Bad customer support is a reason outside the game. If you had a really bad experience with customer support, would you recommend the game, even if you liked it? Maybe yes, maybe no. Personally, I see not recommending the game for the above reason as perfectly valid.
Edit: Modding is actually a huge reason of enjoyment for a lot of games out there. Do you honestly believe that Skyrim would still be relevant today without modding? Don't you think that removing or breaking modding from Fallout 4 wouldn't be a big enough reason to downvote the game?
No I don't. Criticize the company? Absolutely.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
There is no 1 to 10 score. The only score is whether you recommend the game or not. And not recommending the game because of a reason outside of the actual gameplay is still a valid reason. As for the reviewers, yes, they can be a fallback plan in the cases where you have no system like the steam one, since the gaming press at large is unreliable and anti-consumer in their attitude.
All in all, a distribution of 20.000 reviews will always be more impartial and accurate compared to any metacritic score. And in the rare cases where the score changes, it's very easy to identify why.
How is not recommending a game based on a reason outside of the game a valid reason? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You are reviewing a game. Not anything else. Just because you don't like someone at the companies beliefs wouldn't give a sufficient enough reason to give it a negative review. I was talking about user reviews in general, metacritic is a 1 to 10 system.
Lets take a look at some reviews for a visual novel. If you go look at any of those. Half the reviews are just people laughing at the fact that the game has animated girls with breasts in it. Or they are all just joke reviews, and the games get like 95% positive reviews. For no reason whatsoever. While a game like GTA V gets 50% negative because they took out modding, when that isn't anything to do with the actual game, just one feature in said game.
I don't know if it quite so simple as that in most cases. If the game was a static one, with no likely interaction with those that make or provide it after purchase it would be so.
Many games aren't so self-contained these days.
The common practices of the companies involved regarding their games could be a factor in whether someone wishes to purchase and invest time in their titles.
Do they respect their community members, consider their suggestions, interact with them actively, or treat them as if they don't have any relevance beyond the money they spend.
Does a company have a history in sticking with games, investing in the long haul, or are they quick to abandon titles when they begin to show signs of weakness.
Though none of these things should be the main thrust of a review, which should be focused on the merits of the title at hand, they may be caveats worth mentioning so the readers can make a better informed decision than they otherwise might. Forewarned is forearmed.
No single statistic is ever going to be a perfect indication of a game; if you are truly interested, and care at all about your $$, then you need to read the actual reviews (this goes for both user and critic reviews).
Where the 'score' is useful, and the histogram even more useful, is in making a quick decision on whether a game is even worth a second glance. For example, I'm not really into FPS or RTS games, but if one pops up on the front page / feed I'll take a quick look at the tooltip; if it's 'Mostly Positive' or better I'll take a deeper look, but if it's 'Mixed' or less it's basically an instant pass. With RPGs on the other hand, I'll take a deeper look unless it's 'Negative'.
As for what comes up on the front page / feed, that's a separate issue, and needs to be more personalised, including tools to filter out all the junk you're never going to be interested in (like visual novels with 'adult content').
Another idiotic attempt at passing half-truths as fact.
Valve sends out a letter and in the process attempts to create pragmatic definitions in classic public relations fashion. I enjoyed the importance of addressing negative review bombs. So what happens when positive review bombs occur?
You know...
A bunch of fanboys and fangirls play a game for five minutes, and then next thing you know there are thousands of reviews on how GREAT and EPIC a game is, and then when real people with an IQ higher than that of a snail actually play the game, they find out how average or even bad the game may be.
Examples....
All the fools who always POSITIVE-REVIEW BOMB every single Final Fantasy game that is released or any Blizzard game that is released. Every series has its fanbase. Remember when Halo Series was extremely popular and fanboys would give the game a 9 - 10 and then when I played it, and compared it to Quake, Doom, and Unreal Tournament, I was like "WTF IS THIS SHIT!?" and then saw that I hated the game, couldn't return it, and I lost my money due to trusting reviews.
Most of the positive reviews that I see when it comes to steam are Subjective Reviews talking about how GREAT a game is, while most of the negative reviews that I've come to read are Objective reviews which talk of technical problems with a game.
I even wrote a negative review to a game on Steam because a lot of stuff did not work. I outlined the problem and it was funny because in less than two hours, I had around 100+ reviewers who gave me the POSITIVE REVIEW BOMB. It was hilarious because most of the negative reviews to the game we spoke about STATED THE SAME PROBLEM.
So yeah...
Way to go at conjuring up a definition to one pole, Failing to consider the effect of its polar opposite, since yeah after all, no one questions a sheer amount of good reviews. Oh lets not forget the sheer amount of sites which have positive reviews written into them simply because they are paid to give such a review.
I know many people who will not consider playing a video game unless that specific game carries a review score of at least 8 - 9.
To me,
Negative Review Bombs are the perfect choice
to counter up all of those POSITIVE REVIEW BOMBS that are insanely mindless and idiotic.
At least steam allows me to click on negative reviews and read them.
The scores should be removed because they carry no substance at all.They allow ANYONE to rate a game and what basis or guidelines does the rating system hold within?>>>NONE,even people with zero knowledge of game design and having played 2 minutes can give a rating. EVERYTHING is just there to entice marketing,positive ways to hype up products to encourage sales of which Valve benefits as much as the next guy.
This website is only doing threads to carry out an agenda ,VERY few are for serious gaming and passionate about gaming.IGN is the same ,Angry Joe has become a sellout as well MANY streamers.Does anyone seriously think Valve wants a FAIR system to downgrade games,pffft they want every game to be like Gamespace...9/10 for all games.
I still remember an article on one of the biggest gaming/business sites where a small developer blamed the public for so much negativity in gaming.Naturally he pointed NO blame what so ever on the developer,the stories go on and on,the entire industry wants it's cake and eat it too while crapping all over the consumer.
Point being,don't take news announcements or a business like Steam/Valve serious,anyone with half a brain can see how much rubbish Steam has in it's store,they have zero integrity as a business,they would gladly sell you anything ,even games not running anymore.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
With the vast amount of early access games out there, these reviews need to stay. You can see there being a change in development, for better or worse. Its also not hard to spot people who just want to jump on to bang on a game, when you see 0.10 hours played and they give it a highly negative score, you can put two and two together. On the other hand when its overly positive with that much time played its obvious what's going on.
I think people just need to use common sense a little more. Read the content of the post and you can see. If your going off of (72% of the reviews are positive) then that's on you.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
That would be one more than what they have. They currently only have erect and flacid.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
That would be one more than what they have. They currently only have erect and flacid.
That's the only 2 that count - the stuff inbetween is .. forgettable, right?
Not if you were with me '87, Ibiza.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
I guess most people here want to be screwed over by game companies. Like...bethesda releasing paid mods...again...but renamed...but they aren't actual DLC quality content...so...paid mods
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
I guess most people here want to be screwed over by game companies. Like...bethesda releasing paid mods...again...but renamed...but they aren't actual DLC quality content...so...paid mods
I don't think anyone wants to be screwed over.
Having said that, I don't want some wave of disgruntled gamers who think we are all part of some club/secret society to start dictating what I see/don't see because they have been offended and wronged and think the world owes them. It doesn't.
Having accurate and correct information is great and is what we need. If we don't have accurate and correct information then we need to be big boys and girls and weigh the pros/cons of buying a product site unseen.
Also, if Bethesda offers downloadable dlc hats then I want the choice to buy or not buy based on my own preferences. If they want to make a bit of dlc that has also been made into a mod by someone that's great, I want the choice of which might better suit my needs.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It's hard to consider them reviews. It's a do you or do you not recommend this game. It's either yes, or no. If Valve can't see the problem...
Maybe they should have a middle ground with a "Neutral" See review for explanation. A lot of times people may like the game, but it just needs a little more work "a bit buggy at the moment" so they are forced to state that currently they can't recommend it, only over a few minor issues.
At the top a person browsing game titles will see Negative or Mostly Negative, over something as simple as a crash that may be fixed within the first week, people rarely go back and fix their reviews and folks browsing for new games to play have already moved on from considering the game.
I also have this to say about the industry though from a chat discussion about the article: Development studios are culpable here too. For three decades they've often over promised, under delivered, and overcharged. If this were another industry I don't think they'd get away with dictating conditions like they have for all that time. The backlash didn't just spontaneously generate. Frustrations from voiceless gamers have simmered. Now they have a voice. I don't approve of it, but it shouldn't be surprising to the rest of the industry either. They made that bed.
the e-mail linked in this article from valve tells teh truth you know, when you try the most to prevent something on internet more it will show, remember the "fappening"? I only get to know that when they start to say in the news they was trying to clean that up, and with most people still don't undertand, after you put it on internet, its there for life, at most it will become hard to find, but there is always a back up and a low vies site with that thing.
and sorry I don't feel bad for devs taking heat for things they did, even when in "good faith", or giving excuses like they are small, or they think about the player or they just want to protect they thing, excuses are just that excuses, words mena nothing actions is what matter, I care less about the sissy guys yelling over the net.
Comments
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I don't know if it quite so simple as that in most cases. If the game was a static one, with no likely interaction with those that make or provide it after purchase it would be so.
Many games aren't so self-contained these days.
The common practices of the companies involved regarding their games could be a factor in whether someone wishes to purchase and invest time in their titles.
Do they respect their community members, consider their suggestions, interact with them actively, or treat them as if they don't have any relevance beyond the money they spend.
Does a company have a history in sticking with games, investing in the long haul, or are they quick to abandon titles when they begin to show signs of weakness.
Though none of these things should be the main thrust of a review, which should be focused on the merits of the title at hand, they may be caveats worth mentioning so the readers can make a better informed decision than they otherwise might. Forewarned is forearmed.
Where the 'score' is useful, and the histogram even more useful, is in making a quick decision on whether a game is even worth a second glance. For example, I'm not really into FPS or RTS games, but if one pops up on the front page / feed I'll take a quick look at the tooltip; if it's 'Mostly Positive' or better I'll take a deeper look, but if it's 'Mixed' or less it's basically an instant pass. With RPGs on the other hand, I'll take a deeper look unless it's 'Negative'.
As for what comes up on the front page / feed, that's a separate issue, and needs to be more personalised, including tools to filter out all the junk you're never going to be interested in (like visual novels with 'adult content').
Valve sends out a letter and in the process attempts to create pragmatic definitions in classic public relations fashion. I enjoyed the importance of addressing negative review bombs. So what happens when positive review bombs occur?
You know...
A bunch of fanboys and fangirls play a game for five minutes, and then next thing you know there are thousands of reviews on how GREAT and EPIC a game is, and then when real people with an IQ higher than that of a snail actually play the game, they find out how average or even bad the game may be.
Examples....
All the fools who always POSITIVE-REVIEW BOMB every single Final Fantasy game that is released or any Blizzard game that is released. Every series has its fanbase. Remember when Halo Series was extremely popular and fanboys would give the game a 9 - 10 and then when I played it, and compared it to Quake, Doom, and Unreal Tournament, I was like "WTF IS THIS SHIT!?" and then saw that I hated the game, couldn't return it, and I lost my money due to trusting reviews.
Most of the positive reviews that I see when it comes to steam are Subjective Reviews talking about how GREAT a game is, while most of the negative reviews that I've come to read are Objective reviews which talk of technical problems with a game.
I even wrote a negative review to a game on Steam because a lot of stuff did not work. I outlined the problem and it was funny because in less than two hours, I had around 100+ reviewers who gave me the POSITIVE REVIEW BOMB. It was hilarious because most of the negative reviews to the game we spoke about STATED THE SAME PROBLEM.
So yeah...
Way to go at conjuring up a definition to one pole, Failing to consider the effect of its polar opposite, since yeah after all, no one questions a sheer amount of good reviews. Oh lets not forget the sheer amount of sites which have positive reviews written into them simply because they are paid to give such a review.
I know many people who will not consider playing a video game unless that specific game carries a review score of at least 8 - 9.
To me,
Negative Review Bombs are the perfect choice
to counter up all of those POSITIVE REVIEW BOMBS that are insanely mindless and idiotic.
At least steam allows me to click on negative reviews and read them.
EVERYTHING is just there to entice marketing,positive ways to hype up products to encourage sales of which Valve benefits as much as the next guy.
This website is only doing threads to carry out an agenda ,VERY few are for serious gaming and passionate about gaming.IGN is the same ,Angry Joe has become a sellout as well MANY streamers.Does anyone seriously think Valve wants a FAIR system to downgrade games,pffft they want every game to be like Gamespace...9/10 for all games.
I still remember an article on one of the biggest gaming/business sites where a small developer blamed the public for so much negativity in gaming.Naturally he pointed NO blame what so ever on the developer,the stories go on and on,the entire industry wants it's cake and eat it too while crapping all over the consumer.
Point being,don't take news announcements or a business like Steam/Valve serious,anyone with half a brain can see how much rubbish Steam has in it's store,they have zero integrity as a business,they would gladly sell you anything ,even games not running anymore.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I don't read player reviews. They are borderline... I watch the game trailers. If the game keeps my attention, I might buy...
I think people just need to use common sense a little more. Read the content of the post and you can see. If your going off of (72% of the reviews are positive) then that's on you.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Having said that, I don't want some wave of disgruntled gamers who think we are all part of some club/secret society to start dictating what I see/don't see because they have been offended and wronged and think the world owes them. It doesn't.
Having accurate and correct information is great and is what we need. If we don't have accurate and correct information then we need to be big boys and girls and weigh the pros/cons of buying a product site unseen.
Also, if Bethesda offers downloadable dlc hats then I want the choice to buy or not buy based on my own preferences. If they want to make a bit of dlc that has also been made into a mod by someone that's great, I want the choice of which might better suit my needs.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
At the top a person browsing game titles will see Negative or Mostly Negative, over something as simple as a crash that may be fixed within the first week, people rarely go back and fix their reviews and folks browsing for new games to play have already moved on from considering the game.
and sorry I don't feel bad for devs taking heat for things they did, even when in "good faith", or giving excuses like they are small, or they think about the player or they just want to protect they thing, excuses are just that excuses, words mena nothing actions is what matter, I care less about the sissy guys yelling over the net.