NEWSGUY - Well that's it for the news and now onto weather with Chip Chunky. Chip?

CHIP - Thanks Newsguy. Tonights forecast... dark.

I thought this would be a topic about how Metacritic as a whole is a terrible website because people use it to just get an aggregate score to determine if they'll buy it or not instead of actually reading reviews, and publishers using Metacritic to determine if developers should get a bonus based on Metacritic score. Instead it's a guy whining about user reviews not being as high as he thinks they should be.

@Taku128 said:

I thought this would be a topic about how Metacritic as a whole is a terrible website because people use it to just get an aggregate score to determine if they'll buy it or not instead of actually reading reviews, and publishers using Metacritic to determine if developers should get a bonus based on Metacritic score. Instead it's a guy whining about user reviews not being as high as he thinks they should be.

So you give this post a 0 out of 10?

"Gamers" or whatever tend to be the worst people.

Dragon Age II deserves all the hate that it gets, it's god awful.

@BraveToaster said:

Okay...

Calm down dude.

I actually really like to look at user reviews when trying to decide whether or not to buy a game. Assholes make that hard though.

@fuzzybunny566 said:

@SpikeSpiegel said:

Does anyone actually use the average Metracritic user score to determine anything? I hope not; and if someone does, they probably deserve what happens.

i think they've spoken to this on the bombcast before that some studios/publishers use metacritic scores to dish out bonuses to employees or even to judge whether a game was a "failure" or not. they might just look at the media review scores, and not user scores, but there's also people who view anything below 90% as bad

I am fairly certain that publishers and developers would only use the critic average for any type of bonus distribution. Manipulating the user score average would be too easy.

As much as im loving Diablo, the lag during single player is un fucking acceptable.

@Dagbiker said:

@Taku128 said:

I thought this would be a topic about how Metacritic as a whole is a terrible website because people use it to just get an aggregate score to determine if they'll buy it or not instead of actually reading reviews, and publishers using Metacritic to determine if developers should get a bonus based on Metacritic score. Instead it's a guy whining about user reviews not being as high as he thinks they should be.

So you give this post a 0 out of 10?

A 7 out of 10 actually, since we all know the review scale goes from 7 to 10.

Honestly I never used metacritic for any kind of purchase, also user reviews should not be taken seriously in any situation.

Don't just look at the scores dawg. Read the reviews. PS those scores were totally appropriate for Dragon Age 2

@Sooty said:

I have no sympathy for Dragon Age II.

AAND Modern Warfare 3.

What should they have rated a game that wasn't working?

It's easy to look at user reviews like that and think "LOLSTUPIDGAMERS", but I don't think anyone genuinely believes that Dragon Age II for example is a 0/10. Though it is very, very bad. (In fact, personally, I tend to lean significantly closer to the Metacritic user review average of 4.3 than the "professional" average of 79. What about you?)

Sometimes gamers give out very poor user reviews in an attempt to punish developers and publishers for the stupid bullshit they pull. Most of the time, however, I think it's just a misguided attempt at bringing some sort of balance to the public perception of certain games since "professional" game reviewers oftentimes don't do their jobs properly. They're rarely ever critical (unless it's a Japanese game, then it's open season) and they give out embarrassingly fellatious reviews to whatever the latest AAA release happens to be, completely ignoring its faults and sometimes obviously not even playing the game to completion before writing the review.

This turned into more of a rant than I wanted, but I guess my point is that while I agree review bombing is sort of dumb, it does serve a purpose since it's one of the few ways you can fight back against publishers, developers, and corrupt game critics.

Some games suck, some games performances sucks, and Metacritic has sunk to a profound level of suck. I understand the diablo 3 noise, and still there is after-effects. I am forced to buy a new fancier router and switchbox because of of my initial 60.00 dollar investment. Right now I am connecting directly to the modem for gameplay, and switch back for the 5 other ethernet oriented devices. Everything worked fine before..guess I will have great signal for my Mutant portable reciever..one thing I do like.

Stop reading user reviews on Metacritic. So simple.

@Breadfan said:

Breaking News: People are fucking idiots!

BEST ANSWER EVER!!

@joshthebear: I disagree. Sure its not the best game but its more likely that you are upset because its not the same as you want it to be.

I understand why people "review bomb", it makes them feel like they can do something against the massive companies that make these games when something bad happens. I mean is Diablo 3 really a 1 star game? Probably not, but when they get home and can't play their game they get understandably anger and for some reason decide to go to Metacritic and give it a bad review.

Or even worse they hope on a bandwagon like with MW3 and go "this game sucks haha...am I cool now?" No you are not cool because you review games that you haven't played on a site filled with trolls that no one is ever going to read because why in the world would you go to Metacrtic user reviews for any kind of information whatsoever.

Well, Dragon Age II and MW3 are completely terrible games so that's fine with me, but it's hilarious how morons wait for so long to play a game and then get super pissed when they have to wait ONE MORE DAY. I just can't fathom living a life where I need so desperately to play a game the day it comes out that I get unbelievably angry when I can't.

@joshthebear said:

Dragon Age II deserves all the hate that it gets, it's god awful.

No. It is one of the best RPG's to come along in years. I can say that because I prefer to play on consoles. Dragon Age: Origins was awful at console, but still sold more than on PC. Only makes sense for Bioware to cater their new project to people in the same position as me. I do not believe that a clunkier interface, poor graphics and slow combat makes for a better game.

@Taku128 said:

@Dagbiker said:

@Taku128 said:

I thought this would be a topic about how Metacritic as a whole is a terrible website because people use it to just get an aggregate score to determine if they'll buy it or not instead of actually reading reviews, and publishers using Metacritic to determine if developers should get a bonus based on Metacritic score. Instead it's a guy whining about user reviews not being as high as he thinks they should be.

So you give this post a 0 out of 10?

A 7 out of 10 actually, since we all know the review scale goes from 7 to 10.

In this thread, we use stars. As should everyone else in the entire world. 1-10, and especially 1-100, sucks donkeyballs. No wait, donkeyballz, with a z.

@Dagbiker said:

What should they have rated a game that wasn't working?

Not rated it at all and played the game before giving it a score maybe?

@joshthebear said:

Dragon Age II deserves all the hate that it gets, it's god awful.

Also anyone who pays attention to the user rating on metacritic is a big fat dummy! People just do it for the attention now. It's a broken system. We get it. Let it burn down already.

@fuzzybunny566 said:

@SpikeSpiegel said:

Does anyone actually use the average Metracritic user score to determine anything? I hope not; and if someone does, they probably deserve what happens.

i think they've spoken to this on the bombcast before that some studios/publishers use metacritic scores to dish out bonuses to employees or even to judge whether a game was a "failure" or not. they might just look at the media review scores, and not user scores, but there's also people who view anything below 90% as bad

There is no way they could get away with using the user stuff, they just use the Critic stuff. But even that's pretty stupid. For example, New Vegas missed the bar by one point, and the three reviews that kept it down all complained that the game was rushed out, almost certainly a publisher decision rather than a developer decision.

@Soapy86 said:

It's easy to look at user reviews like that and think "LOLSTUPIDGAMERS", but I don't think anyone genuinely believes that Dragon Age II for example is a 0/10. Though it is very, very bad. (In fact, personally, I tend to lean significantly closer to the Metacritic user review average of 4.3 than the "professional" average of 79. What about you?)

Sometimes gamers give out very poor user reviews in an attempt to punish developers and publishers for the stupid bullshit they pull. Most of the time, however, I think it's just a misguided attempt at bringing some sort of balance to the public perception of certain games since "professional" game reviewers oftentimes don't do their jobs properly. They're rarely ever critical (unless it's a Japanese game, then it's open season) and they give out embarrassingly fellatious reviews to whatever the latest AAA release happens to be, completely ignoring its faults and sometimes obviously not even playing the game to completion before writing the review.

This turned into more of a rant than I wanted, but I guess my point is that while I agree review bombing is sort of dumb, it does serve a purpose since it's one of the few ways you can fight back against publishers, developers, and corrupt game critics.

Everyone should probably read what this guy said, at least twice

Diablo 3 deserves it. 5-6 years in development and they bring you a grindfest with shitty shory, 5 years old graphics and no advancements on the genre. Great job, Blizzard.

I guess they spend all that time overdesigning the menus :)

@cheapandtacky said:

@Dagbiker said:

What should they have rated a game that wasn't working?

Not rated it at all and played the game before giving it a score maybe?

Kind of difficult to play something when it doesn't work.

Seriously, I can never understand reasoning like that. If I buy a product, and that product does not work, then said product is a bad product, making it entirely reasonable if I give that product a bad rating.

Metacritic, is honestly, the same kind of resource that 4chan is. That comparison is the reason I avoid it, and I cannot stand it.

@joshthebear said:

Dragon Age II deserves all the hate that it gets, it's god awful.

You're awful.

Metacritic works in theory, but we don't, Just read a review and make up your own mind. For example, IMDB is mostly good for info or trivia, but the score must always be taken with a grain (or in this case, a barrel) of salt.

Bear in mind, that this is the most 'outrage' seen over a pc game in ages yet the amount of people who actually rated Diablo 3 on metacritic is less than 1% of the total people who bought the game, and some who probably didn't.

Also, think about this. All the people who scored the game on metacritic actually think people care what they score a game on metacritic.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Amazon is also strongly slanted toward the negative (546 1-star reviews of Diablo III), but if you read some of the one-star reviews you see that a lot of the complaints center around the online requirement, shoddy server connections, and being unable to play for long because of this. Some consumers are angry that they can't properly play the game they spent $60 on. Often the low scores are people bitching because the game in question isn't exactly what they wanted, but sometimes, it's customers with legitimate gripes concerning the product they bought. No one likes to feel ripped off.

Nobody cares about the user scores.

I have a friend who uses the user scores as solid evidence in arguments. -.-

I've sunk 230 hours into MW3, the only thing that sucks about that game is half the community. But because a shit load of BF3 fans (I am one myself, I play BF3 on PC more than MW3 these days, it's not all of us) vote it ridiculously low I am apparently wrong to play the game. :P I can hardly bring that game up without people mentioning it's metacritic score.

Diablo 3 as well...just ugh. :( Haven't played DA2 but I can safely say MW3 and D3 are really enjoyable games. Stupid reviews.

I wouldn't care but I know quite a few people who use it in arguments or as buying advice. ¬¬

All I had to do was read the title and I knew, I just KNEW diablo was going to be involved.