| DeadnBuried said: I genuinely think that Metacritic nails it more often than not. If you're looking at a game in a genre or style you like, and it has an 80+, the chances are you're going to love it. If it's a high score but not a genre you like, obviously you won't like it. Same goes for lower scores; a game might only get 60 or so, but if it's a genre you really love then you're obviously going to appreciate it more anyway, so even though it's not as well-made as other games, you'll still like it. Metacritic is a great tool as long as you understand what it is; a collection of opinions. It's scores don't tell you if you'll love a game or hate it, they tell you if it's a good example of that particular style of game, if it's well-made or not. The rest is up to the reader to decide if they'd like it or not. |
Exactly. Pick a couple of reviews, and read them. Then consider the genre. Just blindly following the metacritic score is silly. Game X got 79 so I won't buy it! Game Y got 80, so I'll buy it!
Metacritic is nothing more than a collection of the opinions of other gamers. The only difference between user scores, and metacritic scores, is that the paid reviewers can't give a game a 0/10, or a 10/10. There are generally three types of users that review a game. The first type is Timmy. He hasn't played very many good games in his life. As a result Timmy will give anything that is great a 10/10. The second type is Brutus. Brutus is a spoiled child, and gets angry over tiny things. Any game that isn't utter perfection gets a 0/10 from Brutus. The third and final type is John. John could be a paid reviewer. He uses good judgement when he reviews a game.
Metacritic doesn't do much other than removing the trolls, and noobs from the game reviews equation.
