I rarely get to go see movies, anymore. But when I do, if there isn't a single flick that I've been dying to catch, I'll dig into Yahoo Movies to shop for a potential destination. The combination of the critical and public reviews can offer me a really dynamic look into how I will receive any given movie. If the critics rate it high while the public rates it low, I tend to think it will be a cerebral experience without much flash. If the critical reviews are low and the public high, then I think it's going to offer me something flashy, something colloquial, or something that taps into a pop culture fad. If both are low, I don't really give it time, but if both are high, then I know I'm going to end up with something to appeal to almost anyone.
Metacritic, as twisted as its results might be, offers a similar service to the uninformed. Whenever I'm stocking my Amazon wish list with games, I'll sometimes go there to see if there is some gem I missed. I will often rank a platform's top results to ensure I've at least pondered playing the best of each category. They get a lot of flack for what ends up as their final score, but there's a reason that number was feature prominently in the Steam Store for so long. Large collections of reviewers do provide a much more honest opportunity at an objective rating... Science says so!
But if you seek a complex understanding of a game's worth, you'll do yourself a great disservice to only pay attention to just the final number. You really learn the most when you create an array of potential review criteria. You can skim over the the bullet reviews and look for similar complaints. Reviewers can arbitrarily rate a game poorly because of playability, GUI, theme, or planet in retrograde, so a collection of identical reactions will let you know you are likely to encounter the same issues. Look to see if credible review sources universally praised or universally hated a particular game. If IGN, Game Informer, and a host of other A-list sources find a particular product repugnant, you're far more likely to hate it. By considering more than one axis of quality, you end up with a more elaborate understanding of what is good or bad about a given game.
Considering how much thought I put into shopping for my entertainment, I was surprised at how confused I was left by the reviews of Transformers: War for Cybertron. With remarkably different gripes, from theme to playability, the bullet reviews were conflicted. The traditional players were split as well, with IGN and 1up scoring high while Giant Bomb and Gamespot hitting the low end. Lastly, the Critic Score was dramatically different from the User Score, with the Users giving it a 9, while the critics gave it a 77. I found little to no way for anyone to actually glean solid information for this game... and that left me confused.
And to be honest, I think the game is a helluva lotta fun.
To rationalize all this, I'm left with the concept that maybe the critics were unable to escape the gravity of their status as reviewer. Maybe they were unable to suspend their disbelief and step into the world that Transformers offered. Maybe the fact that they were trying to break the game into manageable discussion topics actually fractured the "wholeness" required for a good gameplay experience. But why this game? What is a clear trait of this game that makes it seem to ground some and not others? And more generally, is there something "critic-y" that must be overcome for particular games that is not present for the enjoyment of games in general?
All I know is that for cases like this, I need a more hands-on analysis. And in this case, I'm glad I got it.
Wes Wilson
I think that there is a fanbase that buys the Transformers game(s). Thats is why the user score is higher.
On Call of Duty: Modern Warefare 2, the PC version, has the opposite balance in score. Metascore - 86. User score - 3.5
My guess is that it didnt live up to the enormous expectations for the game, mixed with the lack of dedicated servers. This does not effect the reviewers who play the game for a week, tops, but regular players notice this much more and therefore gives the game a worse review than then professional ones.
-Breig
I think the main reason why the Metascore is significantly higher than the User scores is because as soon as the game is released, the reviewers are all over it and want to write a review as fast as they can. Most reviewers will review the game and never play it again (that is unless they enjoy it). For the users, we like to savor the game before giving it a rating.
I'll use the same example that Breig did with Modern Warfare 2 on the PC. When I first bought the game a week after it was released, I was having a lot of fun with it. I would've given it a 9/10. But now, almost a year after it was released, MW2 is probably the most frustrating game I've ever played (I've played over 10 days on MW2 PC). I would probably give it a 5 or a 6. It usually takes a lot of time to play a game until you start to realize it's bugs, balance issues and more.
Another factor that would explain this is the hype over a game. MW2 was one of the most anticipated games ever, being the sequel to Call of Duty 4 which was a fantastic FPS. This created all this hype over MW2, making fans believe that MW2 would be the best game ever created. Upon release and playing the game for a period of time, players started to realize it wasn't that good of a game, because of it's balance issues.
Games made from developers that have never been heard of before will usually give it a better score and be less picky on it, while games coming from huge developers like Blizzard, Infinity Ward, Valve and etc. will most likely be compared to their previous games (an example would be comparing HL2 with HL2:EP1), therefore giving it a tougher review.
I haven't actually played Transformers: War for Cybertron. I have noticed that i tend to no longer trust review sites or critics in general for there reviews of a game. Like anything else i do i tend to go by word of mouth. If a few people tell me that it's good i will buy it, if not then then i may rent it to see if i like it, but i won't shell out fifty bucks for it.
If i do go on a review site i tend to look at comments over the actual articles and user reviews over the critics review.
Everyone has a different taste for video game. I was shock to see Monster Hunter Freedom United to get just a above avg score at gamespot but I enjoy the hell out of the game and have played it everyday sinces it release last year.The best critic is yourself.
I don't know much about this kind of stuff, I just like the phrase "helluva lotta"!
I know if I won't a game or not. Normally, I get this either from buying from a trusted developer (ie. Valve) or playing the demo (ie. Just Cause 2). Also, I'll look into buying a game if a lot of my friends (both in real-life and online) recommend it (ie. Mass Effect). Often after deciding I'll buy the game, I'll look on Metacritic to see what the games flaws and strengths are. Because I've played the demo, I know what the game is like, so I'm not going to buy/look at the review and waste my time. I already know why the game is bad, why do I need a third-party to tell me that? I'll take Just Cause 2 as an example. I saw the demo on Steam and played it. I had a lot of fun, just playing this demo. Then, my friends told me how great it was. They did a much better job of persuading me to buy it than reviewers did. I'm glad I listened to my friends, because JC2 is possibly the best sandbox ever.
I think I'm done now. Sorry for the excessive use of brackets.
Numbers cannot say whether a game is good or not. A game's quality is best figured on your own. A good way to decide whether to try a game out or not is to ask around and look for comments on the game. I tend to not trust ratings based on numbers anymore. Games that I thought to be great games weren't given great scores, and vice versa.
Even critics have opinions, and I won't judge a game on it's score alone.
I find it interesting that there has been such a strong debate over the use of numbers and "final scores" in game reviews, but not movie reviews. In fact, almost all movie reviews are draped in some number (.77, 4 out of 5, etc).
It may be that video games provide a innately different experience than movies due to their interactive nature. Each gamer experiences a game uniquely, especially with titles such as Heavy Rain.
The reason why review scores have been debated more for video games may also be due to the audience: tech-savvy internet users. Us residents of these webbernets are prone to argument and debate, so it may have been inevitable that some of us would find fallacy in the system.