That's my mistake, I had to catch up on a page of response, so they sort of run together when I responded.
I understand the bane and boon system you mentuon, and I think it's a good system. I guess I'm just a hard advocate for not allowing the same companies to make the same mistakes in successive releases without increasingly penalizing a score of their product for them doing so. They failed to improve what was already cited as a weakness of their prior multiplayer game. It would seem logical, to me, to hold them accountable for that in any review.
That's my mistake, I had to catch up on a page of response, so they sort of run together when I responded.
I understand the bane and boon system you mentuon, and I think it's a good system. I guess I'm just a hard advocate for not allowing the same companies to make the same mistakes in successive releases without increasingly penalizing a score of their product for them doing so. They failed to improve what was already cited as a weakness of their prior multiplayer game. It would seem logical, to me, to hold them accountable for that in any review.
I can certainly see where you're coming from, if they drop the ball on something they've been given a pass on prior, it probably is a good idea to call them out on it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For me this whole discussion isn't about Blizzard or Overwatch. It's about so called non paid and unbiased professional gaming sites giving perfect 10/10 reviews.
Name me the games that honestly unfanboid deserve a 10/10
These sites are nothing but shills and that's what I believe is the fucking joke.
I could name you some, but would it matter? Reviews are subjective, hence the whole reason around something like metacritic. Based on metacritic, there has never been a 10/10 game, so you can feel at ease.
Also, I'll just come right out and say that the majority of sites give plenty of reasoning behind grades for games and the vast majority of sites have specific metrics on how games are graded. What I dislike is people who are constantly talking about shills with absolutely nothing to back it up. If you'd like, feel free to disprove some of these 10/10 ratings. It's probably more effort than just yelling shills, I know. Btw, I'm not defending Overwatch, specifically. Haven't played it, so I can't speak to it, but I find that reviewers are generally correct or close to it.
Have you read these 10/10 reviews?
You don't have to be paid to be a shill.
Reviews are subjective? Sorry maybe from a fanboi but I expect some objectivity from a "Professional Reviewer"
10/10 = no objectivity
All these "Professional" reviews do is make a 10/10 mean shit. because we all know that a 10/10 game has missing features that will be patched in at a later date.
"What Overwatch is missing the most at launch is a ranked mode. One is in the works, and was briefly tested in one of the closed betas, but it wasn’t great, and is currently being reworked for a June release. That’s all well and good, but until that happens, matchmaking in Quick Play is a little screwy, relying only on MMR to make sure you’re getting matched with “correct” opponents."
So what is it that you're looking for exactly? You say that you want objective reviews, but then go on to demonstrate something completely subjective with the text you quoted. So now we're not measuring games based on the game that is delivered, but what we would really like to see in the game? GTA V shipped with missing features. Also, Diablo 3 shipped with features that many people didn't like. However, as soon as you rate a game based on those missing features or undesirable features you're automatically taking away from the objectivity of the review.
There are standards involved with reviews, if you believe otherwise then you're just being silly. To believe that there is some big conspiracy surrounding the reviews industry and that someone can garner favorable reviews simply by paying someone or making promises is ludicrous. With sites like metacritic, now, this type of conspiracy theory is even more strained because it would mean influencing hundreds of reviewers, financially or otherwise. Do you honestly believe that is something that is realistic or plausible?
I would encourage you to have a look at the top games on metacritic of all time . Does it seem like a lot of shills? In general, the reviewer scores are mostly aligned with user reviews. If you disagree with the majority of the metacritic top games of all time, then maybe you have different standards than I do, but for the games I have played I can't say that I disagree with any game on the list. So wouldn't that say that the process works?
In addition to that, you have to understand that the majority of review sites work on a 10 point system. Does a 10/10 game mean that a game is devoid of any sort of flaw? No, probably not. It simply means that it's outstanding in all aspects. It could be a 95/100 or a 9500/10000, but do we really need to go to that level of differentiation? If that was the case, then I could accept that 100/100 is absolutely cream of the crop and nothing is wrong with it, but describe to me what the difference is between a 95 and a 96? Describe the differentiation between any two points in that scale. When you have that scale figured out, feel free to sell it to the industry because it's something that I'm sure would be truly valuable.
We all know how good and flawless the original incarnation of Diablo 3 was. It was a perfect 100 according to some of the professionals.
I'm criticizing the "Professional Reviewers" not the games.
IMHO the evidence is pretty strong for shilling
LOL yea and the players gave it a 40. So you want to believe critics which are paid or players who have to pay? Same critics giving Warcraft movie a 8/100. Yea they want companies to advertise on their websites. You think a game will pay to advertise on a website that says it is rated at a 40/100? No that game is going to advertise on a website that gives it a high score.
There are standards involved with reviews, if you believe otherwise then you're just being silly. To believe that there is some big conspiracy surrounding the reviews industry and that someone can garner favorable reviews simply by paying someone or making promises is ludicrous. With sites like metacritic, now, this type of conspiracy theory is even more strained because it would mean influencing hundreds of reviewers, financially or otherwise. Do you honestly believe that is something that is realistic or plausible?
They don't need to explicitly pay for reviews. You give them a bad review and you may not get a review copy for their next game, and lose profits.
CrazKanuk said: I would encourage you to have a look at the top games on metacritic of all time . Does it seem like a lot of shills? In general, the reviewer scores are mostly aligned with user reviews. If you disagree with the majority of the metacritic top games of all time, then maybe you have different standards than I do, but for the games I have played I can't say that I disagree with any game on the list. So wouldn't that say that the process works?
Scores of older games doesn't matter, it isn't like people would ever decide between buying Civ3 or the upcoming Civ6. Among the relatively new games in that list that I also played, I definitely don't agree with gta5 being in second place. It had great graphics and lots of content, but it was shallow and the gameplay was poor. Same for Skyrim ( without the great graphics part). Now we have Overwatch, a multiplayer only game without a ranked mode (existence of which wouldn't make it as competitive as many of its rivals anyway) at 17th place. You decide if those reviews are objective.
First of all, do you REALLY think that these sites are worried about not getting a review copy. If anything they're probably like "PLEASE!!! Please don't give me a review copy." That sort of action by a publisher is probably more newsworthy than their review anyway and would be MASSIVE click bait. So, in actuality, if there is blackballing going on, then that can actually work to the advantage of the reviewers site. Also, even if this is just speculative, that reviewer will gain additional credibility with visitors because they can spin the story in their favor. That means a decrease in launch day profits for publishers because some will wait for the "honest" reviewer to weigh in before purchasing.
Scores of all-time games is relevant. It's not about you deciding whether to buy Civ3 and Civ6, it's about the process and acknowledging that the difference in scores between the critics, as a collective, and the users is marginal. ACTUALLY, because I'm a data geek I crunched the numbers and the average amount of difference is 8.8% which amounts to 9 points on a hundred-point scale. On top of that, there were 7 games out of 100 where the difference in score between critics and users was greater than 20%. If we were to remove those anomalies, then the average difference is down to 7%. Over 100 games, the difference between the critic scores and users scores is a mere 9%. All that proves is that the process is generally correct. If you want to argue amount 1 point here or there, I don't think it's going to make a whole hell of a lot of difference.
Additionally, Overwatch was just released and more reviews are bound to come in and it's entirely likely that that score will level off as it would require a 10/10 in order to maintain or increase it's average at this point. Anything 9 or below will decrease it.
Anyway, anyone can take one case and argue that it may be invalid for any number of reasons, but when you take a larger sampling and compare the base process, that's where you will find whether your argument has any weight or not, and saying that critics are "shills" is just bullshit, sorry. There may be cases of corruption, but generally speaking that's not the case. Same goes for users, there are plenty of shills and there are plenty of haters, but the numbers end up balancing themselves out in the end. Less then 10% difference. I'd be willing to bet if you removed the 0-4 rated reviews which are, OBJECTIVELY speaking, undoubtedly less objective than the critics reviews, you would likely see a user score much more in-line with the critic score. I would go as far as to guarantee it, but I'm not willing to collect the data.
So there's a group of people who agree with the critics so they claim their scores are more accurate. Then people who agree with the player scores so they are more accurate. Yet the people who believe the critic scores for Overwatch won't believe the critic scores for Warcraft movie. But the people who believe the user scores of Overwatch will also believe the user scores of the Warcraft movie. One group believes the critics when it suits their opinion. The other group believes the user scores because they portray the actual gaming population.
LOL yea and the players gave it a 40. So you want to believe critics which are paid or players who have to pay? Same critics giving Warcraft movie a 8/100. Yea they want companies to advertise on their websites. You think a game will pay to advertise on a website that says it is rated at a 40/100? No that game is going to advertise on a website that gives it a high score.
I think it's more pertinent to understand it's inevitable for some to like something that isn't good in the eyes the majority. The opposite is also true. That's not the best way to determine whether shilling is happening or not. The substance of what's being said in a review is a lot more important than the overall score.
As for your opening question... as a concept I trust the professional, professional implies an ability to judge based on quality rather than preference. In practice that is not always the case, due to a lot of differing factors (we all know of those factors).
As a general rule though, I do not trust player reviews at all... Too many factors and no responsibility to be fair or honest, not to mention no consequence for carrying out an agenda. There are just too many folks who manipulate the process for self serving reasons.
At least for professionals too much of that will have a detrimental effect on a site or reviewer. They're taking a real risk in acting as shills for money.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
So there's a group of people who agree with the critics so they claim their scores are more accurate. Then people who agree with the player scores so they are more accurate. Yet the people who believe the critic scores for Overwatch won't believe the critic scores for Warcraft movie. But the people who believe the user scores of Overwatch will also believe the user scores of the Warcraft movie. One group believes the critics when it suits their opinion. The other group believes the user scores because they portray the actual gaming population.
I am one of those people. Again, there is good, empirical data that supports that. First the difference in scores of the top 100 moves of all time averages out to be over 13% which is over 160% the difference as compared with video games. Still, it's only 13%. Not that big a difference. However, the number of films where the difference was greater than 20% difference (20/100 difference) was 18 versus 7 for video games.
Now that's not suggesting that there is wrong-doing, specifically. However, it would suggest that the gaming populous is more educated on the rating process and metrics. We understand things like graphics, gameplay, longevity are things that are taken into consideration. I can't really speak of one objective measure, that I'm aware of, for movies. So I think it's this whole nebulous, subjective grey area. On top of that, I feel like movie critics measure everything with the same yardstick, and that's what I feel many critics do. I saw one critic on RottenTomatoes put it best (and he actually liked it), that he would go see it again, but would "happily go on again, preferably as a double feature with The Beastmaster, Legend or Ladyhawke." That shows the context for how it's being graded.
Overall, there is definitely a difference in how movies are rated versus games. What that difference is, I don't know. Is it an education thing for users? Is it a contextual thing for critics? Who knows? The difference is there and it's significant (like double).
So there's a group of people who agree with the critics so they claim their scores are more accurate. Then people who agree with the player scores so they are more accurate. Yet the people who believe the critic scores for Overwatch won't believe the critic scores for Warcraft movie. But the people who believe the user scores of Overwatch will also believe the user scores of the Warcraft movie. One group believes the critics when it suits their opinion. The other group believes the user scores because they portray the actual gaming population.
I am one of those people. Again, there is good, empirical data that supports that. First the difference in scores of the top 100 moves of all time averages out to be over 13% which is over 160% the difference as compared with video games. Still, it's only 13%. Not that big a difference. However, the number of films where the difference was greater than 20% difference (20/100 difference) was 18 versus 7 for video games.
Now that's not suggesting that there is wrong-doing, specifically. However, it would suggest that the gaming populous is more educated on the rating process and metrics. We understand things like graphics, gameplay, longevity are things that are taken into consideration. I can't really speak of one objective measure, that I'm aware of, for movies. So I think it's this whole nebulous, subjective grey area. On top of that, I feel like movie critics measure everything with the same yardstick, and that's what I feel many critics do. I saw one critic on RottenTomatoes put it best (and he actually liked it), that he would go see it again, but would "happily go on again, preferably as a double feature with The Beastmaster, Legend or Ladyhawke." That shows the context for how it's being graded.
Overall, there is definitely a difference in how movies are rated versus games. What that difference is, I don't know. Is it an education thing for users? Is it a contextual thing for critics? Who knows? The difference is there and it's significant (like double).
The movie and gaming industry critics have completely different mindsets. The movie critic gets nothing for his opinion and usually gets more recognition for giving a negative review, the publisher he is working for gets nothing out of it other then news. The gaming critic wants that particular game to advertise on their website. If the game has already paid for advertising then it makes even worse. Tell me you running a website and Overwatch is paying you for advertising space are you going to give it a low score? You will never give anything a low score especially if they are paying for advertising. You want them to pay for all future games they put out as well. You look and all the players are saying Overwatch is between 7-8. You got critics calling it between 9-10. You have to look at their motive. Gamestop is going to say Overwatch is a 10 because they want to sell the game. Someone who isn't trying to get blizzard to advertise will give it a more real score.
On top of that, there were 7 games out of 100 where the difference in score between critics and users was greater than 20%. If we were to remove those anomalies, then the average difference is down to 7%. Over 100 games, the difference between the critic scores and users scores is a mere 9%. All that proves is that the process is generally correct. If you want to argue amount 1 point here or there, I don't think it's going to make a whole hell of a lot of difference.
I would be willing to bet that most of those 7 games came out within the last 5 years, which would indicate that there is a growing disparity between critic and user scores for highest rated games.
Actually, DOTA2, NHL 2001, WoW: Cata, Fez, Tiger Woods 2005, Tiger Woods 2003, Out of the Park Baseball 2017
I don't think that the disparity comes as games which are very polarizing. It's the love/hate thing. Actually, if we take a look at all games rated in 2015 (all 320 of them) the average difference between critics and users is a measly 4.5% or 5 points on 100.
So there's a group of people who agree with the critics so they claim their scores are more accurate. Then people who agree with the player scores so they are more accurate. Yet the people who believe the critic scores for Overwatch won't believe the critic scores for Warcraft movie. But the people who believe the user scores of Overwatch will also believe the user scores of the Warcraft movie. One group believes the critics when it suits their opinion. The other group believes the user scores because they portray the actual gaming population.
I am one of those people. Again, there is good, empirical data that supports that. First the difference in scores of the top 100 moves of all time averages out to be over 13% which is over 160% the difference as compared with video games. Still, it's only 13%. Not that big a difference. However, the number of films where the difference was greater than 20% difference (20/100 difference) was 18 versus 7 for video games.
Now that's not suggesting that there is wrong-doing, specifically. However, it would suggest that the gaming populous is more educated on the rating process and metrics. We understand things like graphics, gameplay, longevity are things that are taken into consideration. I can't really speak of one objective measure, that I'm aware of, for movies. So I think it's this whole nebulous, subjective grey area. On top of that, I feel like movie critics measure everything with the same yardstick, and that's what I feel many critics do. I saw one critic on RottenTomatoes put it best (and he actually liked it), that he would go see it again, but would "happily go on again, preferably as a double feature with The Beastmaster, Legend or Ladyhawke." That shows the context for how it's being graded.
Overall, there is definitely a difference in how movies are rated versus games. What that difference is, I don't know. Is it an education thing for users? Is it a contextual thing for critics? Who knows? The difference is there and it's significant (like double).
The movie and gaming industry critics have completely different mindsets. The movie critic gets nothing for his opinion and usually gets more recognition for giving a negative review, the publisher he is working for gets nothing out of it other then news. The gaming critic wants that particular game to advertise on their website. If the game has already paid for advertising then it makes even worse. Tell me you running a website and Overwatch is paying you for advertising space are you going to give it a low score? You will never give anything a low score especially if they are paying for advertising. You want them to pay for all future games they put out as well. You look and all the players are saying Overwatch is between 7-8. You got critics calling it between 9-10. You have to look at their motive. Gamestop is going to say Overwatch is a 10 because they want to sell the game. Someone who isn't trying to get blizzard to advertise will give it a more real score.
Yeah, but the overall difference between user scores and critic scores across ALL games from 2015 as 4.5%. You can't tell me that represents critics inflating numbers to increase their own site sales. If that was the case then you'd have consistently higher scores.
Also, sites are generally using third party advertising companies, not selling directly to the company. SURE!! Publishers MAY have the ability to exclude you from sites they want to serve their advertising on, but it's not advantageous for them to do that anyway. In the end, they aren't teaching you a lesson, because that ad space will be filled by someone else, whoever happens to be next in line. All you need to do is copy pasta some code onto your site and you're off and running. Even sites getting millions of hits daily like this one, like Gamespot, like probably 90% of sites, are using third parties to serve their advertising.
Again, if we were to get rid of all the scores from 0-4, which are completely and utterly non-objective, the score would rise significantly. Saying that users are scoring it at 7-8 is inaccurate because that's an average which includes scores that are completely and entirely uneducated and/or intentionally low. So, now are we arguing about the difference between a 7.6 game and a 9.4 game? Or are we arguing the difference between a 9.0 and a 9.4 game?
I'd be careful making the argument that any score of 4 or less is utterly dishonest.
It's a slippery slope to advocate the leeway of subjectivity and then, wholesale, dismiss reviews that pull the average in a direction inconsistent with critical review.
I read snippets from a couple 2/10 scores that leveled very valid complaints against the game. Worthy enough of a 2? Well, if we advocate the subjectivity argument, and they have included valid complaints in their review... How do you, then, tell them their rating is invalid? Why draw the line at 4? Can someone not, subjectively (again, if we advocate the subjectivity argument as a whole), find a particular game violates their particular definition of a fun video game, even if many more enjoy it? Why draw the line at 4/10?
The duality between the more objective, professional reviews, balanced on the other end by the wholly subjective experiences of players, seems to me a check and balance that will work best in informing players.
This is one of the reasons I like the steam user reviews: the account lists the hours the person has played right in front of you, helping you form a more complete opinion of the reviews you're reading. It also lists the metacritic critical review average and the number of user reviews Steam has received for each title.
I definitely think it's a more complete system and a good balance to the professional reviews.
So there's a group of people who agree with the critics so they claim their scores are more accurate. Then people who agree with the player scores so they are more accurate. Yet the people who believe the critic scores for Overwatch won't believe the critic scores for Warcraft movie. But the people who believe the user scores of Overwatch will also believe the user scores of the Warcraft movie. One group believes the critics when it suits their opinion. The other group believes the user scores because they portray the actual gaming population.
I am one of those people. Again, there is good, empirical data that supports that. First the difference in scores of the top 100 moves of all time averages out to be over 13% which is over 160% the difference as compared with video games. Still, it's only 13%. Not that big a difference. However, the number of films where the difference was greater than 20% difference (20/100 difference) was 18 versus 7 for video games.
Now that's not suggesting that there is wrong-doing, specifically. However, it would suggest that the gaming populous is more educated on the rating process and metrics. We understand things like graphics, gameplay, longevity are things that are taken into consideration. I can't really speak of one objective measure, that I'm aware of, for movies. So I think it's this whole nebulous, subjective grey area. On top of that, I feel like movie critics measure everything with the same yardstick, and that's what I feel many critics do. I saw one critic on RottenTomatoes put it best (and he actually liked it), that he would go see it again, but would "happily go on again, preferably as a double feature with The Beastmaster, Legend or Ladyhawke." That shows the context for how it's being graded.
Overall, there is definitely a difference in how movies are rated versus games. What that difference is, I don't know. Is it an education thing for users? Is it a contextual thing for critics? Who knows? The difference is there and it's significant (like double).
The movie and gaming industry critics have completely different mindsets. The movie critic gets nothing for his opinion and usually gets more recognition for giving a negative review, the publisher he is working for gets nothing out of it other then news. The gaming critic wants that particular game to advertise on their website. If the game has already paid for advertising then it makes even worse. Tell me you running a website and Overwatch is paying you for advertising space are you going to give it a low score? You will never give anything a low score especially if they are paying for advertising. You want them to pay for all future games they put out as well. You look and all the players are saying Overwatch is between 7-8. You got critics calling it between 9-10. You have to look at their motive. Gamestop is going to say Overwatch is a 10 because they want to sell the game. Someone who isn't trying to get blizzard to advertise will give it a more real score.
Yeah, but the overall difference between user scores and critic scores across ALL games from 2015 as 4.5%. You can't tell me that represents critics inflating numbers to increase their own site sales. If that was the case then you'd have consistently higher scores.
Also, sites are generally using third party advertising companies, not selling directly to the company. SURE!! Publishers MAY have the ability to exclude you from sites they want to serve their advertising on, but it's not advantageous for them to do that anyway. In the end, they aren't teaching you a lesson, because that ad space will be filled by someone else, whoever happens to be next in line. All you need to do is copy pasta some code onto your site and you're off and running. Even sites getting millions of hits daily like this one, like Gamespot, like probably 90% of sites, are using third parties to serve their advertising.
Again, if we were to get rid of all the scores from 0-4, which are completely and utterly non-objective, the score would rise significantly. Saying that users are scoring it at 7-8 is inaccurate because that's an average which includes scores that are completely and entirely uneducated and/or intentionally low. So, now are we arguing about the difference between a 7.6 game and a 9.4 game? Or are we arguing the difference between a 9.0 and a 9.4 game?
If we got rid of all the 0-4 scores and all the 10 scores because lets be honest here the 10 is absurd as well.
So there's a group of people who agree with the critics so they claim their scores are more accurate. Then people who agree with the player scores so they are more accurate. Yet the people who believe the critic scores for Overwatch won't believe the critic scores for Warcraft movie. But the people who believe the user scores of Overwatch will also believe the user scores of the Warcraft movie. One group believes the critics when it suits their opinion. The other group believes the user scores because they portray the actual gaming population.
I am one of those people. Again, there is good, empirical data that supports that. First the difference in scores of the top 100 moves of all time averages out to be over 13% which is over 160% the difference as compared with video games. Still, it's only 13%. Not that big a difference. However, the number of films where the difference was greater than 20% difference (20/100 difference) was 18 versus 7 for video games.
Now that's not suggesting that there is wrong-doing, specifically. However, it would suggest that the gaming populous is more educated on the rating process and metrics. We understand things like graphics, gameplay, longevity are things that are taken into consideration. I can't really speak of one objective measure, that I'm aware of, for movies. So I think it's this whole nebulous, subjective grey area. On top of that, I feel like movie critics measure everything with the same yardstick, and that's what I feel many critics do. I saw one critic on RottenTomatoes put it best (and he actually liked it), that he would go see it again, but would "happily go on again, preferably as a double feature with The Beastmaster, Legend or Ladyhawke." That shows the context for how it's being graded.
Overall, there is definitely a difference in how movies are rated versus games. What that difference is, I don't know. Is it an education thing for users? Is it a contextual thing for critics? Who knows? The difference is there and it's significant (like double).
The movie and gaming industry critics have completely different mindsets. The movie critic gets nothing for his opinion and usually gets more recognition for giving a negative review, the publisher he is working for gets nothing out of it other then news. The gaming critic wants that particular game to advertise on their website. If the game has already paid for advertising then it makes even worse. Tell me you running a website and Overwatch is paying you for advertising space are you going to give it a low score? You will never give anything a low score especially if they are paying for advertising. You want them to pay for all future games they put out as well. You look and all the players are saying Overwatch is between 7-8. You got critics calling it between 9-10. You have to look at their motive. Gamestop is going to say Overwatch is a 10 because they want to sell the game. Someone who isn't trying to get blizzard to advertise will give it a more real score.
Yeah, but the overall difference between user scores and critic scores across ALL games from 2015 as 4.5%. You can't tell me that represents critics inflating numbers to increase their own site sales. If that was the case then you'd have consistently higher scores.
Also, sites are generally using third party advertising companies, not selling directly to the company. SURE!! Publishers MAY have the ability to exclude you from sites they want to serve their advertising on, but it's not advantageous for them to do that anyway. In the end, they aren't teaching you a lesson, because that ad space will be filled by someone else, whoever happens to be next in line. All you need to do is copy pasta some code onto your site and you're off and running. Even sites getting millions of hits daily like this one, like Gamespot, like probably 90% of sites, are using third parties to serve their advertising.
Again, if we were to get rid of all the scores from 0-4, which are completely and utterly non-objective, the score would rise significantly. Saying that users are scoring it at 7-8 is inaccurate because that's an average which includes scores that are completely and entirely uneducated and/or intentionally low. So, now are we arguing about the difference between a 7.6 game and a 9.4 game? Or are we arguing the difference between a 9.0 and a 9.4 game?
If we got rid of all the 0-4 scores and all the 10 scores because lets be honest here the 10 is absurd as well.
Idk fil... For what it does, I've never played anything better. For me the game hit a real sweet spot.
I'd be careful making the argument that any score of 4 or less is utterly dishonest.
It's a slippery slope to advocate the leeway of subjectivity and then, wholesale, dismiss reviews that pull the average in a direction inconsistent with critical review.
I read snippets from a couple 2/10 scores that leveled very valid complaints against the game. Worthy enough of a 2? Well, if we advocate the subjectivity argument, and they have included valid complaints in their review... How do you, then, tell them their rating is invalid? Why draw the line at 4? Can someone not, subjectively (again, if we advocate the subjectivity argument as a whole), find a particular game violates their particular definition of a fun video game, even if many more enjoy it? Why draw the line at 4/10?
The duality between the more objective, professional reviews, balanced on the other end by the wholly subjective experiences of players, seems to me a check and balance that will work best in informing players.
This is one of the reasons I like the steam user reviews: the account lists the hours the person has played right in front of you, helping you form a more complete opinion of the reviews you're reading. It also lists the metacritic critical review average and the number of user reviews Steam has received for each title.
I definitely think it's a more complete system and a good balance to the professional reviews.
That reference is contextually-specific to Overwatch. I'm not claiming that someone may not find Overwatch fun. I'm saying that it would be difficult to objectively argue that Overwatch is a 4/10. That's the whole thing that spun this into an argument is that there were claims that review websites were "shills" because they were ranking it higher, with some 10/10 reviews. I'm simply making the argument that there are an equal number of, whatever you'd call, negative shills the other way. It's, objectively, impossible (yes, I said it's impossible) that someone ranking the game objectively could rank it as a 4/10. Sorry, just how it is.
I mean in all of 2015, there were a total of 3 games out of 300 which critics ranked below 4. Go read those reviews and see what an objective ranking of 4/10 looks like.
Right now they are at 31 people who gave it between 0-2 rating and 150 people giving it a 10. Yea those numbers aren't skewed at all there. Heck even LOL and DOTA2 don't deserve a perfect 10. Yet look at the critic score for LOL is a measly 78 with users calling it a 5.5. The most played online game on the planet right now. Then you look at DOTA2 they give it a 90 and the players give it a 6.2 and it is the second or third most played game. Somehow it was able to pull in higher numbers on ratings but actual players vote by playing the game. Counterstrike gets a 83 user score is 7.8 and its the second most played game on the planet.
Right now they are at 31 people who gave it between 0-2 rating and 150 people giving it a 10. Yea those numbers aren't skewed at all there. Heck even LOL and DOTA2 don't deserve a perfect 10. Yet look at the critic score for LOL is a measly 78 with users calling it a 5.5. The most played online game on the planet right now. Then you look at DOTA2 they give it a 90 and the players give it a 6.2 and it is the second or third most played game. Somehow it was able to pull in higher numbers on ratings but actual players vote by playing the game. Counterstrike gets a 83 user score is 7.8 and its the second most played game on the planet.
Actually, there is 312 "ratings" in the 0-4 range because the red is where 4 stops and 5 starts in the yellow. There are definitely fewer actual reviews of the game in the red, but the number of ratings that are 0-4 is 312.
I wish we could see the number of ratings of 10. I can't disagree, though, there are groups of people who will vote 0 or vote 10 thinking that they are evening things out or doing the industry some sort of service. In actuality they're just muddying the waters and making it more difficult to determine what's accurate and what isn't. So then we need to refer back to these critics as the most objective source. It essentially destroys any value that Metacritic set out to create.
Right now they are at 31 people who gave it between 0-2 rating and 150 people giving it a 10. Yea those numbers aren't skewed at all there. Heck even LOL and DOTA2 don't deserve a perfect 10. Yet look at the critic score for LOL is a measly 78 with users calling it a 5.5. The most played online game on the planet right now. Then you look at DOTA2 they give it a 90 and the players give it a 6.2 and it is the second or third most played game. Somehow it was able to pull in higher numbers on ratings but actual players vote by playing the game. Counterstrike gets a 83 user score is 7.8 and its the second most played game on the planet.
Actually, there is 312 "ratings" in the 0-4 range because the red is where 4 stops and 5 starts in the yellow. There are definitely fewer actual reviews of the game in the red, but the number of ratings that are 0-4 is 312.
I wish we could see the number of ratings of 10. I can't disagree, though, there are groups of people who will vote 0 or vote 10 thinking that they are evening things out or doing the industry some sort of service. In actuality they're just muddying the waters and making it more difficult to determine what's accurate and what isn't. So then we need to refer back to these critics as the most objective source. It essentially destroys any value that Metacritic set out to create.
You can see that just count them. I did and it was 150 who gave it a 10. Which is more then League of Legends and Counterstrike already. And half as many as DOTA2. That is 10% giving it a perfect score. I did say 0-2 up there because you cant just throw out all of the bads.
Right now they are at 31 people who gave it between 0-2 rating and 150 people giving it a 10. Yea those numbers aren't skewed at all there. Heck even LOL and DOTA2 don't deserve a perfect 10. Yet look at the critic score for LOL is a measly 78 with users calling it a 5.5. The most played online game on the planet right now. Then you look at DOTA2 they give it a 90 and the players give it a 6.2 and it is the second or third most played game. Somehow it was able to pull in higher numbers on ratings but actual players vote by playing the game. Counterstrike gets a 83 user score is 7.8 and its the second most played game on the planet.
Actually, there is 312 "ratings" in the 0-4 range because the red is where 4 stops and 5 starts in the yellow. There are definitely fewer actual reviews of the game in the red, but the number of ratings that are 0-4 is 312.
I wish we could see the number of ratings of 10. I can't disagree, though, there are groups of people who will vote 0 or vote 10 thinking that they are evening things out or doing the industry some sort of service. In actuality they're just muddying the waters and making it more difficult to determine what's accurate and what isn't. So then we need to refer back to these critics as the most objective source. It essentially destroys any value that Metacritic set out to create.
You can see that just count them. I did and it was 150 who gave it a 10. Which is more then League of Legends and Counterstrike already. And half as many as DOTA2. That is 10% giving it a perfect score. I did say 0-2 up there because you cant just throw out all of the bads.
Yeah, and right now 10% being perfect scores isn't outlandish. In fact, I'm still waiting for critics scores to align with that. Remember that it started out at 98 and it's now down to 93. So I feel like there's a process of normalization that needs to happen. That being said, I don't know if you'll see it go below mid to high 80s. It might not even go below 90.
Right now they are at 31 people who gave it between 0-2 rating and 150 people giving it a 10. Yea those numbers aren't skewed at all there. Heck even LOL and DOTA2 don't deserve a perfect 10. Yet look at the critic score for LOL is a measly 78 with users calling it a 5.5. The most played online game on the planet right now. Then you look at DOTA2 they give it a 90 and the players give it a 6.2 and it is the second or third most played game. Somehow it was able to pull in higher numbers on ratings but actual players vote by playing the game. Counterstrike gets a 83 user score is 7.8 and its the second most played game on the planet.
Actually, there is 312 "ratings" in the 0-4 range because the red is where 4 stops and 5 starts in the yellow. There are definitely fewer actual reviews of the game in the red, but the number of ratings that are 0-4 is 312.
I wish we could see the number of ratings of 10. I can't disagree, though, there are groups of people who will vote 0 or vote 10 thinking that they are evening things out or doing the industry some sort of service. In actuality they're just muddying the waters and making it more difficult to determine what's accurate and what isn't. So then we need to refer back to these critics as the most objective source. It essentially destroys any value that Metacritic set out to create.
You can see that just count them. I did and it was 150 who gave it a 10. Which is more then League of Legends and Counterstrike already. And half as many as DOTA2. That is 10% giving it a perfect score. I did say 0-2 up there because you cant just throw out all of the bads.
Yeah, and right now 10% being perfect scores isn't outlandish. In fact, I'm still waiting for critics scores to align with that. Remember that it started out at 98 and it's now down to 93. So I feel like there's a process of normalization that needs to happen. That being said, I don't know if you'll see it go below mid to high 80s. It might not even go below 90.
Still not a single "professional" critic under 80%.
And when you read the texts of the "users" who gave it low ratings (5 or less), you feel like you're reading something written by morons escaped from the nearest mental hospital. Mostly written by retards who didn't read what the game would be: "ZOMG THERE'S NO STORY MODE: 2/10! Blizzard used its name so sell incomplete crap!!!" - "Yeah dumbass, that's how the game has always been advertised, Blizzard never lied to the customers."
And don't get me started on those who complain about the 100% cosmetic micro transactions, which you can all gain in game without spending a cent.
Just like popular movies (Avatar comes to my mind), it's also "kewl" in some circles to hate Blizzard.
I wonder do you support the critic's views on Warcraft movie? They are spot on when it comes to overwatch but very messed up when it comes to Warcraft Movie. I'm not buying that theory.
Hmm, odd all this talk about some stupid critics giving a score to a game, good or bad. Who the F cares. I like the game , would give it a 10 easy, and don t care if anyone, yes anyone on the internet gives it a 0 or a 10. Why does this matter so much, lol.
Hmm, odd all this talk about some stupid critics giving a score to a game, good or bad. Who the F cares. I like the game , would give it a 10 easy, and don t care if anyone, yes anyone on the internet gives it a 0 or a 10. Why does this matter so much, lol.
At the time I started the thread, I was feeling ranty, had experience with the game (it was exactly what I expected going into it: a solid, but not very memorable, game), and hoped it would spark some good discussion on professional reviews. It has served that purpose well, which is what I feel these forums are for!
Your opinion that it doesn't matter is as valid as any other here, btw, so don't take this as me trying to devalue your post!
Hmm, odd all this talk about some stupid critics giving a score to a game, good or bad. Who the F cares. I like the game , would give it a 10 easy, and don t care if anyone, yes anyone on the internet gives it a 0 or a 10. Why does this matter so much, lol.
At the time I started the thread, I was feeling ranty, had experience with the game (it was exactly what I expected going into it: a solid, but not very memorable, game), and hoped it would spark some good discussion on professional reviews. It has served that purpose well, which is what I feel these forums are for!
Your opinion that it doesn't matter is as valid as any other here, btw, so don't take this as me trying to devalue your post!
You made the big mistake to forget perspective. You tried to make your opinion be a fact. Now you are trying to make us forget that part. But we don't
I feel like my opinion was clearly labeled as such (I even included /endrant in my OP to ensure readers knew it was a rant).
I gave my opinion on the 10s, and my supporting evidence for forming that opinion. I didn't, over and over, preface my posts with, "and this is just my opinion, but..." because that's both cumbersome and unnecessary (I felt).
Comments
I understand the bane and boon system you mentuon, and I think it's a good system. I guess I'm just a hard advocate for not allowing the same companies to make the same mistakes in successive releases without increasingly penalizing a score of their product for them doing so. They failed to improve what was already cited as a weakness of their prior multiplayer game. It would seem logical, to me, to hold them accountable for that in any review.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
First of all, do you REALLY think that these sites are worried about not getting a review copy. If anything they're probably like "PLEASE!!! Please don't give me a review copy." That sort of action by a publisher is probably more newsworthy than their review anyway and would be MASSIVE click bait. So, in actuality, if there is blackballing going on, then that can actually work to the advantage of the reviewers site. Also, even if this is just speculative, that reviewer will gain additional credibility with visitors because they can spin the story in their favor. That means a decrease in launch day profits for publishers because some will wait for the "honest" reviewer to weigh in before purchasing.
Scores of all-time games is relevant. It's not about you deciding whether to buy Civ3 and Civ6, it's about the process and acknowledging that the difference in scores between the critics, as a collective, and the users is marginal. ACTUALLY, because I'm a data geek I crunched the numbers and the average amount of difference is 8.8% which amounts to 9 points on a hundred-point scale. On top of that, there were 7 games out of 100 where the difference in score between critics and users was greater than 20%. If we were to remove those anomalies, then the average difference is down to 7%. Over 100 games, the difference between the critic scores and users scores is a mere 9%. All that proves is that the process is generally correct. If you want to argue amount 1 point here or there, I don't think it's going to make a whole hell of a lot of difference.
Additionally, Overwatch was just released and more reviews are bound to come in and it's entirely likely that that score will level off as it would require a 10/10 in order to maintain or increase it's average at this point. Anything 9 or below will decrease it.
Anyway, anyone can take one case and argue that it may be invalid for any number of reasons, but when you take a larger sampling and compare the base process, that's where you will find whether your argument has any weight or not, and saying that critics are "shills" is just bullshit, sorry. There may be cases of corruption, but generally speaking that's not the case. Same goes for users, there are plenty of shills and there are plenty of haters, but the numbers end up balancing themselves out in the end. Less then 10% difference. I'd be willing to bet if you removed the 0-4 rated reviews which are, OBJECTIVELY speaking, undoubtedly less objective than the critics reviews, you would likely see a user score much more in-line with the critic score. I would go as far as to guarantee it, but I'm not willing to collect the data.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
As for your opening question... as a concept I trust the professional, professional implies an ability to judge based on quality rather than preference. In practice that is not always the case, due to a lot of differing factors (we all know of those factors).
As a general rule though, I do not trust player reviews at all... Too many factors and no responsibility to be fair or honest, not to mention no consequence for carrying out an agenda. There are just too many folks who manipulate the process for self serving reasons.
At least for professionals too much of that will have a detrimental effect on a site or reviewer. They're taking a real risk in acting as shills for money.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I am one of those people. Again, there is good, empirical data that supports that. First the difference in scores of the top 100 moves of all time averages out to be over 13% which is over 160% the difference as compared with video games. Still, it's only 13%. Not that big a difference. However, the number of films where the difference was greater than 20% difference (20/100 difference) was 18 versus 7 for video games.
Now that's not suggesting that there is wrong-doing, specifically. However, it would suggest that the gaming populous is more educated on the rating process and metrics. We understand things like graphics, gameplay, longevity are things that are taken into consideration. I can't really speak of one objective measure, that I'm aware of, for movies. So I think it's this whole nebulous, subjective grey area. On top of that, I feel like movie critics measure everything with the same yardstick, and that's what I feel many critics do. I saw one critic on RottenTomatoes put it best (and he actually liked it), that he would go see it again, but would "happily go on again, preferably as a double feature with The Beastmaster, Legend or Ladyhawke." That shows the context for how it's being graded.
Overall, there is definitely a difference in how movies are rated versus games. What that difference is, I don't know. Is it an education thing for users? Is it a contextual thing for critics? Who knows? The difference is there and it's significant (like double).
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Actually, DOTA2, NHL 2001, WoW: Cata, Fez, Tiger Woods 2005, Tiger Woods 2003, Out of the Park Baseball 2017
I don't think that the disparity comes as games which are very polarizing. It's the love/hate thing. Actually, if we take a look at all games rated in 2015 (all 320 of them) the average difference between critics and users is a measly 4.5% or 5 points on 100.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Yeah, but the overall difference between user scores and critic scores across ALL games from 2015 as 4.5%. You can't tell me that represents critics inflating numbers to increase their own site sales. If that was the case then you'd have consistently higher scores.
Also, sites are generally using third party advertising companies, not selling directly to the company. SURE!! Publishers MAY have the ability to exclude you from sites they want to serve their advertising on, but it's not advantageous for them to do that anyway. In the end, they aren't teaching you a lesson, because that ad space will be filled by someone else, whoever happens to be next in line. All you need to do is copy pasta some code onto your site and you're off and running. Even sites getting millions of hits daily like this one, like Gamespot, like probably 90% of sites, are using third parties to serve their advertising.
Again, if we were to get rid of all the scores from 0-4, which are completely and utterly non-objective, the score would rise significantly. Saying that users are scoring it at 7-8 is inaccurate because that's an average which includes scores that are completely and entirely uneducated and/or intentionally low. So, now are we arguing about the difference between a 7.6 game and a 9.4 game? Or are we arguing the difference between a 9.0 and a 9.4 game?
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
It's a slippery slope to advocate the leeway of subjectivity and then, wholesale, dismiss reviews that pull the average in a direction inconsistent with critical review.
I read snippets from a couple 2/10 scores that leveled very valid complaints against the game. Worthy enough of a 2? Well, if we advocate the subjectivity argument, and they have included valid complaints in their review... How do you, then, tell them their rating is invalid? Why draw the line at 4? Can someone not, subjectively (again, if we advocate the subjectivity argument as a whole), find a particular game violates their particular definition of a fun video game, even if many more enjoy it? Why draw the line at 4/10?
The duality between the more objective, professional reviews, balanced on the other end by the wholly subjective experiences of players, seems to me a check and balance that will work best in informing players.
This is one of the reasons I like the steam user reviews: the account lists the hours the person has played right in front of you, helping you form a more complete opinion of the reviews you're reading. It also lists the metacritic critical review average and the number of user reviews Steam has received for each title.
I definitely think it's a more complete system and a good balance to the professional reviews.
That reference is contextually-specific to Overwatch. I'm not claiming that someone may not find Overwatch fun. I'm saying that it would be difficult to objectively argue that Overwatch is a 4/10. That's the whole thing that spun this into an argument is that there were claims that review websites were "shills" because they were ranking it higher, with some 10/10 reviews. I'm simply making the argument that there are an equal number of, whatever you'd call, negative shills the other way. It's, objectively, impossible (yes, I said it's impossible) that someone ranking the game objectively could rank it as a 4/10. Sorry, just how it is.
I mean in all of 2015, there were a total of 3 games out of 300 which critics ranked below 4. Go read those reviews and see what an objective ranking of 4/10 looks like.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Actually, there is 312 "ratings" in the 0-4 range because the red is where 4 stops and 5 starts in the yellow. There are definitely fewer actual reviews of the game in the red, but the number of ratings that are 0-4 is 312.
I wish we could see the number of ratings of 10. I can't disagree, though, there are groups of people who will vote 0 or vote 10 thinking that they are evening things out or doing the industry some sort of service. In actuality they're just muddying the waters and making it more difficult to determine what's accurate and what isn't. So then we need to refer back to these critics as the most objective source. It essentially destroys any value that Metacritic set out to create.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Yeah, and right now 10% being perfect scores isn't outlandish. In fact, I'm still waiting for critics scores to align with that. Remember that it started out at 98 and it's now down to 93. So I feel like there's a process of normalization that needs to happen. That being said, I don't know if you'll see it go below mid to high 80s. It might not even go below 90.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Your opinion that it doesn't matter is as valid as any other here, btw, so don't take this as me trying to devalue your post!
I gave my opinion on the 10s, and my supporting evidence for forming that opinion. I didn't, over and over, preface my posts with, "and this is just my opinion, but..." because that's both cumbersome and unnecessary (I felt).