Metacritic's games of the year

[Ciggavelli]

use the force, Luke

 

[Czerka]

trust your instincts - that is all

you will learn eventually that trusting your instincts is foolish in more cases than not. humans are irrational and dont have good instincts. objective data is always going to be better

 

[daze23]

How the fukks am I gonna trust my instincts on that?

just make an educated opinion based on bullshots and cgi trailers

 

[Ciggavelli]

you will learn eventually that trusting your instincts is foolish in more cases than not. humans are irrational and dont have good instincts. objective data is always going to be better

Always. Meta-analyses are amazing tools.

 

[Fatboi1]

isn't it simpler to rely on a source that's not as likely to be contaminated by "troll reviews"?

Relying on one source alone is a fools philosphy imo. You're a professional gamer, you've played gamers for practically a good amount of time and by now you should have cultivated a taste unique to you. Simply dismissing or jumping onto a game solely based off of some aggregate score that's arbitrary and possibly subject to inconsistencies and scandals is very extremist and "sheepish" imo.

IMO professional reviews are the best way to judge a game you haven't played. that doesn't mean that professional reviewers are "perfect", or that their views are always in line with mine. it just means it's the best system available. and an aggregating system like metacritic is even better since it produces an average score

Imo reviews along with other tools(direct feed gameplay from youtube, twitch, user opinions on forums, your own feeling etc. is better. Simply going "Oh it has a 85??*Goes out to buy game*".

Do you know how meta analyses work?

You didn't answer my question. And let's not get cute here. Most people on here aren't reading reviews so this "meta analysis" jargon you're pushing here is to me. Most scroll down, see a number and base their purchase off of that. This goes back to my point about how the number is arbitrary because at times "points" are docked from certain titles for the shyt that stems away from objectivity. Heck ,some reviews are usually obsolete and misinformed weeks or months later when gamers you know... can still buy games... Not everyone is buying games at midnight launch day.

 

[Ciggavelli]

You didn't answer my question.

If you understood what a meta-analysis was, your question would be answered. Google it, and you'll see why it doesn't matter if all reviewers are objective. The extremely biased get canceled out. That's the beauty of something like metacritic

 

[Fatboi1]

If you understood what a meta-analysis was, your question would be answered. Google it, and you'll see why it doesn't matter if all reviewers are objective. The extremely biased get canceled out.

That's not a satisfying answer because you just made a blanket statement that's still unanswered. There's way too many holes here for me to pick apart if you want to go there.

 

[Khalil's_Black_Excellence]

I'd rather not spend $60 to "try it out"

Who says you have to though.

 

[Ciggavelli]

That's not a satisfying answer because you just made a blanket statement that's still unanswered. There's way too many holes here for me to pick apart if you want to go there.

Read up on meta analyses breh. You might learn something

You truthfully think all the reviewers are extremely biased? Even if you did, it wouldn't matter cuz they cancel each other out.

 

[Fatboi1]

Read up on meta analyses breh. You might learn something

You truthfully think all the reviewers are extremely biased? Even if you did, it wouldn't matter cuz they cancel each other out.

You can't try to talk about meta analyses in this topic when we all know these "independent" reviewers usually have something in common: Publishers. Parties, trips, $$$ from ads, free games etc. I'd think that plays a role in certain games getting reviewed.

As for your second part, How did you come to that conclusion ?? You're creating an argument that I'm not making. All I'm saying is, relying on an aggregate number alone without using other tools widely available on the internet is silly. Case in point, you bought a game that's widely acclaimed (Shadows of Mordor) yet you said you didn't like it. That number at the end didn't guarantee your enjoyment. I feel like reviews should just be more like a spec sheet so to speak.

Most reviewers these days are way too pompous these days and as such do more telling the reader what his taste are and what he thinks something should be as opposed to simply telling it how it is. I know it's hard to be completely free of bias when reviewing something though.

 

[Ciggavelli]

How did you come to that conclusion?? You're creating an argument that I"m not making.

I don't even know what argument you're making. I sincerely don't think you know what a meta analysis is

 

[Fatboi1]

I don't even know what argument you're making. I sincerely don't think you know what a meta analysis is

I don't think you even know what a meta analysis is OR I think you're just throwing out irrelevant jargon to appear well versed.... Seeing as how something which essentially boils down to "is it fun?" get somehow conflated into something relating to medical studies .

 

[daze23]

Relying on one source alone is a fools philosphy imo. You're a professional gamer, you've played gamers for practically a good amount of time and by now you should have cultivated a taste unique to you. Simply dismissing or jumping onto a game solely based off of some aggregate score that's arbitrary and possibly subject to inconsistencies and scandals is very extremist and "sheepish" imo.

Imo reviews along with other tools(direct feed gameplay from youtube, twitch, user opinions on forums, your own feeling etc. is better. Simply going "Oh it has a 85??*Goes out to buy game*".

it's still the simplest way to judge the quality of a game. from there you're free to look into whatever else to see if it's something you actually want to purchase

 

[Ciggavelli]

I don't think you even know what a meta analysis is.. Seeing as how something which boils down to "is it fun?" get somehow conflated into something relating to medical studies .

I think you're just mad Driveclub got less than stellar reviews. Hey, Captain Toad got lower reviews too. You don't see me crying about it. It should have got an 81 because of the wonky camera.

And meta-analyses aren't regulated to medical studies. Come on now Metacritic isn't a true meta analysis of course, but it is based on the principle. If you understood the principle, I think you'd understand why it's the best thing we have right now.

An aggregate of reviews is extremely helpful. We're lucky to have it

 

[Fatboi1]

it's still the simplest way to judge the quality of a game. from there you're free to look into whatever else to see if it's something you actually want to purchase

Ehh I disagree. The quality of a game is oftentimes or outright missing from reviews. Halo MCC looks to be a high quality game and yet it's riddled with problems stemming from the overall package. If it wasn't for these other tools I talked about, a lot of people would have essential "tried" a $60 game for shyts and giggles.

I think you're just mad Driveclub got less than stellar reviews. Hey, Captain Toad got lower reviews too. You don't see me crying about it.

Nice logical fallacy. Nobody is talking about Driveclub or Captain Toad.

And meta-analyses aren't regulated to medical studies. Come on now Metacritic isn't a true meta analysis of course, but it is based on the principle. If you understood the principle, I think you'd understand why it's the best thing we have right now.
An aggregate of reviews is extremely helpful. We're lucky to have it

As a tool it's helpful. My issue is people taking it as gospel and the end all be all.