Goodnightmoon said:
GameSpot
"Even a few hours in, however, there comes a point where the loop of seeking and acquiring gear begins to sag, and the vastness of the galaxy sinks in. With an unfathomable universe beckoning, and hundreds of thousands of light years separating you from the intended finish line at the center of the galaxy, it becomes far too easy to question the meaning of your pursuits. No Man's Sky is an impressive technical feat, but its enormity may come at a cost. What does it mean to be alive in a world where everything is driven by algorithms, and your existence is solitary?"
IGN
"This is an enormously complex game, but it gets there by means of networking together many different mundane tasks. So far that’s been as amusing as it generally is in the genre of survival crafting games, but at this point No Man’s Sky has done little to set itself apart other than the impressive spectacle of flying from one impractically huge world to another without obvious loading screens between them."
USGamers
"The lack of emphasis on combat has led some to ask what exactly you're supposed to be doing in No Man's Sky outside of collecting resources. The answer, I suppose, is to find out what is at the end of the proverbial rainbow."
Polygon:
"I would love the opportunity to just explore these places, jump between them at will, explore the galaxy and see what awaits me without the constant pressure to collect a bunch of crafting materials just to survive."
Are you sure all those userscore reviews comes from haters? Some pretty important webs are saying similar things, it looks like the game has all the problems I thought it would, and since so many people was expecting some kind of game changing hit it wouldn't surprise me if that big disappointment has been translated into a lot of 0, people constantly overreact on the internet after all.
If is all because haters are hating an exclusive... can anybody explain me why Bloodborne and Uncharted 4 user scores were always high and green since the very first day?
|
The OT never claimed they were all from haters, just that a lot of them were. The score curve certainly implies at least 1 end (likely both, if to varying degrees) of the spectrum is motivated by disingenuous reasons.
Anyway, to the latter half of the bolded, yes, it can be explained.
There are many variables than can come into play when determining where a game's metacritic user score will end up (the end result is frequently a representation more of circumstance rather than quality), but often the most relevant question is simply "What is this games ratio of fans to haters, and why are those people fans/haters?". A game can have lots of haters and still be rated well, the former group just has to be sufficiently larger. Even then though, the scores will often take a hit, especially since the larger the former group, the more power a single negative rating has. UC4 is a pretty good example. Despite having managed to stay in the green, its metacritic user scores still sits pretty far outside its general user score curve:
Metacritic: 7.8
IMDb: 9.8
IGN: 9.5
Gamespot: 9.1
N4G: 9.5
Amazon UK: 9.4
Amazon US: 9.6
Amazon JP: 9.0
Amazon SP: 9.6
Amazoon FR: 9.2
Amazon GR: 9.2
Amazon CA: 9.8
Now, we can see here there is still plenty of variability (there's a pretty big difference between a 9.8 and a 9.0 in the gaming world), and none of these scores will be the result of 100% honest score aggregation, different sites can suffer different problems on the user front (and these scores have varying sample sizes), but one does stick out far more than the others, and (from those that show it) we can see it has by far the least logical score distribution. That doesn't mean said score can't accurately represent the opinion of some, but it's pretty clear from looking at the scores above that quality isn't the only factor determining where they end up.
