{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/31/2016 7:45:58 AM
31
What would you trust more?
On Metacritic, which would you trust more? If a game had high reviewer scores but low user scores? Or if a game had low reviewer scores but high user scores? ^^
-
1 回复
-
由Moonman编辑： 6/1/2016 4:50:31 AMSteam Reviews are more reliable, funny ones aside, because people have to buy the game in order to review it. You can also tell if someone is trolling or not because of the hours he has played. On metacritic I can simply make an account and rate it 0 or 10.
-
The critic scores are bullshit. Metacritic uses a scale that weighs the popularity of each critic, and determines which one matters more. For instance, a 9.0 from IGN will impact the score more than a 6.0 from a lesser known critic. And that system is bullshit. On the other hand, anybody can just go through and rate games 0/10 without even playing. All in all, don't go by Metacritic. Or just don't worry about game reviews. Form your own opinion.
-
The tree answer is.both are BS. Critics are rarely interested in the game going in and users are even worse as they have non mentality. If some.are hating on something without playing it then others will follow suit without Eve touching the game. The reviewer is at least professional enough to play it first
-
I dont trust critics. - their job is to judge games, even games they arent necessarily interested in - they can be bribed I trust users as I have a lot in common with them, being a gamer like them. There is a flaw there though: - fanboys..
-
1 回复For this particular title? It's a Sonic game so I'd say both viewpoints hold equal ground. Older games have trends that are generally set in stone, and both crowds tend to voice disappointment should said trends change. Just try to average it out, I guess. I have played the game myself and can say that it was fun. I was not overly fond of the werewolf bits but it was a new, interesting PoV. The running missions were generally beautiful and the werewolf parts were a good break from the running missions. Only gripe was that the wolf portions were a tad repetitive lol.
-
Normally I am more likely to trust user score (if I ever looked at them) except if the game has some fanboy war going on. COD for example, one side hating CoD without playing it just because it is CoD and others just excited they got their yearly fix. Then on the other side the "professional" reviews are probably bought off so let's not look at those either.
-
I look at it like the cinema industry. Critics are paid to be critics. 7 time out of 10, what the critics say is bullshit. Look at Pulp Fiction. It got absolutely [b]SLAMMED[/b] when it came out. But nowadays, if you've never seen it, you're a pleb.
-
1 回复Trust the player score. You don't know how much the critics are opinionated or how they review the game. Pkayers review based on 1. If they had fun And that's it.
-
1 回复User Score. I can tell you that Unleashed in my opinion was the best Sonic Game. I like the graphics, the werehog gameplay, even the story. Sonic Generations was Rushed. We only had a release trailer in June-October. Unless you have a PC version, Generation's main stages were less in number than the side quest. Plus they missed out on a lot of other sonic games like rush, Riders, and a couple other cool games.
-
That's tough. Professional reviewers have a chance to be biased due to sponsorships. Users can be biased just because they don't have all the info or they are fanboys who refuse to acknowledge problems. With a grain of salt, I'd be more likely to trust User scores, but I'd read the reviews to judge whether the users were actually informed or not.
-
1 回复
-
3 回复由Uuv编辑： 5/31/2016 11:32:42 AMI'd say user score, just because it's got more ratings than the Metacritic score, but alot of fan influence also goes into the user score.[spoiler]That's the very last Sonic game I actually liked. I have no shame.[/spoiler]
-
I just try to ignore metacritic or base my focus on the kind of game when I don't. The user scores ultimately get diluted by a lot of all-or-nothing votes based on unrestrained and often baseless hate/love for a game; I can't tell you the minute differences between what makes a 7 for me and what makes an 8 for me simply because I don't make a living off doing that. I don't know to quantify my preferences, for me a game is simply enjoyable or it isn't. At the same time, I feel like critics are sort of hindered in that department. When all you do is spend time working out what each ranking means to you and what certain aspects of a game are worth, you often seem to lose the ability to enjoy one of the many games that are unquestionably "bad" or low-quality but entertaining nonetheless and even if you don't lose it that's not always reflected in your review score. So yeah, metacritic is sort of iffy in general if you ask me. That's ultimately sort of the problem with rating/reviewing media like this.
