Do you trust the MetaCritic scores?

[thespyder]

The point where you are actually taking the score as the sum total of the review is where you should have a problem. personally, I might glance at the score, but I take my review from what is said in the content of the reviews. And i make sure that I read multiple reviews from multiple sources.

Problem is this. A score is subjective in nature and subject to things like endorsements and Fanboisim (both positive and negative). However, people will always write about aspects of the game that they find memorable. So if you want certain elements in the game, look for people writing about those elements. Not necessarily the tone with which they write, but the content. if you see a lot of elements that you want in that type of game, and very few elements that you don't that is your acid test.

But to look at a static 1-100 rating, you could have a lot of people who subjectively rate, and for reasons other than actual content or game play/elements.

 

[SlitheryDee]

It helps if you read the individual reviews to see if they are basing their score on things you care about. I'll usually read a couple of the high score reviews, a couple of the bottom score reviews, and a couple in between. Sometimes you'll discover some interesting discrepancies between reviewers, like a low scorer complaining about the controls, while middle and high scorers call them adequate.

It's bit harder than just basing your decision on the metacritic composite score, but it's the only way I've found to really get to the bottom of things.

 

[Red Storm]

I don't rely on user/critic review scores at all. Then again, I really only buy games that I know I will enjoy.

 

[thespyder]

I don't rely on user/critic review scores at all. Then again, I really only buy games that I know I will enjoy.

I am kind of curious as to how you pull that off. Either you don't play very many games, or you test drive each game before you play?

I "Knew" I was going to enjoy Dragon Age 2. Only I hated it. And even games that I played the demo for, or at a friend's house, didn't guarantee that I wasn't disappointed on some level with the game.

So, just curious how you manage the perfect record you indicate.

 

[frozentundra123456]

well duh if you want to play skyrim yeah, you have to play skyrim, which involves following pretty much the storyline. sidequests are cool but spending hours making potions to sell to a merchant (even after you maxed out alchemy) just to play pretend that you're an alchemist instead of the dovahkin is silly. much like playing GTA but only doing taxi missions and pretend you're a taxi driver because "it's your game, you can do whatever you want with it"

i'm not mad that to finish the main plot, i have to finish the plot. i'm mad that if i sit down to PLAY SKYRIM i.e. trying the main plot, doing side quests when i run into them, trying to find the way to shrines, and enjoying the game in general, the things i have to do are so stupidly easy and broken (i'm not talking about enchanting; i'm talking combat) that the whole game becomes pointless.

Skyrim is not *hard* in any possible way, so it presents no challenge whatsoever. There's practically no way to lose. Prey had the same defect, you could simply not lose in that game (but at least prey had some great visuals and writing).

I'v played about 80 hours of skyrim, with mods an all, but it's simply too annoying in its defects to play it any longer and with hindsight, i wouldn't even bother anymore.

This even without expressing any "personal" opinions (i can come to your house, play a new game of skyrim, hit level 2, grab basic equipment, and own the daedras on the shrine of meherunes dragon, so if i can prove it to you, it's more fact than personal opinion), which i have plenty of.

Hey i even finished ME3 while thinking it's a shadow of ME1, but skyrim has some choices which are horrible. No classes?? So i'm a orc berserker who casts fireballs, summons daedra, assassinates people from hiding while wearing crafted and enchanted heavy daedric armour and double wields, makes his own custom potions, picks locks and pockets, LOL who ever thought a berserker double wielder archmage/fighter/thief whith every trade skill in the world was a good idea needs to go read a dungeon master's guide 1ed.

Or maybe we think that Gary Gygax was full of crap.

The point here isn't if people enjoy the virtual world and ignore the game; you can buy a WoW subscription and just enjoy chatting with people but you're more playing "with" the game rather than playing the game. If you buy a racing bike, head to the track and spend the day taking photos of the scenery, i wouldn't say you've "been racing". I'm not trying to nazi you out of your enjoyment, i *am* however pointing out that the "racing" is shit. And for so many people quoting Skyrim as the GOTY and whatnot, i feel i need to tell you that either you've been playing another game, or you've not been playing at all. Which is fine by me. Go ahead and do all the taxi missions you want, just plz don't say you're playing Skyrim, tell it like it is and say that you're just mucking about with Medieval Barbie Dressup and i promise you a won't call you a big girlie man.

omg why do my skyrim posts always wind up so long; short version: i'm one of those 6% people who think skyrim is bad. take it or leave it.

I am one of the majority who thinks it is a great game. If you dont like it, you are entitled to your opinion. Then play something else or read a book or go jogging.

I dont think it is necessary to try so hard to criticize a game that was generally well received though.

 

[thespyder]

well duh if you want to play skyrim yeah, you have to play skyrim, which involves following pretty much the storyline. sidequests are cool but spending hours making potions to sell to a merchant (even after you maxed out alchemy) just to play pretend that you're an alchemist instead of the dovahkin is silly. much like playing GTA but only doing taxi missions and pretend you're a taxi driver because "it's your game, you can do whatever you want with it"

i'm not mad that to finish the main plot, i have to finish the plot. i'm mad that if i sit down to PLAY SKYRIM i.e. trying the main plot, doing side quests when i run into them, trying to find the way to shrines, and enjoying the game in general, the things i have to do are so stupidly easy and broken (i'm not talking about enchanting; i'm talking combat) that the whole game becomes pointless.

Skyrim is not *hard* in any possible way, so it presents no challenge whatsoever. There's practically no way to lose. Prey had the same defect, you could simply not lose in that game (but at least prey had some great visuals and writing).

I'v played about 80 hours of skyrim, with mods an all, but it's simply too annoying in its defects to play it any longer and with hindsight, i wouldn't even bother anymore.

This even without expressing any "personal" opinions (i can come to your house, play a new game of skyrim, hit level 2, grab basic equipment, and own the daedras on the shrine of meherunes dragon, so if i can prove it to you, it's more fact than personal opinion), which i have plenty of.

Hey i even finished ME3 while thinking it's a shadow of ME1, but skyrim has some choices which are horrible. No classes?? So i'm a orc berserker who casts fireballs, summons daedra, assassinates people from hiding while wearing crafted and enchanted heavy daedric armour and double wields, makes his own custom potions, picks locks and pockets, LOL who ever thought a berserker double wielder archmage/fighter/thief whith every trade skill in the world was a good idea needs to go read a dungeon master's guide 1ed.

Or maybe we think that Gary Gygax was full of crap.

The point here isn't if people enjoy the virtual world and ignore the game; you can buy a WoW subscription and just enjoy chatting with people but you're more playing "with" the game rather than playing the game. If you buy a racing bike, head to the track and spend the day taking photos of the scenery, i wouldn't say you've "been racing". I'm not trying to nazi you out of your enjoyment, i *am* however pointing out that the "racing" is shit. And for so many people quoting Skyrim as the GOTY and whatnot, i feel i need to tell you that either you've been playing another game, or you've not been playing at all. Which is fine by me. Go ahead and do all the taxi missions you want, just plz don't say you're playing Skyrim, tell it like it is and say that you're just mucking about with Medieval Barbie Dressup and i promise you a won't call you a big girlie man.

omg why do my skyrim posts always wind up so long; short version: i'm one of those 6% people who think skyrim is bad. take it or leave it.

With respect, this entire post (and the other one where you were hating on Skyrim) is all "Personal opinions".

I get that you don't like the style of game play that Skyrim offers. I happen to agree with some of what you said (like how EVERYONE and their grandmother can cast magic spells, thus cheapening Wizardry) and how the combat tends to be chunky and clunky at times.

But I honestly believe that the vast majority of your beefs against Skyrim are not objective flaws in the game design, but different developmental choices than you would have liked to see or make.

I personally am an old school D&Der. I even Met Both Gary and Frank. They had one idea about what an adventure game should be. Skyrim is a different type of game, pure and simple. But different doesn't "Necessarily" mean bad.

For me, Skyrim isn't about the main quest. it isn't about accomplishing something. it is about wandering around in this big world and exploring. I had a DM back in the day who would make really expansive areas for us to explore and we could wander off track any time we wanted. But I also had a different DM who made very focused adventures where everything lead to the next nexus point of the adventure. They are different styles of play, but still all Role (not Roll) playing.

As for the skills thing, I (being a HUGE D&D fan) actually appreciate this system better than the one Gary and Frank (and others) came up with. It never made any sense to me that I could go through my entire career as a rogue, never once picking a lock, yet advancing in levels and abilities in that skill. The TES system actually resolves that issue. And the fact that characters aren't pigeon holed into a given profession, just makes more sense to me.

And as for the scope (size) of the world, the fact that you can walk across it in an afternoon was done simply because no one wants 'Actual Size' worlds. Very few people have that kind of time to invest days of merely walking just to get to the next action (which is what it would be if the world were larger).

On the other hand, Skyrim definitely suffers from having been made specifically to fit into a console format (consolization). The combat is a bit clunky as well. And the magic system is borked to make weapon combat far superior. So it isn't perfect, but ... I think it is more that it (and fallout) are less your type of game, than that they are Bad games.

 

[diesbudt]

With respect, this entire post (and the other one where you were hating on Skyrim) is all "Personal opinions".

I get that you don't like the style of game play that Skyrim offers. I happen to agree with some of what you said (like how EVERYONE and their grandmother can cast magic spells, thus cheapening Wizardry) and how the combat tends to be chunky and clunky at times.

But I honestly believe that the vast majority of your beefs against Skyrim are not objective flaws in the game design, but different developmental choices than you would have liked to see or make.

I personally am an old school D&Der. I even Met Both Gary and Frank. They had one idea about what an adventure game should be. Skyrim is a different type of game, pure and simple. But different doesn't "Necessarily" mean bad.

For me, Skyrim isn't about the main quest. it isn't about accomplishing something. it is about wandering around in this big world and exploring. I had a DM back in the day who would make really expansive areas for us to explore and we could wander off track any time we wanted. But I also had a different DM who made very focused adventures where everything lead to the next nexus point of the adventure. They are different styles of play, but still all Role (not Roll) playing.

As for the skills thing, I (being a HUGE D&D fan) actually appreciate this system better than the one Gary and Frank (and others) came up with. It never made any sense to me that I could go through my entire career as a rogue, never once picking a lock, yet advancing in levels and abilities in that skill. The TES system actually resolves that issue. And the fact that characters aren't pigeon holed into a given profession, just makes more sense to me.

And as for the scope (size) of the world, the fact that you can walk across it in an afternoon was done simply because no one wants 'Actual Size' worlds. Very few people have that kind of time to invest days of merely walking just to get to the next action (which is what it would be if the world were larger).

On the other hand, Skyrim definitely suffers from having been made specifically to fit into a console format (consolization). The combat is a bit clunky as well. And the magic system is borked to make weapon combat far superior. So it isn't perfect, but ... I think it is more that it (and fallout) are less your type of game, than that they are Bad games.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I love the exploring part. I know in oblivion and skyrim as I head towards an objective, i dont know how many times a dungeon has showed up detouring me through the whole dungeon, because I cannot leave no stone unturned.

 

[Red Storm]

I am kind of curious as to how you pull that off. Either you don't play very many games, or you test drive each game before you play?

I "Knew" I was going to enjoy Dragon Age 2. Only I hated it. And even games that I played the demo for, or at a friend's house, didn't guarantee that I wasn't disappointed on some level with the game.

So, just curious how you manage the perfect record you indicate.

I knew I was not going to like DA2. I followed the dev's comments, noticed the art style changes, and the demo confirmed all my fears. My brother didn't mind all that though, he bought it and I watched him play it (and tried it myself) for the sake of the story.

I do not buy many games, that's really why I don't get burned much if at all.

 

[thespyder]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I love the exploring part. I know in oblivion and skyrim as I head towards an objective, i dont know how many times a dungeon has showed up detouring me through the whole dungeon, because I cannot leave no stone unturned.

I am the same way. I want to explore every dungeon, unearth every crypt, unlock every single quest and talk to every single NPC.

Earlier this year, I played KoA:R, and although I enjoyed it a lot, certainly the combat was much more satisfying than Skyrim, it was far to linear for my tastes. Each town had maybe a handful of side quests. In Skyrim, towns had sometimes tens of quests and cities had hundreds of them (slight exaggeration, but still).

Every time I play Baldur's gate (and I have played it a BUNCH of times), I don't just do quests enough to get the gold I need to advance, I do EVERY single quest. Even the ones I have done to death before. That is the essence of a CRPG game in my mind.

Clearly the other poster looks for something different in their RPG games.

I knew I was not going to like DA2. I followed the dev's comments, noticed the art style changes, and the demo confirmed all my fears. My brother didn't mind all that though, he bought it and I watched him play it (and tried it myself) for the sake of the story.

I do not buy many games, that's really why I don't get burned much if at all.

I read the reviews (for DA2) and followed the art design. I even played the demo but felt that what I found as negative in the Demo couldn't possibly take things to the extreme that they ultimately did with the game. I got burned, partially because DA:O set the bar pretty high (in my mind). So I admit it happens to me sometimes. Diablo 3 is getting to that point for me. But it won't stop me from playing games.

 

[gladiatorua]

No. For two reasons:
1. Scores suck. Reviewers do not wish to anger their community and make deals with publishers for earlier game access. In the end scores are rarely fair and logical. "Game is boring and buggy. 10/10". And user scores... Ones and tens. Idiotic. And when I look at score-bombed title, I usually don't think that it is bad. I think that some retards score-bombed the game for some reason and it might be interesting.
2. Metacritic score-aggregation sucks. You can't directly convert stars, /5 or /10 to %. And some kind of subjective source weight system makes it even worse.

What's sad is the fact that publishers take faulty metacritic info too seriously. http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/15/obsidian-missed-fallout-new-vegas-metacritic-bonus-by-one-point/

 

[thespyder]

2. Metacritic score-aggregation sucks. You can't directly convert stars, /5 or /10 to %. And some kind of subjective source weight system makes it even worse.

I am sure I am miss-reading something here. 3/5 = 60% 4/5 = 80%, and X/10 = X * 10 as a percent. So 8/10 = 80%. Not sure how you have trouble converting them.

and 3/5 is the same as 6/10 (simply multiply the numerator and the denominator by 2).

But I am sure you had a different point that I just didn't get.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I dont look at user scores. Too many people downrate a game because of their pc not being able to lay it or its made by EA even if the game is good. There are a few sites i look at and can trust their opinion to be close to how i feel about certain things.