Fighter Within: Meta Score is a ...... O.o! Ubisoft Whats Going On?

[DonFerrari]

shikamaru317 said:

DonFerrari said:

Too_Talls said:

DonFerrari said:

That is the good part of fanboy review... you pick the average of the inflated official reviews (it usually is for all plats because of adds) with the downeated fanboys review and have a more real one =] ... and for PS4 games I'm more aligned with users review score than official, even if solely because of Knack that looks and play much better than sub-60 (if it was a Ninty game on WiiU it would have a better score).

Mid generation when there are a lot of games out there the user reviews should stabalize. the fan war is at a high point early on so fan boys and girls are hard at work trolling. When unaffected by fanboy voting I agree that the user scores are usually a better indication of the game's value than the official reviews. It's accumulated by a much larger number of people than the amount of review sitees that count to the metric. and those people spent honest time with the game were as guys who do reviews for a living look at it more as a job than recreation and they get the games for free so they don't really care about putting all that much into enjoying the  games.

Agree with you... but don't you think that right now we have some bogus official review with scores too low (like Knack and possibly Ryse) and others too high (like DR3 buggyfest and KI still incomplete)??? And if you sum it average with users average and average the result you may have a closer to reality number???

For me Metacritic is more valuable as a shittometer... bellow 50 don't touch, between 50-70 niche, 70-85 good, 85-90 gorgeous 90+ must buy. Don't give them much credit for the exact number (to much biased sites still allowed, and some serious magazine really obscure score system).

I agree that user scores are often better for judging a game than critic scores (once the fanboy flames die down) and I agree that Knack and Ryse didn't recieve as high of critic scores as I think they should have (I've heard mainly positive things from people I know who have played one or the other), but I have to disagree on DR3 being too high, I haven't heard anything about major bugs in DR3 (other than some framerate hiccups, which was to be expected given the number of Zombies on screen). As for KI, I think the reason that it got fairly high critic reviews despite being incomplete is because the critics acknowledged that it would be completed via DLC over the next few months, and deiced to review the game as if it were complete now, rather than re-review it in a few months (though a few of the critics have said that they will re-review it in a few months). 

You know its kind of crazy to evaluate (REview) something for what you expect it to be and not what it is... that should be a PREview... they don't even now if the rest of the package will be good... it would be like releasing FM now saying they will double everything with DLC during the year, will include dynamic lighting and weather change and then reviewers decide to give it 10 more points in confidence that they will deliver and good.

Our unbiased review gave 8.5 average for the game stating its incomplete (several modes and chars) and outdated... so when it gets complete it will achieve 12? Well DR3 framerate issues and low pixel+fps aren't deserving a high score imho, DR4 will probably be the game that DR3 should have been (16 fps count on Digital Foundry article is pretty low).