contestgamer said:
potato_hamster said:
Rocket League is literally sitting at an 85 metacritc. You do realize that if one or two reviewers decided that game wasn't as good as they thought it was, and say, gave it a 70 instead of a 90, then you never would have played it. If Rocket League was rated 84 or 83, would that have made that game any less enjoyable to you? Nope, not bit, but because you have such silly standards, you would have missed out on all of the enjoyment you got out of that game.
That's why your post is ignorant.
|
RL with that score would have been a different and worse game, so no, I probably wouldnt have enjoyed it. Make steering worse, controls clunky, physics a little bit wonky and its not fun. And it's actually 86 on PC where I play it mostly.
|
You're still not getting it. Review scores aren't objecitve. The difference between 85 and 84 doesn't mean the game is slightly worse. It just means a handful of different people reviewed the game and liked it better or worse. Rocket League is the exact same game whether it got an 83, 85, or 87. Yes, metacritic scores are that dependant on the people and companies that review the game. Yes, different people within the same company do give games different review scores. In fact, that's why Rocket League has an 86 on PC and a 85 on PS4 or X1. It's not because the game runs better on PC. It's because there's an entirely different group of people reviewing the PC version vs the PS4/Xbox
Let me give you an example to make this clear. Let's take a major review company, They have playstation review teams, xbox review teams, nintendo review teams, PC review teams. Now for a multi-platform game, the person who reviews the game could be from any person from any of the four teams. So the editor goes to each of the team leads and says "we have a review for Rocket League coming up, give it to the next person available on any of your teams." As it turns out a PC reviewer gets it. They're not really into sports games, they don't get controlling their car in the air, they don't like how there's no campaign mode. They give the game a 78. If the playstation reviewer got it, he is a huge soccer fan, and he played and loved super sonic rocket powered battle cars. He's addicted and can't get enough. He would have given the game a 94. So, because the PC reviewer was available first, this major review company gives the game a 78 score. But, if the Playstation reviewer was available first, the major review company would have given the game a 94.
Another example. Imagine if every person who reviewed Breath of the WIld came to the exact same conclusion as Jim Sterling. Breath of the WIld's metacritic drops from a 97 to a 70. It's still the same game, just the people that reviewed it didn't really like it. Would you play Breath of the Wild if it was exactly the same game as it is today, except it had a review score of 70 instead of 97?
One company, two different, equally valid scores. One brings the Rocket League meta critic up, the other brings it down. One has you playing Rocket League and the other has you passing on this title entirely.
Examples like this one happen in game review companies for pretty much every game on metacritic.Seriously. No joke. And you're using metacritic to decide which games are worthy enough for you to play. You are putting way, way too much stock in metacritic scores.
Last edited by potato_hamster - on 23 August 2018
