Opencritic has now cemented itself as the best aggregate site in town as it has almost matched Metacritic in features and still exceeds MC in accountability. You can now rate games and after 20 ratings a game will show a user rating adn you can add a user review as well as add how many hours you played. 

Currently Metaphor Refantazio had a 100% as well as Astrobot also at 100%. So perhaps not entirely unbiased. 

Could be a fun way to waste a dreary afternoon. 

Yeeeaaa can't say I'll trust any aggregate user reviews site ever considering the social/psychological machinations and recency bias at play most of the time with those. Always found most users to be extremely bipolar in their opinions towards games resulting in the usual 0s, 1s, 9s and 10s you'll have most of the time.

Qualitative reviews that employ only words to raise their points and feelings on any given will always superior.

Gonna take me a little while to get used to their new layout for game pages.

The 20 review requirement is good. I actually hope they start requiring games to have 20 critic reviews before they qualify for the Wall of Fame too, because at the moment all it takes is for a few sites to review a niche game well and bam, it's on the Wall of Fame, and unlikely to fall off unless more sites start playing it for review purposes.

Yea they're also a bit all over the place with what qualifies for the wall of fame. Like Hades 2 early access and Fate/Stay Night Remastered is on there but sometimes they'll leave out a full remake.

As for the player ratings and new layout I'm not too stoked about it currently. Also seems like the average jumps to closest 0 or 5 which is a bit of a weird choice. But we'll see I do look at player ratings on other sites.

I get the impression that they have to manually exclude/include remasters & remakes, and haven't yet formulated a firm policy on dealing with the different types of remaster and remake (and in fairness it can be tricky to work out, as we've discovered when determining what does/doesn't count for GotY purposes), which is probably the cause of the inconsistency there. 

I can't really take user reviews seriously because of review bombing, fanboy warring, political opinion nonsense, etc. honestly i thought user reviews should be removed completely from metacritic entirely unless they added a way users can verify that they actually played a game. I trust steam reviews because you have to at least played the game for 2 hours before you review. So not really thrilled that open critic added this.

If they really want to do user reviews they should have a way to link your steam, psn, xbox, nintendo, etc account that shows you played the game. would greatly reduce the amount of troll reviews.

Nah, it shows a sign, a symptom... a red flag so to speak and a warning something is up. If you look into what's up and it turns out to be something stupid like a female character is bikini is getting changed or the whole JK Rowling thing with Hogwarts Legacy then ignore it but it's good to know when something actually is up. There's a lot of stuff I've learned from those redflags like the remaster of Warcraft 3 for example which was fucked and nothing like the game I remember or the little changes to the remaster of Dark souls, which I decided to buy anyway but it was good to know because of user reviews as games media does not cover that kind of really magnified nuance. Got burned badly on the GTA remasters and I wished I'd have listened to the user reviews. They help and don't really hinder anything, just ignore them if ya find them to be a shit idea. 

There are plenty of video reviews that tend to go over stuff like that better, and steam reviews system that the other platforms should adopt. Metacritic user reviews are just a bunch of morons spamming 0 and 10's. 

They added the worst thing about Metacritic.

I suppose I somewhat agree.