Contrary to what some people believe, in some cases, there are good games, and there are bad games in terms of quality.
Compare FFXIV to FFXIV:ARR, for example. Practically the same game style, but one is bad quality, and the other is good (at least relatively. If you disagree that FFXIV:ARR is not better than the original FFXIV, go away. I don't even want to talk with you at all).
FFXIV isn't even innovative. At all. The producer even admits it's not innovative. He even says he doesn't want it to be innovative. Yet it is successful and it is high quality.
What's high quality?
Responsive controls, music, graphics, decent itemization that doesn't make you want to run away screaming (compare Wildstar, where you get crafted gear that's easy to get and then dungeons and even raids are pointless 99% of the time because the items they give you are worse than that stuff you spent 5 minutes buying off the market)
And of course, probably the most important, FUN. Although all of the above tend to contribute to the fun in various ways.
People have different tastes. Metacritic is BAD for telling you, "Is this game the type of game you like to play?" All the high scores in the world for HALO won't make you like FPS games if you hate them. However, there is a chance that HALO is just good enough quality that you end up liking it despite hating FPS games. I've seen that before. Sometimes a game is just THAT good despite being a genre someone hates.
In the end, the opinions of tons upon tons of people is at least a marginally decent gauge for determining this "quality" of the game. In a few rare cases though, a game can be good quality but just not a type of game that appeals to most people. Eve, for example, is a rather niche taste. Metacritic in this case can tell you how niche a game probably is (if tons of people hate it despite the game's quality being good, it's probably a niche game).
Unfortunately, there isn't any particularly easy way to tell if a game got bad reviews because it really is just bad, or because it's niche. And of course, sometimes it's both.
I'm sure that AA is definately niche at the very least, though. It starts out like other MMOs with the theme park aspects but quickly becomes a game that only people who like open-world PvP (which has always been niche) can really get into.
People have different tastes. Metacritic is BAD for telling you, "Is this game the type of game you like to play?" All the high scores in the world for HALO won't make you like FPS games if you hate them. However, there is a chance that HALO is just good enough quality that you end up liking it despite hating FPS games. I've seen that before. Sometimes a game is just THAT good despite being a genre someone hates.
In the end, the opinions of tons upon tons of people is at least a marginally decent gauge for determining this "quality" of the game. In a few rare cases though, a game can be good quality but just not a type of game that appeals to most people. Eve, for example, is a rather niche taste. Metacritic in this case can tell you how niche a game probably is (if tons of people hate it despite the game's quality being good, it's probably a niche game).
I suppose there's the possibility that Eve avoided bad reviews from people who just weren't into that type of game by the fact that Eve is VERY fore-front about it being "that type of game". In Eve, you know what you're getting into almost from the start. So anyone who hates that style of game will probably realize that it's just a different genre and not even bother reviewing it in the first place (either becaues they stopped playing so soon, or because they honestly realized such a review would be biased because they don't like that type of thing).
Archeage meanwhile presents itself initially as a theme park and you have to either dig, or hit end game and have no where else to go, or perhaps just open your eyes really wide after a while, before you really start to realize what type of game it is. By then people would have felt they've played the game enough to review it and thus do so, despite that gamestyle not being their cup of tea. Maybe they never realized it was the gamestyle in the first place. Archeage can be devious like that (it looks like a theme park. It looks like a create-your-world-sandbox. It's really neither. It's an "open-PvP sandbox". Replace "sandbox" with "game" if you're gonna nitpick about semantics)
Maybe. That's just a theory.
....of course, there's always the simple alternate (but not mutually exclusive) explanation that something was just really really bad about Archeage. Besides the initial long queue times and there not being enough land for people, the combat is pretty lame and the cheating is pretty much in your face, etc etc etc...
I know that many don't believe that Metacritic is a sensible way to measure a game, but it is still used by many who aren't on this website. Steam uses it for general comparisons on their website as well.
My question is why is there such a huge difference between ArcheAge Critic Reviews and User Reviews. Also, in general, who's opinion do you feel matters most?
To me I usually use user reviews, because they are generally least influenced by a "boss's" influence on what they write. I also believe that website reviews can be affected by publisher/developer funding.
although i never follow Metacritic i have to say that i would not follow user scores for big games. Look at Destiny... blind fanboys giving 10/10 despite the flaws while troll haters giving 1/10 for the sake of hating. Some sites do get influenced by dev/pub funds so it is hard to tell.... I just go to different sources before i make up my mind, but if i had to take any opinion into account before buying a game i would watch some of the decent youtubers out there. Still they dont influence my decisions, but having honest and straightforward opinions is better than being on the fence with who might or might not be a sell out and gives false info.
I know that many don't believe that Metacritic is a sensible way to measure a game, but it is still used by many who aren't on this website. Steam uses it for general comparisons on their website as well.
My question is why is there such a huge difference between ArcheAge Critic Reviews and User Reviews. Also, in general, who's opinion do you feel matters most?
To me I usually use user reviews, because they are generally least influenced by a "boss's" influence on what they write. I also believe that website reviews can be affected by publisher/developer funding.
There is an issue with Metacritic User Scores.
Example of why user scores are worthless on mmos:
0/10
OMG THE SERVERS ARE DOWN... /RAGE THIS IS BS I PAID EARLY ACCESS MONEY AND CANNOT PLAY WORST GAEM EVAR!
Archeage had alot of this with the massive ques at the start. Yes they were bad and it was a very bad reflection of Trion worlds, but it is an accurate representation of the game? NO. The big ques were caused by it having a bigger draw then expected. So the low user score on Metracritic was caused by the game being too popular at launch. (Stupid isn't it)
FFXIV:ARR was another one. The servers were ungodly full and they had massive ques. And Metacritic users were giving the game tons of 0s,1s, and 2s because of it and that was the only explanation of the low score.
Metacritic Critic Scores I feel are still heavilty biased but they usally give more info. The game got a X/10 because of this. Whether I disagree or agree they have a reason to back up a score. I can usally get at least the idea of the begining of a mmo game is based on the critics.
Problem is I have yet to see a critic score be worth a damn on mmos though because none of them play enough to evaluate Midgame/Endgame which is where the overwhelming majority of your time will be spent. Also too many use WoW as a benchmark of what a mmo should be, which is not good . Why you see so many 8.5-9.5 mmos failing hardcore after 6months.
No mmo review should be taken seriously unless the person has played early game, midgame, and endgame. most professional reviewers cannot spend the 100s of hrs of gametime to generate a review because they have other games to play as well. I laugh at mmo reviews that come out 2-3 days after launch.
So in the end I agree with the statement that metacritic is 100% worthless on mmos. Both the user and critic scores are more or less pointless past the first week of gameplay.
OMG THE SERVERS ARE DOWN... /RAGE THIS IS BS I PAID EARLY ACCESS MONEY AND CANNOT PLAY WORST GAEM EVAR!
That kind of score is usually balanced by the 10/10 "ZOMG I'm playing since 10 minutes and this game is the best I've played" fanboy ones, so what's your point?
Quite. There are plenty of people who'll vote 10/10 for any number of stupid reasons. These ultimately balance out. If a game has a low user score with a large sampling, there is going to be a reason.
The thread does seem to have turned somewhat into disgruntled ArcheAge fans complaining about its low score.
I suppose a nice quick way of saying it is that while metacritic is a very flawed statistical gauge, it's sample size is so huge that you can still derive some likely statistical truths from it, even if the margin of error might be bigger than you'd like.
AKA, "not that good, but probably useable enough to be better than nothing."
Outliers in statistics (like 0/10s and 10/10's) become less and less of a factor as the sample size gets bigger (even more so if they help cancel each other out to some degree). IIRC, this is one of the first things you learn in statistics classes.
I don't use professional reviews much these days, it's too difficult to tell if the person doing the review:
1) Even likes the genre of game they're reviewing, a job is a job, maybe they have to do it
2) Have been paid/received gifts or other preferential treatment in some way for a positive review
3) Knows what they're talking about. Just because they do it for a living doesn't mean they know that particular series or genre very well. I see this too often where a reviewer has clearly not been around long enough to see the progression of a series and so their review is like throwing darts in the dark.
I trust user reviews much more, with a big caveat that the review has to actually say something. If someone rates 10/10 omg I love this game, so good, it's the bestest! I can't really give it any weight. Conversely if someone gives a game a 0/10 I assume that the game is not only a buggy, broken mess, but it also ate their cat because a score of 0 is really an impossible score for any game that isn't horrific.
So I tend to look at well thought out reviews in which the person has clearly played the game and has knowledge of gaming in general. These reviews also tend to have reasonable scores with some evidence to support the score. If a game gets a 7, then it must have sufficient and valid reason that it failed in certain areas and did well in others.
Exactly. You have to filter out the 0 and 10s along with the obvious trolls. Read the review first and see what it says; it's fairly easy to spot the obvious nonsense.
Originally posted by grimal I tend to trust the user opinion more.
'User' opinion isn't even guaranteed to come from actual users for games, as we know, so they are pretty worthless. The dishonesty and general negativity on the internet has had the effect of making every online opinion in gaming pointless.
Plus you have to factor in shills (both negative and hype ones) that have a professional interest in bringing down or hyping a game.
So, yeah, all internet opinion is worthless to be frank. In the end only opinions from friends hold any real weight, or I just take a risk on what's on the box.
It normally works out just fine.
Same can be said for many professional reviews, as far as I'm concerned.
Originally posted by grimal I tend to trust the user opinion more.
'User' opinion isn't even guaranteed to come from actual users for games, as we know, so they are pretty worthless. The dishonesty and general negativity on the internet has had the effect of making every online opinion in gaming pointless.
Plus you have to factor in shills (both negative and hype ones) that have a professional interest in bringing down or hyping a game.
So, yeah, all internet opinion is worthless to be frank. In the end only opinions from friends hold any real weight, or I just take a risk on what's on the box.
It normally works out just fine.
Same can be said for many professional reviews, as far as I'm concerned.
People have different tastes. Metacritic is BAD for telling you, "Is this game the type of game you like to play?" All the high scores in the world for HALO won't make you like FPS games if you hate them. However, there is a chance that HALO is just good enough quality that you end up liking it despite hating FPS games. I've seen that before. Sometimes a game is just THAT good despite being a genre someone hates.
In the end, the opinions of tons upon tons of people is at least a marginally decent gauge for determining this "quality" of the game. In a few rare cases though, a game can be good quality but just not a type of game that appeals to most people. Eve, for example, is a rather niche taste. Metacritic in this case can tell you how niche a game probably is (if tons of people hate it despite the game's quality being good, it's probably a niche game).
Comments
Contrary to what some people believe, in some cases, there are good games, and there are bad games in terms of quality.
Compare FFXIV to FFXIV:ARR, for example. Practically the same game style, but one is bad quality, and the other is good (at least relatively. If you disagree that FFXIV:ARR is not better than the original FFXIV, go away. I don't even want to talk with you at all).
FFXIV isn't even innovative. At all. The producer even admits it's not innovative. He even says he doesn't want it to be innovative. Yet it is successful and it is high quality.
What's high quality?
Responsive controls, music, graphics, decent itemization that doesn't make you want to run away screaming (compare Wildstar, where you get crafted gear that's easy to get and then dungeons and even raids are pointless 99% of the time because the items they give you are worse than that stuff you spent 5 minutes buying off the market)
And of course, probably the most important, FUN. Although all of the above tend to contribute to the fun in various ways.
People have different tastes. Metacritic is BAD for telling you, "Is this game the type of game you like to play?" All the high scores in the world for HALO won't make you like FPS games if you hate them. However, there is a chance that HALO is just good enough quality that you end up liking it despite hating FPS games. I've seen that before. Sometimes a game is just THAT good despite being a genre someone hates.
In the end, the opinions of tons upon tons of people is at least a marginally decent gauge for determining this "quality" of the game. In a few rare cases though, a game can be good quality but just not a type of game that appeals to most people. Eve, for example, is a rather niche taste. Metacritic in this case can tell you how niche a game probably is (if tons of people hate it despite the game's quality being good, it's probably a niche game).
Unfortunately, there isn't any particularly easy way to tell if a game got bad reviews because it really is just bad, or because it's niche. And of course, sometimes it's both.
I'm sure that AA is definately niche at the very least, though. It starts out like other MMOs with the theme park aspects but quickly becomes a game that only people who like open-world PvP (which has always been niche) can really get into.
Hmm, I see.
I suppose there's the possibility that Eve avoided bad reviews from people who just weren't into that type of game by the fact that Eve is VERY fore-front about it being "that type of game". In Eve, you know what you're getting into almost from the start. So anyone who hates that style of game will probably realize that it's just a different genre and not even bother reviewing it in the first place (either becaues they stopped playing so soon, or because they honestly realized such a review would be biased because they don't like that type of thing).
Archeage meanwhile presents itself initially as a theme park and you have to either dig, or hit end game and have no where else to go, or perhaps just open your eyes really wide after a while, before you really start to realize what type of game it is. By then people would have felt they've played the game enough to review it and thus do so, despite that gamestyle not being their cup of tea. Maybe they never realized it was the gamestyle in the first place. Archeage can be devious like that (it looks like a theme park. It looks like a create-your-world-sandbox. It's really neither. It's an "open-PvP sandbox". Replace "sandbox" with "game" if you're gonna nitpick about semantics)
Maybe. That's just a theory.
....of course, there's always the simple alternate (but not mutually exclusive) explanation that something was just really really bad about Archeage. Besides the initial long queue times and there not being enough land for people, the combat is pretty lame and the cheating is pretty much in your face, etc etc etc...
although i never follow Metacritic i have to say that i would not follow user scores for big games. Look at Destiny... blind fanboys giving 10/10 despite the flaws while troll haters giving 1/10 for the sake of hating. Some sites do get influenced by dev/pub funds so it is hard to tell.... I just go to different sources before i make up my mind, but if i had to take any opinion into account before buying a game i would watch some of the decent youtubers out there. Still they dont influence my decisions, but having honest and straightforward opinions is better than being on the fence with who might or might not be a sell out and gives false info.
There is an issue with Metacritic User Scores.
Example of why user scores are worthless on mmos:
0/10
OMG THE SERVERS ARE DOWN... /RAGE THIS IS BS I PAID EARLY ACCESS MONEY AND CANNOT PLAY WORST GAEM EVAR!
Archeage had alot of this with the massive ques at the start. Yes they were bad and it was a very bad reflection of Trion worlds, but it is an accurate representation of the game? NO. The big ques were caused by it having a bigger draw then expected. So the low user score on Metracritic was caused by the game being too popular at launch. (Stupid isn't it)
FFXIV:ARR was another one. The servers were ungodly full and they had massive ques. And Metacritic users were giving the game tons of 0s,1s, and 2s because of it and that was the only explanation of the low score.
Metacritic Critic Scores I feel are still heavilty biased but they usally give more info. The game got a X/10 because of this. Whether I disagree or agree they have a reason to back up a score. I can usally get at least the idea of the begining of a mmo game is based on the critics.
Problem is I have yet to see a critic score be worth a damn on mmos though because none of them play enough to evaluate Midgame/Endgame which is where the overwhelming majority of your time will be spent. Also too many use WoW as a benchmark of what a mmo should be, which is not good . Why you see so many 8.5-9.5 mmos failing hardcore after 6months.
No mmo review should be taken seriously unless the person has played early game, midgame, and endgame. most professional reviewers cannot spend the 100s of hrs of gametime to generate a review because they have other games to play as well. I laugh at mmo reviews that come out 2-3 days after launch.
So in the end I agree with the statement that metacritic is 100% worthless on mmos. Both the user and critic scores are more or less pointless past the first week of gameplay.
Quite. There are plenty of people who'll vote 10/10 for any number of stupid reasons. These ultimately balance out. If a game has a low user score with a large sampling, there is going to be a reason.
The thread does seem to have turned somewhat into disgruntled ArcheAge fans complaining about its low score.
I suppose a nice quick way of saying it is that while metacritic is a very flawed statistical gauge, it's sample size is so huge that you can still derive some likely statistical truths from it, even if the margin of error might be bigger than you'd like.
AKA, "not that good, but probably useable enough to be better than nothing."
Outliers in statistics (like 0/10s and 10/10's) become less and less of a factor as the sample size gets bigger (even more so if they help cancel each other out to some degree). IIRC, this is one of the first things you learn in statistics classes.
Yep, true. I take both into account, but if a game has an 85% Review with a 2.0 user review, I'll be a little wary.
Exactly. You have to filter out the 0 and 10s along with the obvious trolls. Read the review first and see what it says; it's fairly easy to spot the obvious nonsense.
Same can be said for many professional reviews, as far as I'm concerned.
Clearly. That's pretty much what I am saying.
Sorry, I thought that was clear.
It has basically the same user score as GW2.....
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?