-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
I question Metacritic's inclusion of some scores and reviewers half-playing of games
- Thread starter ULTROS!
- Start date
- Status
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
So? What makes negative reviews where they don't finish the game not valid? It's like they played 5 mins and reviewed it, they literally disliked it enough to not be able to continue.
Secondly, who gives a shit? It's metacritic, I'm not sure what it having a 89.66666666% vs. 90% matters to anyone. I totally understand if this was so rampant that you're having renown games get 30% on the site but you're going to need to flesh out why Nier having an 89 vs. 90 (which isn't even true if you do the math) is so important.
Secondly, who gives a shit? It's metacritic, I'm not sure what it having a 89.66666666% vs. 90% matters to anyone. I totally understand if this was so rampant that you're having renown games get 30% on the site but you're going to need to flesh out why Nier having an 89 vs. 90 (which isn't even true if you do the math) is so important.
I do think you should at least finish the damn game before giving it a review.
However, I've been told that my 30 hours + beating the game for Zelda wasn't enough to review the game. Then I put an additional 40 hours into the game and was told I need to play at least 100 hours to accurately review the game because I just haven't experienced everything the game has to offer yet.
Maybe they were just mad that I gave the game an 8/10. We'll never know.
However, I've been told that my 30 hours + beating the game for Zelda wasn't enough to review the game. Then I put an additional 40 hours into the game and was told I need to play at least 100 hours to accurately review the game because I just haven't experienced everything the game has to offer yet.
Maybe they were just mad that I gave the game an 8/10. We'll never know.
JasonUresti
Member
Why do any of you care about this? Why does score on a website mean anything to you in your enjoyment of a game?
This all strikes me as embarrassingly infantile whining.
This all strikes me as embarrassingly infantile whining.
prag16
Banned
What the fuck does "supposed to be" 90s mean? According to who? You?
About Nier, if the gameplay didn't click over a full playthrough, the guy should play through if multiple additional times?
Sort of reminds me of Xenoblade X. "No really, it REALLY gets good like 45 hours in, for serious!!!"
About Nier, if the gameplay didn't click over a full playthrough, the guy should play through if multiple additional times?
Sort of reminds me of Xenoblade X. "No really, it REALLY gets good like 45 hours in, for serious!!!"
Yeah the notion that a game is "supposed" to have a certain Metacritic score if it weren't for a bad review is completely absurd. Like, you could use that logic to say that "if it weren't for [any number of bad reviews] then [any game] should have [any score]."
In the abstract, no, I really don't think reviewers are obligated to finish games. I understand that Nier is something of an edge case given that it apparently has multiple endings, all of which are part of the main story, but nevertheless, if a reviewer plays enough of a game to feel that they have seen what it has to offer, than why should they have to grind onwards if they don't like the game?
Obviously, if a particular reviewer has a habit or regularly not finishing games that is something that should be taken up as a separate issue, but I don't really think it's Metacritic's place to filter out one-off bad reviews.
And this is, of course, not even really factoring in that Metacritic represents only the broadest, vaguest, most cursory indication of what a game has to offer. It can have its place when it comes to getting a sketchy idea of if a game is well-executed or not, but fretting over a 1 point loss because one guy didn't enjoy the way the multiple route mechanic panned out feels very silly.
KojiKnight
Member
The problem is that they aren't just playing a game they are also writing, editing, maintaining social media presence, pr, etc. Most of these writers are pulling a lot of jobs and the reviews have deadlines they have to be done by.
The other big problem is that there are a lot of cheer leaders when it comes to metacritic... And if your score review deviates from the norm (or what they want) it can lead to all sorts of name calling.
ULTROS!
People seem to like me because I am polite and I am rarely late. I like to eat ice cream and I really enjoy a nice pair of slacks.
The argument is lost by the "supposed to be 90" line.
Like, why they're supposed to be 90? Doesn't change that they're both great games.
I edited the topic since my annoyance go to me regarding the unfinished games review. Apologies.
Regardless, this thread is about questions reviewers writing a review of a game they haven't even completed.
Alpha Centauri
Member
One of the reviewer's complaints is that the 'story feels incomplete.'
Of course it fuckin' feels incomplete, you're not even halfway done yet with story progression!
He even says this:
Which is something that Yoko Taro did in Nier 1, AND this game, and that's only in the first two 'routes' - in the subsequent ones in this game there's completely new world/story stuff he never even got to!
That's all.
The game reviewer's job is to review the game.
A movie is ~90 - 180 minutes and non interactive. Not finishing a movie before reviewing it is silly because generally you're out 3 hours at worst and it's entirely the means for a narrative. Games can be multiple tens of hours (if not hundreds) and explicitly incorporate game elements. For particularly long games, you can get the jist of it without finishing it.
While the NieR reviewer should have continued on, since it is clear they knew there would be more content, NieR also doesn't need to throw "fake out credits" and put the player back to the main menu after each ending. I know le whacky yoko taro but still, if it's that significant just make the transition easier.
So you are ok with movie reviewers only watching the first 5 minutes of a movie, or book reviewers only reading 100 pages of a 1000 page book, but still reviewing it.
Primethius
Banned
And has 0 relevancy.
"Super Mario game has no guns or swords." Great factual statement.
Pretty sure most non disabled folks can read the back of a box to see "1 player only" or do a google search, or talk to an employee of where they purchase.
katsubento
Member
Reviews like that automatically are worthless to me.
If you are a reviewer, you should finish the game at least. It would be like a movie reviewer watching half then calling it a day or an automotive journalist being in the car, and not actually driving it.
If you are a reviewer, you should finish the game at least. It would be like a movie reviewer watching half then calling it a day or an automotive journalist being in the car, and not actually driving it.
It was also known from the beginning that "this game is developed by Guerrilla Games and published by Sony. It is currently available on PS4." Yet neither of you are throwing a fit about those statements...
DeathoftheEndless
Crashing this plane... with no survivors!
I'm confused about the first quote. It sounds to me like he finished the game. Wanting him to complete it multiple times for alternate endings would be a waste of time.
More_Badass
Member
I think it depends. 65 hours of Skyrim or Witcher 3, 10 hours of playthroughs of a roguelike without actually reaching the end, etc., I don't think it's necessary to complete games like that. One can form valid impression of gameplay, polish, and so on without finishing
Short games, very narrative focused games (ie Inside, Papers Please, Walking Dead, Last of Us, and so on), should be finished.
Zomba13
Member
I think you shouldn't post a review of something until you are done with it. I know games aren't movies and require more time and I know that different games and players have different ideas of what "complete" even is, but I think until you see credits or the point where the game itself says you are done then you aren't done.
Exceptions of course for MMO games or survival type games like Minecraft (before it was patched into have an ending). It's harder to define and end in those games (does getting max level count? doing end game raids? story quests? dying once in a rogue like?) but most games have endings, even if there are multiple ones and good and bad ones.
I know for some games you get the idea about halfway through but the same can be said for some movies, you see the twist coming a mile off, you know how it will end, it's all predictable, you've seen the actors act ut I still would rather a review from someone who sat through the whole thing instead of giving up halfway though and saying "eh, it was ok, not my kind of thing I only saw half of it though".
Exceptions of course for MMO games or survival type games like Minecraft (before it was patched into have an ending). It's harder to define and end in those games (does getting max level count? doing end game raids? story quests? dying once in a rogue like?) but most games have endings, even if there are multiple ones and good and bad ones.
I know for some games you get the idea about halfway through but the same can be said for some movies, you see the twist coming a mile off, you know how it will end, it's all predictable, you've seen the actors act ut I still would rather a review from someone who sat through the whole thing instead of giving up halfway though and saying "eh, it was ok, not my kind of thing I only saw half of it though".
He didn't though...
Gentleman Jack
Member
The FT review acknowledges this, but ultimately did not find playing through the game fun enough to make doubling their time with the game worthwhile.
Pretty cut and dried case of 'I didn't like playing the game,' to me. Why does the reviewer owe anybody the time required to get multiple endings if they don't think they're playing a good game to begin with?
Yeah it's a bit odd since he seemingly knows there is more content there but chose to stop.
At the same time, comparing that to "A MOVIE REVIEWER WALKING OUT AFTER 10 MINUTES" is stupid. Presumably some portion of readers also feel similar to the writer and won't want to replay it 5 times.
If a book reviewer read half a goddamn book or less and put out a review, I'd never trust said person's reviews from that point onward.
If a movie critic watched half a movie and put out a review, I'd never trust any review from them from that point on.
People do not go to reviews of products/films they're interested in for half-assed impressions. Relying on the reviewer's feeling that they'd seen enough of a product to pass judgment on is incredibly foolish, and a recipe for buyer's remorse from those who do trust said person.
guybrushfreeman
Unconfirmed Member
He stopped about 1/3 of the way through the game
Blam
Member
Which is what I don't understand a number shouldn't be the only basis for what someone takes out of a review, and frankly a lot of people do look at reviews that way.
Endings aren't 'endings' in this game, or any other Yoko Taro game. They are springboards for the rest of the story.
Basically, there is an Ending A, and then an Ending B
using a different character, with new cutscenes and a new perspective, but with similar content. Then, Ending C and the other ones is completely all-new content.
Human Trashcan
Banned
1) 18 hours is a long enough time to decide if you like a game
2) Outlets don't decide whether to be featured on MC, MC does, at least that's my understanding. Take it up with metacritic.
3) who fucking cares about the MC average. Fucking seriously.
2) Outlets don't decide whether to be featured on MC, MC does, at least that's my understanding. Take it up with metacritic.
3) who fucking cares about the MC average. Fucking seriously.
CoD4: Modern Warfare was so unsatisfying. You mean to tell me that after fighting my way through Al-Asad's elite guard, all I get is a cutscene of my character dying in a nuclear explosion?
Why the fuck did I pay $12 to watch Run Lola Run when it was just a TV episode about gangsters? Shitty arthouse theater didn't even have the dignity to run a double feature if they were gonna do shorts.
There's nothing wrong with someone deciding that they're done without sucking out the marrow, but it's somewhere between insulting and contrary to the role of a competent critic to rate something on how effectively it cleaves to norms.
More_Badass
Member
I agree for gameplay and the like, but it's hard to review the story portion of a game if you don't actually complete it.
Apparently, SE sent a message out this time, but I don't know if this outlet would have gotten the message.
guybrushfreeman
Unconfirmed Member
I find it hard to escape this point. It's not the readers fault a game is long. I'd never read a book review of 1/3 of a book or 1/3 of a movie. I can't see why that would be acceptable anywhere else including games
Gentleman Jack
Member
I'm getting flashbacks to a time when people were catching shit for criticizing the first 30 hours of FF13 because they hadn't 'started playing the game yet.'
ULTROS!
People seem to like me because I am polite and I am rarely late. I like to eat ice cream and I really enjoy a nice pair of slacks.
Ending B unlocks another point of view. Ending C/D/E unlocks the other half of the story with a new location.
prag16
Banned
No. That's bullshit. If he played Nier for 20 hours, saw the credits, and overall didn't reply like the game he's justified in giving it the score he sees fit. He's not obligated to play another 40 hours to stave off metacritic nerd rage.
Thats fine for gameplay, but complaining about the story when you never get the finished story isn't. If it takes 30 hrs to finish the main story and you only play 18, its like watching half of a movie or reading half of a book.
It's Reyn Time!
Member
It absolutely should not be expected for reviewers to have to finish every game they review, just tell us how much they played and their experience of playing it.
That reviewer was more than forthcoming with how much they played to reach that conclusion.
That reviewer was more than forthcoming with how much they played to reach that conclusion.
GravityInsanity
Member
I can respect opinions if my favorite game gets a bad score. I read their reasons and move on. But if they give a bad score to a game they haven't finished, I can't take them serious as reviewers. If they do it once, they'll potentially do it again for the next game. I'm not one to get pissed off and attack the reviewer online like I've seen some.
Some games can start off slow, then later pick up and get better and better and then you can experience an incredible ending. They get paid to review games from start to finish.
Finish the game and then give a review. Simple!
Edit: Also, don't attack the reviewer because he affected the score on Metacritic. Blame Metacritic, but it's not really that serious to begin with.
Some games can start off slow, then later pick up and get better and better and then you can experience an incredible ending. They get paid to review games from start to finish.
Finish the game and then give a review. Simple!
Edit: Also, don't attack the reviewer because he affected the score on Metacritic. Blame Metacritic, but it's not really that serious to begin with.
DeathoftheEndless
Crashing this plane... with no survivors!
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
There's actually a message put in by Square after getting ending A telling to to keep going for more content and the rest of the story lol
Eh, reviews aren't very meaningful anyway outside of feeling good about what you bought
Eh, reviews aren't very meaningful anyway outside of feeling good about what you bought
Roger Ebert:
He's done this with about 5 or 6 films throughout his career.
If a reviewer hates something, they're perfectly within their rights not to get all the way through it. Granted, they're not very professional if they do this all the time, but in games above most other media, it's completely possible to form an opinion without exhausting all of the content. There is a tipping point beyond which nothing will redeem what you have already gone through, and if that becomes the case, there is no need to go on.
Unless the sole criticism is that the game is too short or leaves plot points unanswered I guess I don't really care. If they didn't like it enough to finish, how is that not a valid appraisal of the product? Movies too. Unless the criticism is solely plot resolution based I wouldn't care at all if a reviewer walked out of a movie because the acting sucked, the production quality was terrible and/or the story was just dumb or nonsensical on its face.
Primethius
Banned
I just got ending W in Nier. Only took me 30 minutes. Such a short game, 2/10, not enough value for my $60.
guybrushfreeman
Unconfirmed Member
'Saw the credits' is meaningless when the game is only 1/3 over. If I played a game by just running the credits from the main menu could I give it a 1/10? He literally only played 1/3 of the game. The credits have nothing to do with it
- Status