Maybe it got such great scores because I don't know ... its a good game? I know that's impossible, but bear with me. Maybe the reviewers weren't biased at all, if multiple people came to the same conclusion maybe its just a good game.
There's a difference between a good game (scores in the 70%-80%) and an OUTSTANDING game (scores in the high 90% - and 100%)
Overwatch is without a doubt a GOOD game.
But is it an outstanding game worthy of 90%+?
After several months - the metacritic composite scores will show the answer.
I know this may be hard for you to understand but because YOU think a game is "good" "70-80%" does NOT mean everyone agrees with you.
And no metacritic won't show the answer because you will get all the developer haters just like any game and give the game a zero and drive the score down.
Then why do good Blizzard games like Diablo 1, 2 Star craft 1 all have very high user scores on metacritic??
Why does D3 have a low user score?
If a Blizzard has so many haters woudn't they drive ALL of Blizzard's games down ?
The fact is good games have high user scores, outstanding games have the highest user scores *regardless* of the haters.
You again about D3 and Blizzard in general? Man! Don't you have better things to do then bashing on D3, Overwatch and Blizzard marketing? Yes *WE* know you are not bashing
So , D3 having a Users poor score on metacritic is normal , but for Overwatch, having 96 from critics and 76 Users Score it's ...discutable heh?
What score does your beloved Archeage have on metacritic?
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
What is it about day one reviews that make the difference for you? I don't get it. Reviews released earlier aren't more accurate or subject to a higher standard than reviews released later.
I haven't claimed you said Overwatch was awful? Why would you say so?
An indie Overwatch could never happen, because there's no way an indie developer could produce a game with that kind of polish and asset quality. You need a LOT of very talented people working for a very long time to reach that. Only the big boys have that luxury - and I'd say Blizzard is quite unique when it comes to polish and fluid gameplay.
However, if we ignore that and we pretend that a game of exactly the same quality was released and reviewed - I don't see why people couldn't give it similarly high scores.
Again, the fact that YOU don't think it deserves such praise because YOU don't like it that much means nothing at all.
You have zero evidence or basis for your claim.
Wherever did I say my issue was with as-yet unreleased reviews? Why would I even attempt to take issue with reviews that don't exist yet?
Indie games can and do release with polish. SOMA and Divinity: Original Sin, just to name a few (though maybe I'm being generous with calling Divinity's dev indie?). Asset quality may be different, sure- but I'd submit that the quality of the graphical assets isn't something we should base the lion's share of a review on for an interactive entertainment product. For a movie, sure (Avatar certainly enjoyed the praise). For a game, I'd assume the gameplay would be the driving force behind a review, not the ability to make pretty scenery.
However, those two polished indie titles do something unique: the first tells a psychologically effective thriller narrative that evokes strong emotion from gamers. The second was one of those elite CRPG releases last year that has sparked a sort of renaissance among RPG developers, successfully bringing gameplay features that have long faded from mainstream memory back to the forefront of the industry.
Blizzard can't even manage to complete their narrowly-scoped arena shooter without borrowing from their previous title for gameplay mechanics. Yet, Blizzard can enjoy the same level of praise without really bringing anything new or exciting to the table. Just mimic popular modern titles and call it a day.
Am I understanding your point correctly in saying that that list for 2016 is ridiculous due to a few titles being in the top 20 that are obviously not deserving of the scores lists?
If so, that list is sorted by critic reviews, not user reviews. Two of the top ten games on the list received less than a 6 out of 10 from users. I'm not sure there's a way to sort by user reviews, but I would be interested in seeing what the resulting list would look like compared to the critic review-sorted list you mentioned.
No my point is using metacritic to determine how good a game is is flawed especially for larger developers like Blizzard and EA.
What is it about day one reviews that make the difference for you? I don't get it. Reviews released earlier aren't more accurate or subject to a higher standard than reviews released later.
I haven't claimed you said Overwatch was awful? Why would you say so?
An indie Overwatch could never happen, because there's no way an indie developer could produce a game with that kind of polish and asset quality. You need a LOT of very talented people working for a very long time to reach that. Only the big boys have that luxury - and I'd say Blizzard is quite unique when it comes to polish and fluid gameplay.
However, if we ignore that and we pretend that a game of exactly the same quality was released and reviewed - I don't see why people couldn't give it similarly high scores.
Again, the fact that YOU don't think it deserves such praise because YOU don't like it that much means nothing at all.
You have zero evidence or basis for your claim.
Wherever did I say my issue was with as-yet unreleased reviews? Why would I even attempt to take issue with reviews that don't exist yet?
Indie games can and do release with polish. SOMA and Divinity: Original Sin, just to name a few (though maybe I'm being generous with calling Divinity's dev indie?). Asset quality may be different, sure- but I'd submit that the quality of the graphical assets isn't something we should base the lion's share of a review for an interactive entertainment product. For a movie, sure (Avatar certainly enjoyed the praise). For a game, I'd assume the gameplay would be the driving force behind a review, not the ability to make pretty scenery.
However, those two polished indie titles do something unique: the first tells a psychologically effective thriller narrative that evokes strong emotion from gamers. The second was one of those elite CRPG releases last year that has sparked a sort of renaissance among RPG developers, successfully bringing gameplay features that have long faded from mainstream memory back to the forefront of the industry.
Blizzard can't even manage to complete their narrowly-scoped arena shooter without borrowing from their previous title for gameplay mechanics. Yet, Blizzard can enjoy the same level of praise without really bringing anything new or exciting to the table. Just mimic popular modern titles and call it a day.
Could you stop fabricating things I've said? I'm trying to understand your problem - and I really can't.
Right now, according to Metacritic:
Overwatch - 96 MS Last of Us - 95 MS
Overwatch has been out for all of one day. You're upset because LoU has ONE less point after YEARS of being out?
I'm sorry, I don't get it.
I said nothing about how indie games can't be polished. I said you can't do Blizzard polish without the means and the talent. I'm aware of no indie developer that comes close to Blizzard in terms of asset quality and polish.
SOMA and DOS are both fine games - and I've played them both a lot. But they can't hold a candle to a Blizzard game when it comes to polish and asset quality.
Again, you seem to think that because you enjoyed those other games for whatever reason - it invalidates the high scores for Overwatch - which is not even trying to do those things. It's going for a very specific audience and a pure kind of gameplay.
Apparently, it succeeds.
You have zero evidence to support your claim that the reviews are biased or part of a conspiracy.
All you have, once again, is your opinion that your opinion should rule.
Guys / Gals, no need to get salty. I spent all day yesterday playing Overwatch from morning to night. I really enjoy the game, however the OP is 100% correct. This game is about a solid 8 I would say. Realistically Blizzard has the money to do a lot more in the genre, and I think they will be adding things to the game. As it stands right now, it plays like a better more polished version of TF2. At the very least its worth the $40 price tag.
Could you stop fabricating things I've said? I'm trying to understand your problem - and I really can't.
Right now, according to Metacritic:
Overwatch - 96 MS Last of Us - 95 MS
Overwatch has been out for all of one day. You're upset because LoU has ONE less point after YEARS of being out?
I'm sorry, I don't get it.
I said nothing about how indie games can't be polished. I said you can't do Blizzard polish without the means and the talent. I'm aware of no indie developer that comes close to Blizzard in terms of asset quality and polish.
SOMA and DOS are both fine games - and I've played them both a lot. But they can't hold a candle to a Blizzard game when it comes to polish and asset quality.
Again, you seem to think that because you enjoyed those other games for whatever reason - it invalidates the high scores for Overwatch - which is not even trying to do those things. It's going for a very specific audience and a pure kind of gameplay.
Apparently, it succeeds.
You have zero evidence to support your claim that the reviews are biased or part of a conspiracy.
All you have, once again, is your opinion that your opinion should rule.
My opinion that my opinion should rule? Certainly, you must be mistaking me with another poster in this thread.
Because, as I understand the word opinion, it would be silly for anyone to take what's clearly labeled as such by myself and submit that I think it should rule anything or anyone.
I mean, I rule, of that I have no doubt. But my opinions are just that: opinions. If I support them with facts, that still doesn't make them anything more than my interpretation of facts. I'll defend my opinion, sure. But so will you, it seems. Does that mean you expect your opinion to rule as well?
Somebody actually give crap about user reviews on metacritic?
Yeah, some people do. User reviews are the only critic you should ever look at metacritic. Most of the time they tend to reflect my own opinion of a game just perfectly. Critic reviews, however.. well, lets just pretend they are an ad you can't block with AdBlock.
Am I understanding your point correctly in saying that that list for 2016 is ridiculous due to a few titles being in the top 20 that are obviously not deserving of the scores lists?
If so, that list is sorted by critic reviews, not user reviews. Two of the top ten games on the list received less than a 6 out of 10 from users. I'm not sure there's a way to sort by user reviews, but I would be interested in seeing what the resulting list would look like compared to the critic review-sorted list you mentioned.
No my point is using metacritic to determine how good a game is is flawed especially for larger developers like Blizzard and EA.
Ahh, okay. Thanks for claifying that. I seem to agree, but for a different reason I think. I tend to agree with DMKano in the idea that, in many situations, user reviews are a more accurate score (at least, when they are an aggregate of thousands of user reviews). Most of the time, these scores mimic the critics scores (as one would expect).
Are there user scores that are unduly affected by haters/fanboys? I think there probably are. However, I think it's the exception, rather than the rule.
Could you stop fabricating things I've said? I'm trying to understand your problem - and I really can't.
Right now, according to Metacritic:
Overwatch - 96 MS Last of Us - 95 MS
Overwatch has been out for all of one day. You're upset because LoU has ONE less point after YEARS of being out?
I'm sorry, I don't get it.
I said nothing about how indie games can't be polished. I said you can't do Blizzard polish without the means and the talent. I'm aware of no indie developer that comes close to Blizzard in terms of asset quality and polish.
SOMA and DOS are both fine games - and I've played them both a lot. But they can't hold a candle to a Blizzard game when it comes to polish and asset quality.
Again, you seem to think that because you enjoyed those other games for whatever reason - it invalidates the high scores for Overwatch - which is not even trying to do those things. It's going for a very specific audience and a pure kind of gameplay.
Apparently, it succeeds.
You have zero evidence to support your claim that the reviews are biased or part of a conspiracy.
All you have, once again, is your opinion that your opinion should rule.
My opinion that my opinion should rule? Certainly, you must be mistaking me with another poster in this thread.
Because, as I understand the word opinion, it would be silly for anyone to take what's clearly labeled as such by myself and submit that I think it should rule anything or anyone.
I mean, I rule, of that I have no doubt. But my opinions are just that: opinions. If I support them with facts, that still doesn't make them anything more than my interpretation of facts. I'll defend my opinion, sure. But so will you, it seems. Does that mean you expect your opinion to rule as well?
I don't make claims about bias and invent conspiracy theories without evidence.
Obviously, I will support my opinion - but I don't think myself capable of telling others they shouldn't be handing out 10/10s for games they apparently think are 10/10s. Well, ok, I'm capable - but it wouldn't be very tolerant or understanding of me.
That's their decision and their business. My opinion of those games has no bearing whatsoever - nor should it have, or I would be contributing to corruption, which I don't want to do.
For instance, I happen to think all those 10/10s that Witcher 3 got were ridiculous. I mean, I think Witcher 3 is a great game - and potentially an 8.5/10 - but 10/10? No way.
But that doesn't mean others can't think so - and obviously they should give it exactly the score they think is appropriate.
I certainly wouldn't claim widespread bias or a conspiracy.
If I did, I would have something genuine to back it up - beyond my differing opinion.
That's what I mean by not expecting my opinion to rule.
Guys / Gals, no need to get salty. I spent all day yesterday playing Overwatch from morning to night. I really enjoy the game, however the OP is 100% correct. This game is about a solid 8 I would say. Realistically Blizzard has the money to do a lot more in the genre, and I think they will be adding things to the game. As it stands right now, it plays like a better more polished version of TF2. At the very least its worth the $40 price tag.
I don't care for FPS. I'm not playing Overwatch either, but if you say it plays like a better more polished version of TF2, then how is it an 8/10 while TF2 is a 9.2/10? Shouldn't it be a 9.3 or greater if it's both better and more polished?
I'm not sure how people are grading games in this threat. Overwatch being compared with Last of Us? What? Last of Us 0/10 in the RTS category! Path of Exile 0/10 as a racing simulator! Overwatch is a squad based arena FPS, so that's what it should be graded against.
What's available really? Loadout? Hawken? Gary's Mod? Battleborn? (even though this one is a FPSMOBA)
Guys / Gals, no need to get salty. I spent all day yesterday playing Overwatch from morning to night. I really enjoy the game, however the OP is 100% correct. This game is about a solid 8 I would say. Realistically Blizzard has the money to do a lot more in the genre, and I think they will be adding things to the game. As it stands right now, it plays like a better more polished version of TF2. At the very least its worth the $40 price tag.
I don't care for FPS. I'm not playing Overwatch either, but if you say it plays like a better more polished version of TF2, then how is it an 8/10 while TF2 is a 9.2/10? Shouldn't it be a 9.3 or greater if it's both better and more polished?
I'm not sure how people are grading games in this threat. Overwatch being compared with Last of Us? What? Last of Us 0/10 in the RTS category! Path of Exile 0/10 as a racing simulator! Overwatch is a squad based arena FPS, so that's what it should be graded against.
What's available really? Loadout? Hawken? Gary's Mod? Battleborn? (even though this one is a FPSMOBA)
I dunno, but it's definitely not Last of Us lol.
I don't think TF2 is worth a 9.2. I wont get into too much detail as to why I don't agree with that score because its just my opinion. I will say that I am heavily against how TF2s overall item system works. Unless you have the right parts to create the gear, or you win it somehow randomly you could be at a disadvantage playing against other players. The fact that I cannot compete with someone else when were the same class boggles my mind.
Basing this on my game play experience with both games, Overwatch I feel is a better overall polished game then TF2. I think it still requires more in the game, and I only say that because I know Blizzard has the capital to push the genre. They went a little safe with it, I am waiting to see what else they do with this IP. So far its a very good showing.
I don't make claims about bias and invent conspiracy theories without evidence.
Obviously, I will support my opinion - but I don't think myself capable of telling others they shouldn't be handing out 10/10s for games they apparently think are 10/10s. Well, ok, I'm capable - but it wouldn't be very tolerant or understanding of me.
That's their decision and their business. My opinion of those games has no bearing whatsoever - nor should it have, or I would be contributing to corruption, which I don't want to do.
For instance, I happen to think all those 10/10s that Witcher 3 got were ridiculous. I mean, I think Witcher 3 is a great game - and potentially an 8.5/10 - but 10/10? No way.
But that doesn't mean others can't think so - and obviously they should give it exactly the score they think is appropriate.
I certainly wouldn't claim widespread bias or a conspiracy.
If I did, I would have something genuine to back it up - beyond my differing opinion.
That's what I mean by not expecting my opinion to rule.
And I never expected my opinion to be either universally agreed upon, nor do I suspect those reviewers will change their reviews based on my opinion of it (and never did).
But examine Tasselhoff's list more closely, and you'll begin to see a trend: big name developers, in general, have higher critical review scores than users scores. For example:
Dark Souls 3: 90 critic, 8.6 user Total War: Warhammer: early critic reviews show an 87, while user reviews sit at 7.0 (though I would agree with a counter here that we should wait a little longer before calling these scores final in any way) Doom: 85 critic, 8.2 user The Division: 79 critic, 6.0 user Far Cry Primal: 74 critic, 4.6 user Gears of War: Ultimate Edition for Windows 10: 73 critic, 3.0 user Need for Speed: 68 critic, 5.2 user Homefront: The Revolution: 53 critic, 3.5 user
As you can see, from top to bottom of that list, we see the big names receive consistently higher scores from critics than the users. Hold off on telling me the user reviews are that low simply because users were hating- even Homefront: The Revolution received multiple 10s from users. The hate on these sites is frequently balanced out by the fanboy.
Guys / Gals, no need to get salty. I spent all day yesterday playing Overwatch from morning to night. I really enjoy the game, however the OP is 100% correct. This game is about a solid 8 I would say. Realistically Blizzard has the money to do a lot more in the genre, and I think they will be adding things to the game. As it stands right now, it plays like a better more polished version of TF2. At the very least its worth the $40 price tag.
I don't care for FPS. I'm not playing Overwatch either, but if you say it plays like a better more polished version of TF2, then how is it an 8/10 while TF2 is a 9.2/10? Shouldn't it be a 9.3 or greater if it's both better and more polished?
I'm not sure how people are grading games in this threat. Overwatch being compared with Last of Us? What? Last of Us 0/10 in the RTS category! Path of Exile 0/10 as a racing simulator! Overwatch is a squad based arena FPS, so that's what it should be graded against.
What's available really? Loadout? Hawken? Gary's Mod? Battleborn? (even though this one is a FPSMOBA)
I dunno, but it's definitely not Last of Us lol.
My point in including TLOU was to say it included a great multiplayer in addition to a simply astounding singleplayer experience, yet it (among other, even way more revolutionary games) didn't get 4 firewall 10s on day one.
Some more notable examples in the arena shooter:
Arena Prima Ratz Instagib Reflex Unreal Tournament (not the original, but the new title Epic Games is releasing) Xonotic
Some of those are early access/alpha right now, though.
I don't make claims about bias and invent conspiracy theories without evidence.
Obviously, I will support my opinion - but I don't think myself capable of telling others they shouldn't be handing out 10/10s for games they apparently think are 10/10s. Well, ok, I'm capable - but it wouldn't be very tolerant or understanding of me.
That's their decision and their business. My opinion of those games has no bearing whatsoever - nor should it have, or I would be contributing to corruption, which I don't want to do.
For instance, I happen to think all those 10/10s that Witcher 3 got were ridiculous. I mean, I think Witcher 3 is a great game - and potentially an 8.5/10 - but 10/10? No way.
But that doesn't mean others can't think so - and obviously they should give it exactly the score they think is appropriate.
I certainly wouldn't claim widespread bias or a conspiracy.
If I did, I would have something genuine to back it up - beyond my differing opinion.
That's what I mean by not expecting my opinion to rule.
And I never expected my opinion to be either universally agreed upon, nor do I suspect those reviewers will change their reviews based on my opinion of it (and never did).
But examine Tasselhoff's list more closely, and you'll begin to see a trend: big name developers, in general, have higher critical review scores than users scores. For example:
Dark Souls 3: 90 critic, 8.6 user Total War: Warhammer: early critic reviews show an 87, while user reviews sit at 7.0 (though I would agree with a counter here that we should wait a little longer before calling these scores final in any way) Doom: 85 critic, 8.2 user The Division: 79 critic, 6.0 user Far Cry Primal: 74 critic, 4.6 user Gears of War: Ultimate Edition for Windows 10: 73 critic, 3.0 user Need for Speed: 68 critic, 5.2 user Homefront: The Revolution: 53 critic, 3.5 user
As you can see, from top to bottom of that list, we see the big names receive consistently higher scores from critics than the users. Hold off on telling me the user reviews are that low simply because users were hating- even Homefront: The Revolution received multiple 10s from users. The hate on these sites is frequently balanced out by the fanboy.
What I'm seeing on that list are games where the critic scores match my own sense of a fair score a LOT more closely than the user scores.
That's my general perception of Metacritic, by the way. User scores tend to be extremely skewed by the many 0/10s - which, for a decent game that should be something like 7/10 - will affect it more than the skewed 10/10 scores do.
I don't know what happened with those user scores, but I started noticing it back with Dragon Age 2 - which while it was average at best (IMO) - it certainly didn't deserve all those 0/10s.
While I would never, personally, give a game 10/10 - I have a much easier time believing it's genuine for a decent game than a 0/10.
What I'm seeing on that list are games where the critic scores match my own sense of a fair score a LOT more closely than the user scores.
That's my general perception of Metacritic, by the way. User scores tend to be extremely skewed by the many 0/10s - which, for a decent game that should be something like 7/10 - will affect it more than the skewed 10/10 scores do.
I don't know what happened with those user scores, but I started noticing it back with Dragon Age 2 - which while it was average at best (IMO) - it certainly didn't deserve all those 0/10s.
While I would never, personally, give a game 10/10 - I have a much easier time believing it's genuine for a decent game than a 0/10.
Maybe that's just me, though.
I can understand that argument. In fact, I think it holds merit. The magnitude of the effect is debatable (and, more likely than not, varies substantially between individual titles).
However, even if we include a generous margin of error for those negative user reviews, I can't imagine it's enough to make up for 2 or 3 points difference (assuming, of course, the titles even received enough critical reviews to provide any kind of stability to the average). I wouldn't submit that such an effect is completely beyond the trolls of the internet, though.
Conversely, for professional critics, we would naturally expect to see less perfect or imperfect (0/10) scores given the nature of the profession. Whereas haters give it an emotional 0, and fanboys give it an emotional 10, critics are supposedly giving reviews in order to assist users in buying decisions. Thus, I would expect their opinions to be critical in nature, rather than emotional. Does that seem like sound logic to you?
I'm not even sure where that fits into the overall argument we've been having for pages now, honestly. But at least we seem to be finding some common ground at last.
EDIT- that should read "enough user reviews" instead of "enough critical reviews."
What I'm seeing on that list are games where the critic scores match my own sense of a fair score a LOT more closely than the user scores.
That's my general perception of Metacritic, by the way. User scores tend to be extremely skewed by the many 0/10s - which, for a decent game that should be something like 7/10 - will affect it more than the skewed 10/10 scores do.
I don't know what happened with those user scores, but I started noticing it back with Dragon Age 2 - which while it was average at best (IMO) - it certainly didn't deserve all those 0/10s.
While I would never, personally, give a game 10/10 - I have a much easier time believing it's genuine for a decent game than a 0/10.
Maybe that's just me, though.
I can understand that argument. In fact, I think it holds merit. The magnitude of the effect is debatable (and, more likely than not, varies substantially between individual titles).
However, even if we include a generous margin of error for those negative user reviews, I can't imagine it's enough to make up for 2 or 3 points difference (assuming, of course, the titles even received enough critical reviews to provide any kind of stability to the average). I wouldn't submit that such an effect is completely beyond the trolls of the internet, though.
Conversely, for professional critics, we would naturally expect to see less perfect or imperfect (0/10) scores given the nature of the profession. Whereas haters give it an emotional 0, and fanboys give it an emotional 10, critics are supposedly giving reviews in order to assist users in buying decisions. Thus, I would expect their opinions to be critical in nature, rather than emotional. Does that seem like sound logic to you?
I'm not even sure where that fits into the overall argument we've been having for pages now, honestly. But at least we seem to be finding some common ground at last.
EDIT- that should read "enough user reviews" instead of "enough critical reviews."
Not true. I would expect to see NO 0/10 games from critics because it would indicate an emotional score. For instance, of all 9600+ reviews at Gamespot, there is 1 (yes, one) 0/10 review. If a game gets 0/10 then it tells us that the game, technically, does not work. It's so horribly broken that it's utterly unplayable and, maybe, can't even be installed. Once you start piecing together components that make that game operational, you can make it as boring as you like. As long as you can play it from end-to-end, it's likely that you'll at least get a 2/10.
However, in that same vein, critics use a series of metrics in order to measure games against other, similar games. Other similar games is a biggie here. That being said, there may be standard metrics, like gameplay, design, appearance, performance, etc. However, the "bar" for those standards are, usually, set within a particular genre. At the very least, they have a set of detailed measurements which allow them to be somewhat objective. There will always be a level of subjectivity, but at least they can be held accountable to the majority of their reviews, and they usually are.
The idea of user reviews is GREAT! Actually, it works relatively well in movies. However, it tends to be the reverse there. The critics rate something low, so users feel like they need to bump it up. Whereas in games, players feel like critics are giving overly high reviews, so try to knock them down. You can usually see smatterings of this all over metacritic. Things like "0/10 - gotta put the fanboys in place" or "0/10 - nothing new here." Unfortunately, it adds to the dilution of the overall process. The majority of times, people giving it 0/10, or even 0-3/10 can NOT honestly feel like that's the appropriate score, if they were to measure it objectively. Can they?
In response to your question: I don't think so, Craz. However, in that same vein, I feel as if many user 10s suffer from the same emotionality, thereby off-setting some of the effect of those 0s (though, as @DKLond mentioned, the 0s would, individually, skew the average more than the 10s if the game objectively deserved anything higher than an even 5).
This is starting to get in the (albeit interesting) weeds, so to speak. In reality, we could speak much more informed if one of us took the time to look through a massive list of meta critic game pages, tallying up the 0s and 10s and critic reviews and the average of users in between... So.... anybody got time to compile those stats for us??
In response to your question: I don't think so, Craz. However, in that same vein, I feel as if many user 10s suffer from the same emotionality, thereby off-setting some of the effect of those 0s (though, as @DKLond mentioned, the 0s would, individually, skew the average more than the 10s if the game objectively deserved anything higher than an even 5).
This is starting to get in the (albeit interesting) weeds, so to speak. In reality, we could speak much more informed if one of us took the time to look through a massive list of meta critic game pages, tallying up the 0s and 10s and critic reviews and the average of users in between... So.... anybody got time to compile those stats for us??
Sure, I've listed some of the "reviews" of Overwatch below. It doesn't take long to be able to objectively say that the higher marks are at least TRYING. I mean, damn! Take a look at some of these. There is even one 0/10 which says "Its not bad game..." Lol. In spite of the negative reviews, it's still sitting at a 7.6 so, objectively, if we were to remove the hilariously inaccurate bullshit on either end of the spectrum, we'd likely arrive around what critics are (9ish). Again, metacritic is a super idea, but it's usefulness is cancelled out by the same public that could make it great. Thanks a lot Internet, you ruined everything again!!!
2/10
-Lack content
-No motivation for play
-High Price
-Mechanical repetition
-On the face of it, it looks like different map different modes, but it's just all the same to me
2/10
Nothing more then a RIP-OFF by AAA Corp,desigh to be f2p changed to b2p by artificially created hype on twitch.As one of first beta player's i was bored to tear's after one week.Now after 5 month nothing changed and they want me to pay 60 euro for this joke of a unfinish low quality do highly polish game? well not this time activblizz corp.See you on 90% sale !
2/10 The tag "Blizzard" and the extreme marketing campaign are tricking Gamer's of all types in to purchasing this unfinished potential. Overwatch, a game that should currently be F2P, is leveraging its Blizzard name to sell. The game features 21 unique Heroes, which is the only Pro to the game. Between poor level design, normal game modes with no team death match, no support for current PC
2/10
Epileptic, brainless and overrated shooter. The game has nice visuals and style, Blizzard has brilliant artists and animators. But gameplay is a primitive as hell and completely brain-dead. The game is not about tactics as some people say. It's only about nerding and reflexes.
0/10 his......... is... **** that's is **** game so bored,tired....and ****g character,****g world... hey bllizzard! you want porn? or you want anime? PLZ STOP! funny and best game? huh **** YOU
0/10 I don't review games. Ever. But what Blizzard has done here is really frustrating.
As it stands: 1: You cannot report hackers. 2: If you leave a game to avoid a hacker, you will build up a penalty. 3: Overwatch has no issue putting you back in the game you left. 4: It will give you further penalties if you leave the game again. As it stands anyone cheating is a god and you're
0/10 team fortres 2.1 no campaign mode, gameplay too simple, very expensive, repetitive and lineal, very small maps. but its beauty and It has charismatic characters. Its not bad game, only not bad....
-------------------
10/10 Easily one of the best multiplayer first person shooters. Vastly better than Team Fortress 2, which i used to play in the past.
The graphics , sounds, and general production values are incredible. The game is very polished, and runs incredibly well even on very low powered hardware. Movement is fluid and fast, and the shooting is satsfying. Heroes are really distinct and have
10/10 Love the game or not, it's one of the most well made games in history. I knew it from the first moment I played the game. The have nailed every aspect of the gameplay, from character movement and animations, camera movement, map design, character design, balanced gameplay and variety in play. I'm so happy they charged an upfront fee for this game instead of going F2P P2Win and I'm
10/10 This might be the best competitive FPS on the market right now. It's simply amazing how Blizzard achieved such balance: -Easy to learn, hard to master. -Pretty good graphics and yet really well optimized. -Highly competitive and yet fun enough for the casual crowd. The game feels like a mix between TF2 and DOTA with skillshots and amazing replays. This game has everything to be the
I am terrible at arena FPS games. I sucked at everyone i tried.. and i tried a whole lot of them.
However, playing the Overwatch beta i found myself liking it and performing much better than the other similar games i played. I decided to buy it and see how it goes.
I think people just automatically hate anything that Blizzard makes.
Then why are the best Blizzard games not hated? (DIABLO 1,2 and Star craft 1 come to mind).
Maybe there's more to it?
Already explained but I'll explain it again. D1,D2 and Sc1 were released before it was "cool" to hate on big bad evil companies like Blizzard. Gamers back when those games came out didn't need to seek attention by jumping on hater wagons.
Btw that is your opinion that those games "were blizzards best" I would say over 30 million sales of D3 would mean a fair amount of people liked it.
I think people just automatically hate anything that Blizzard makes.
Then why are the best Blizzard games not hated? (DIABLO 1,2 and Star craft 1 come to mind).
Maybe there's more to it?
Already explained but I'll explain it again. D1,D2 and Sc1 were released before it was "cool" to hate on big bad evil companies like Blizzard. Gamers back when those games came out didn't need to seek attention by jumping on hater wagons.
Btw that is your opinion that those games "were blizzards best" I would say over 30 million sales of D3 would mean a fair amount of people liked it.
I dunno Tassel, maybe you're right, but I think that maybe the ridiculously widespread Internet accessibility, coupled with an overall explosion of mainstream popularity for video gaming could be the primary reason we now see all the hate against companies. I would daresay it existed among avid gamers back during D1's release; there just weren't nearly enough folks playing video games or, even more, posting their user reviews on the internet.
You may absolutely be right, but I think it's worth examining more closely in relation to the grand scheme of the indsutry.
Comments
So , D3 having a Users poor score on metacritic is normal , but for Overwatch, having 96 from critics and 76 Users Score it's ...discutable heh?
What score does your beloved Archeage have on metacritic?
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
Indie games can and do release with polish. SOMA and Divinity: Original Sin, just to name a few (though maybe I'm being generous with calling Divinity's dev indie?). Asset quality may be different, sure- but I'd submit that the quality of the graphical assets isn't something we should base the lion's share of a review on for an interactive entertainment product. For a movie, sure (Avatar certainly enjoyed the praise). For a game, I'd assume the gameplay would be the driving force behind a review, not the ability to make pretty scenery.
However, those two polished indie titles do something unique: the first tells a psychologically effective thriller narrative that evokes strong emotion from gamers. The second was one of those elite CRPG releases last year that has sparked a sort of renaissance among RPG developers, successfully bringing gameplay features that have long faded from mainstream memory back to the forefront of the industry.
Blizzard can't even manage to complete their narrowly-scoped arena shooter without borrowing from their previous title for gameplay mechanics. Yet, Blizzard can enjoy the same level of praise without really bringing anything new or exciting to the table. Just mimic popular modern titles and call it a day.
Right now, according to Metacritic:
Overwatch - 96 MS
Last of Us - 95 MS
Overwatch has been out for all of one day. You're upset because LoU has ONE less point after YEARS of being out?
I'm sorry, I don't get it.
I said nothing about how indie games can't be polished. I said you can't do Blizzard polish without the means and the talent. I'm aware of no indie developer that comes close to Blizzard in terms of asset quality and polish.
SOMA and DOS are both fine games - and I've played them both a lot. But they can't hold a candle to a Blizzard game when it comes to polish and asset quality.
Again, you seem to think that because you enjoyed those other games for whatever reason - it invalidates the high scores for Overwatch - which is not even trying to do those things. It's going for a very specific audience and a pure kind of gameplay.
Apparently, it succeeds.
You have zero evidence to support your claim that the reviews are biased or part of a conspiracy.
All you have, once again, is your opinion that your opinion should rule.
Because, as I understand the word opinion, it would be silly for anyone to take what's clearly labeled as such by myself and submit that I think it should rule anything or anyone.
I mean, I rule, of that I have no doubt. But my opinions are just that: opinions. If I support them with facts, that still doesn't make them anything more than my interpretation of facts. I'll defend my opinion, sure. But so will you, it seems. Does that mean you expect your opinion to rule as well?
Are there user scores that are unduly affected by haters/fanboys? I think there probably are. However, I think it's the exception, rather than the rule.
Obviously, I will support my opinion - but I don't think myself capable of telling others they shouldn't be handing out 10/10s for games they apparently think are 10/10s. Well, ok, I'm capable - but it wouldn't be very tolerant or understanding of me.
That's their decision and their business. My opinion of those games has no bearing whatsoever - nor should it have, or I would be contributing to corruption, which I don't want to do.
For instance, I happen to think all those 10/10s that Witcher 3 got were ridiculous. I mean, I think Witcher 3 is a great game - and potentially an 8.5/10 - but 10/10? No way.
But that doesn't mean others can't think so - and obviously they should give it exactly the score they think is appropriate.
I certainly wouldn't claim widespread bias or a conspiracy.
If I did, I would have something genuine to back it up - beyond my differing opinion.
That's what I mean by not expecting my opinion to rule.
I don't care for FPS. I'm not playing Overwatch either, but if you say it plays like a better more polished version of TF2, then how is it an 8/10 while TF2 is a 9.2/10? Shouldn't it be a 9.3 or greater if it's both better and more polished?
I'm not sure how people are grading games in this threat. Overwatch being compared with Last of Us? What? Last of Us 0/10 in the RTS category! Path of Exile 0/10 as a racing simulator! Overwatch is a squad based arena FPS, so that's what it should be graded against.
What's available really?
Loadout?
Hawken?
Gary's Mod?
Battleborn? (even though this one is a FPSMOBA)
I dunno, but it's definitely not Last of Us lol.
Basing this on my game play experience with both games, Overwatch I feel is a better overall polished game then TF2. I think it still requires more in the game, and I only say that because I know Blizzard has the capital to push the genre. They went a little safe with it, I am waiting to see what else they do with this IP. So far its a very good showing.
But examine Tasselhoff's list more closely, and you'll begin to see a trend: big name developers, in general, have higher critical review scores than users scores. For example:
Dark Souls 3: 90 critic, 8.6 user
Total War: Warhammer: early critic reviews show an 87, while user reviews sit at 7.0 (though I would agree with a counter here that we should wait a little longer before calling these scores final in any way)
Doom: 85 critic, 8.2 user
The Division: 79 critic, 6.0 user
Far Cry Primal: 74 critic, 4.6 user
Gears of War: Ultimate Edition for Windows 10: 73 critic, 3.0 user
Need for Speed: 68 critic, 5.2 user
Homefront: The Revolution: 53 critic, 3.5 user
As you can see, from top to bottom of that list, we see the big names receive consistently higher scores from critics than the users. Hold off on telling me the user reviews are that low simply because users were hating- even Homefront: The Revolution received multiple 10s from users. The hate on these sites is frequently balanced out by the fanboy.
Some more notable examples in the arena shooter:
Arena Prima
Ratz Instagib
Reflex
Unreal Tournament (not the original, but the new title Epic Games is releasing)
Xonotic
Some of those are early access/alpha right now, though.
That's my general perception of Metacritic, by the way. User scores tend to be extremely skewed by the many 0/10s - which, for a decent game that should be something like 7/10 - will affect it more than the skewed 10/10 scores do.
I don't know what happened with those user scores, but I started noticing it back with Dragon Age 2 - which while it was average at best (IMO) - it certainly didn't deserve all those 0/10s.
While I would never, personally, give a game 10/10 - I have a much easier time believing it's genuine for a decent game than a 0/10.
Maybe that's just me, though.
However, even if we include a generous margin of error for those negative user reviews, I can't imagine it's enough to make up for 2 or 3 points difference (assuming, of course, the titles even received enough critical reviews to provide any kind of stability to the average). I wouldn't submit that such an effect is completely beyond the trolls of the internet, though.
Conversely, for professional critics, we would naturally expect to see less perfect or imperfect (0/10) scores given the nature of the profession. Whereas haters give it an emotional 0, and fanboys give it an emotional 10, critics are supposedly giving reviews in order to assist users in buying decisions. Thus, I would expect their opinions to be critical in nature, rather than emotional. Does that seem like sound logic to you?
I'm not even sure where that fits into the overall argument we've been having for pages now, honestly. But at least we seem to be finding some common ground at last.
EDIT- that should read "enough user reviews" instead of "enough critical reviews."
Not true. I would expect to see NO 0/10 games from critics because it would indicate an emotional score. For instance, of all 9600+ reviews at Gamespot, there is 1 (yes, one) 0/10 review. If a game gets 0/10 then it tells us that the game, technically, does not work. It's so horribly broken that it's utterly unplayable and, maybe, can't even be installed. Once you start piecing together components that make that game operational, you can make it as boring as you like. As long as you can play it from end-to-end, it's likely that you'll at least get a 2/10.
However, in that same vein, critics use a series of metrics in order to measure games against other, similar games. Other similar games is a biggie here. That being said, there may be standard metrics, like gameplay, design, appearance, performance, etc. However, the "bar" for those standards are, usually, set within a particular genre. At the very least, they have a set of detailed measurements which allow them to be somewhat objective. There will always be a level of subjectivity, but at least they can be held accountable to the majority of their reviews, and they usually are.
The idea of user reviews is GREAT! Actually, it works relatively well in movies. However, it tends to be the reverse there. The critics rate something low, so users feel like they need to bump it up. Whereas in games, players feel like critics are giving overly high reviews, so try to knock them down. You can usually see smatterings of this all over metacritic. Things like "0/10 - gotta put the fanboys in place" or "0/10 - nothing new here." Unfortunately, it adds to the dilution of the overall process. The majority of times, people giving it 0/10, or even 0-3/10 can NOT honestly feel like that's the appropriate score, if they were to measure it objectively. Can they?
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
This is starting to get in the (albeit interesting) weeds, so to speak. In reality, we could speak much more informed if one of us took the time to look through a massive list of meta critic game pages, tallying up the 0s and 10s and critic reviews and the average of users in between... So.... anybody got time to compile those stats for us??
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Sure, I've listed some of the "reviews" of Overwatch below. It doesn't take long to be able to objectively say that the higher marks are at least TRYING. I mean, damn! Take a look at some of these. There is even one 0/10 which says "Its not bad game..." Lol. In spite of the negative reviews, it's still sitting at a 7.6 so, objectively, if we were to remove the hilariously inaccurate bullshit on either end of the spectrum, we'd likely arrive around what critics are (9ish). Again, metacritic is a super idea, but it's usefulness is cancelled out by the same public that could make it great. Thanks a lot Internet, you ruined everything again!!!
2/10
-No motivation for play
-High Price
-Mechanical repetition
-On the face of it, it looks like different map different modes, but it's just all the same to me
2/10
2/10
The tag "Blizzard" and the extreme marketing campaign are tricking Gamer's of all types in to purchasing this unfinished potential. Overwatch, a game that should currently be F2P, is leveraging its Blizzard name to sell. The game features 21 unique Heroes, which is the only Pro to the game. Between poor level design, normal game modes with no team death match, no support for current PC
2/10
Epileptic, brainless and overrated shooter. The game has nice visuals and style, Blizzard has brilliant artists and animators. But gameplay is a primitive as hell and completely brain-dead. The game is not about tactics as some people say. It's only about nerding and reflexes.
0/10
his......... is... ****
that's is **** game
so bored,tired....and ****g character,****g world...
hey bllizzard! you want porn? or you want anime? PLZ STOP!
funny and best game? huh **** YOU
0/10
I don't review games. Ever. But what Blizzard has done here is really frustrating.
As it stands: 1: You cannot report hackers. 2: If you leave a game to avoid a hacker, you will build up a penalty. 3: Overwatch has no issue putting you back in the game you left. 4: It will give you further penalties if you leave the game again. As it stands anyone cheating is a god and you're
0/10
team fortres 2.1 no campaign mode, gameplay too simple, very expensive, repetitive and lineal, very small maps. but its beauty and It has charismatic characters. Its not bad game, only not bad....
-------------------
10/10
Easily one of the best multiplayer first person shooters. Vastly better than Team Fortress 2, which i used to play in the past.
The graphics , sounds, and general production values are incredible. The game is very polished, and runs incredibly well even on very low powered hardware. Movement is fluid and fast, and the shooting is satsfying. Heroes are really distinct and have
10/10
Love the game or not, it's one of the most well made games in history. I knew it from the first moment I played the game. The have nailed every aspect of the gameplay, from character movement and animations, camera movement, map design, character design, balanced gameplay and variety in play. I'm so happy they charged an upfront fee for this game instead of going F2P P2Win and I'm
10/10
This might be the best competitive FPS on the market right now. It's simply amazing how Blizzard achieved such balance:
-Easy to learn, hard to master.
-Pretty good graphics and yet really well optimized. -Highly competitive and yet fun enough for the casual crowd. The game feels like a mix between TF2 and DOTA with skillshots and amazing replays. This game has everything to be the
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
However, playing the Overwatch beta i found myself liking it and performing much better than the other similar games i played. I decided to buy it and see how it goes.
Btw that is your opinion that those games "were blizzards best" I would say over 30 million sales of D3 would mean a fair amount of people liked it.
You may absolutely be right, but I think it's worth examining more closely in relation to the grand scheme of the indsutry.