Support NeoGAF

ULTROS! · Mar 11, 2017

So I'd like to present 2 games. Besides the score, what's annoying is that even the reviewer hasn't completed the game and fully concludes a game, so much for "professional reviews".

Example 1, NieR Automata:

Review: http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/f...e-daring-ambitious-oh-and-also-a-big-fat-mess

In fact, thats a pretty good summation of the entire Nier: Automata experience. Loads of interesting ideas and plenty of good intentions, but nothing sticks. Its like it was made by a team of people with super short attention spans. Theyd come up with a good idea, carry it half way, then get distracted by another thought, and do it all over again until ending up with an unfocused, unsatisfying, incomplete product.

Perhaps I stopped too early. Maybe I should have played through a second time and a third and fourth to see what the writers were holding back for those with the patience and tenacity to keep going. Maybe Nier: Automata is actually the Rashomon of video games, providing new insight and perspective each time you play, resulting in something that transcends each individual play-though.

Example 2, Horizon: Zero Dawn:

Review: https://gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/horizon-zero-dawn-review/

The sad fact for Horizon, and every other open-world game like it, is that we now live in a post-Witcher 3 world. CD Projekt Red has raised the bar for this genre in nearly every conceivable way, and it is absolutely not enough to simply be another open-world game. The sidequests have to be interesting, the writing has to be engaging, the characters have to be memorable just putting a good premise and great graphics on top of boilerplate content isnt enough. At least, its not enough for this reviewer.

Horizon: Zero Dawn checks all the open-world boxes and will have no problem eating up a number of hours for people who arent tired of this formula yet, but with more focus on its strengths and a willingness to break away from what every other open-world game does, Aloys journey couldve easily been one of the years best. Rating: 6.5 out of 10

Disclosures: This game is developed by Guerrilla Games and published by Sony. It is currently available on PS4. This copy of the game was obtained via publisher and reviewed on the PS4. Approximately 18 hours of play were devoted to the single-player mode, and the game was not completed. There are no multiplayer modes.

Honestly not finishing the game and giving it a full review is also unfair to those who finished the game and gave it reviews and me makes question the integrity of reviews and how they are included in Metacritic's selection of critic reviews.

Neoleo2143 · Mar 11, 2017

If a reviewer played only to Ending A of Nier Automata, their opinion is invalid because they missed out on extremely important content that was unique.

The True ending to the game is amazing, incredible stuff.

I don't like this practice at all. They're being payed to review the experience from beginning to end. That may not be collect all the lore or 100% the game, but at least see everything major story and gameplay wise..

Fou-Lu · Mar 11, 2017

I find it pretty gross that someone could receive a review copy from a publisher and not finish the game.

ForkNetwork · Mar 11, 2017

What about a game like Digimon: Next Order? That takes over 70 hours to beat and basically repeats the same beats since hour 40?

_Clash_ · Mar 11, 2017

Try gamerankings?

Reduce the mind share you give meta reviewing as it has flaws?

MineralCraver420 · Mar 11, 2017

If we're talking about questionable Metacritic practices, the worst is still weighed scores. Some outlets have more influence on the overall metascore than others. That is pretty damn corrupt if you ask me.

Dio · Mar 11, 2017

ForkNetwork said:
What about a game like Digimon: Next Order? That takes over 70 hours to beat and basically repeats the same beats since hour 40?

The problem is that there is a ton of new and completely unique content waiting for the reviewer after the point they stopped at, in this case. They never got to the 'second act' of Nier Automata's story, which is not repeated content.

Gator86 · Mar 11, 2017

ULTROS! said:
So I'd like to present 2 critically acclaimed games. They were supposed to be 90 but apparently their scores got dragged down by an extreme minor point of view, what's annoying is that even the reviewer hasn't completed the game and fully concludes a game is bad, so much for "professional reviews".

Example 1, NieR Automata:

Review: http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/f...e-daring-ambitious-oh-and-also-a-big-fat-mess

Example 2, Horizon: Zero Dawn:

Review: https://gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/horizon-zero-dawn-review/

Honestly not finishing the game and giving it a full review is also unfair to those who finished the game and gave it reviews and me makes question the integrity of reviews and how they are included in Metacritic's selection of critic reviews.

What the fuck does "supposed to be" mean? I'm sorry these subjective opinions don't agree with your preconceived notions of these games. Horizon is my goty so far and I have zero issues with everyone not loving it. Man, metacritic/review scores bring out the crazy in people.

Parshias7 · Mar 11, 2017

If someone isn't enjoying a game 18 hours in, then I don't think slogging to the finish is going to change their opinion.

Sorry your favorite new game got a bad score. If the reviewer had finished the game you might have had to come up with some other rationalization why their opinion shouldn't count.

ZeroX03 · Mar 11, 2017

Arguably that's more representative of the player base, the majority of which won't finish the game?

Neoleo2143 · Mar 11, 2017

ForkNetwork said:
What about a game like Digimon: Next Order? That takes over 70 hours to beat and basically repeats the same beats since hour 40?

Then it will be rightfully criticized. Some games do fall through the cracks like Darkest Dungeon though (I'm pretty sure most reviewers didn't actually finish that game).

Dio · Mar 11, 2017

Parshias7 said:
If someone isn't enjoying a game 18 hours in, then I don't think slogging to the finish is going to change their opinion.

Sorry your favorite new game got a bad score. If the reviewer had finished the game you might have had to come up with some other rationalization why their opinion shouldn't count.

Honestly, I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever personally if they had the same opinion after finishing the game.

More_Badass · Mar 11, 2017

ULTROS! said:
So I'd like to present 2 critically acclaimed games. They were supposed to be 90 but apparently their scores got dragged down by an extreme minor point of view.

Put these games and reviews aside for a moment

Why is it supposed to be 90 and why shouldn't less positive reviews be included, regardless of whether they're "minor"?

Perineum · Mar 11, 2017

LOL at "no multiplayer" last sentence of the Horizon "review."

These need to be thrown out. That's like a food critic going into an ice cream parlor and docking them for not having tacos.

Yeah no shit. Review what is there, not what isn't or you wish. Not every game needs MP, yadda yadda, guy is a moron.

LotusHD · Mar 11, 2017

Dio said:
Honestly, I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever personally if they had the same opinion after finishing the game.

Yup, you'd just have to get over it. At the very least, you'd have much less of a leg to stand on.

Jasper Avenue · Mar 11, 2017

I think all reviewers should finish a game before reviewing it.

I'm ok with giving up a game halfway through it but I'm also not the one writing a book report about it.

sanstesy · Mar 11, 2017

Oh no, it got one point less on Metacritic!

🙄

Noobcraft · Mar 11, 2017

MineralCraver420 said:
If we're talking about questionable Metacritic practices, the worst is still weighed scores. Some outlets have more influence on the overall metascore than others. That is pretty damn corrupt if you ask me.

Afaik opencritic doesn't do weighted scores and they end up being nearly identical to metacritic's totals +/- a point or two.

Glazed · Mar 11, 2017

do critics do this for movies

_Clash_ · Mar 11, 2017

When you play Wonderful 101 and it polls top 5 of all time on your list and you no longer care about meta.

W101 the gift that keeps on giving

Dio · Mar 11, 2017

Glazed said:
do critics do this for movies

It would be hilarious if a movie critic gave Get Out a 5/10 after they walked out 1/3 of the way into the movie.

toastyToast · Mar 11, 2017

Nier is 89 again? I can only cancel my pre-order so many times

Riposte · Mar 11, 2017

Worrying about metacritic seems to be a misguided approach to discuss flawed reviews.

FLEABttn · Mar 11, 2017

If I'm playing a game I don't like, I'm not going to force myself through it, and I'm going to tell people how bad it is.

For example, I don't think you need for force people through FF13 to tell if their opinion on how bad it is is valid or not.

adj_noun · Mar 11, 2017

Gator86 said:
Horizon is my goty so far and I have zero issues with everyone not loving it.

I learned long ago that I needed to either be ok with people downright hating the kind of games I love or go mad.

Picked the first option.

Gentleman Jack · Mar 11, 2017

I've got zero problems with a review from the perspective of those who don't have the time to get each and every ending of a game with the following negatives listed

Worse still, it takes hours of play to unlock the fast travel feature. You're going to get to know this patch of unimaginative ruins all too well.

So, exploration isn't much fun. There's shockingly little world to discover, and what we find on the other sides of hills usually isn't all that special. What could have made this journey more bearable is combat. But it doesn't.

Why is the reviewer obliged to put up with this over and over again in order to replace one arbitrary definition of 'done' with the game with another arbitrary definition of 'done' just to be included on review aggregators.

After finishing it the first time, with no real resolutions provided, we're told we need to start this 25-hour plus game all over again to get the full Nier: Automata experience.

I struggle to fathom how it's fair to expect every reviewer on MC to invest this much time or more to join the club. Criminy

ZeroX03 · Mar 11, 2017

Glazed said:
do critics do this for movies

No, but they do for television shows (a much more apt comparison considering the time investment). It's usually just the first four to six episodes they review a season on that counts.

Moneal · Mar 11, 2017

Dio said:
It would be hilarious if a movie critic gave Get Out a 5/10 after they walked out 1/3 of the way into the movie.

yea or a book. I read 300 pages of a 1000 page book 3/5. story had too many holes.

ForkNetwork · Mar 11, 2017

Dio said:
The problem is that there is a ton of new and completely unique content waiting for the reviewer after the point they stopped at, in this case. They never got to the 'second act' of Nier Automata's story, which is not repeated content.

Ah, I see, I did a review of Digimon and played 60 hours before writing it, but I couldnt really finish it. That reminds me a bit of Sonic and the Black Knight, and how IGN reviewed the game without actually finishing it.

NewGame · Mar 11, 2017

Reviewing reviews. Metareviewing.

Exentryk · Mar 11, 2017

Dio said:
It would be hilarious if a movie critic gave Get Out a 5/10 after they walked out 1/3 of the way into the movie.

Pretty much.

Earthbound64 · Mar 11, 2017

ULTROS! said:
their scores got dragged down by an extreme minor point of view, what's annoying is that even the reviewer hasn't completed the game and fully concludes a game is bad, so much for "professional reviews"

I mean, this has been happening for 20 years. Why the fuss now?

soundscream · Mar 11, 2017

I think you misread the financial post review. When they say that they stopped to early it was referring to a second or third playthrough.

Primethius · Mar 11, 2017

Ignoring the part about the score, both reviews are incredibly dumb.

If you aren't going to finish the game, either don't review it or make sure the review is scathing enough to point out why you're reviewing a game you only played partly.

Blam · Mar 11, 2017

sanstesy said:
Oh no, it got one point less on Metacritic!

🙄

This arbitrary number that has no meaning outside of someone elses word is lowered by a point.

What I'm getting at is a number shouldn't be what someone uses to judge a game, they should read the review in it's fullest and see if it lines up with any of their points before buying the game.

Mory Dunz · Mar 11, 2017

More_Badass said:
Put these games and reviews aside for a moment

Why is it supposed to be 90 and why shouldn't less positive reviews be included, regardless of whether they're "minor"?

Cause 90 is an even number. What the eff do you divide 89 by? disgusting.

ULTROS! · Mar 11, 2017

FLEABttn said:
If I'm playing a game I don't like, I'm not going to force myself through it, and I'm going to tell people how bad it is.

For example, I don't think you need for force people through FF13 to tell if their opinion on how bad it is is valid or not.

The problem here is that it's the reviewer's job to finish the game and write a review about it. Him liking it or not is definitely up to that reviewer.

The major issue here is reviewers not finishing the game and write a weighted review on major outlets. It's basically like watching half of a movie and writing a full review on it.

Elfstruck · Mar 11, 2017

ZeroX03 said:
Arguably that's more representative of the player base, the majority of which won't finish the game?

Because majority of people aren't reviewer. These are the people who got paid to review games, at least show some decency by finishing it.

Zolo · Mar 11, 2017

More_Badass said:
Put these games and reviews aside for a moment

Why is it supposed to be 90 and why shouldn't less positive reviews be included, regardless of whether they're "minor"?

Yeah. It kinda destroys the opening argument when it seems like this is the reason why you disregard reviews like this. I don't like reviewers not finishing a game, but I would say that whether it got a bad or good score.

KiefbladeMaster · Mar 11, 2017

I feel like, to fully review a game, you have to play it to completion even if you don't necessarily enjoy it. It's part of your job.

Espada · Mar 11, 2017

Jasper Avenue said:
I think all reviewers should finish a game before reviewing it.

I'm ok with giving up a game halfway through it but I'm also not the one writing a book report about it.

Yup. If reviewers have to complete books, movies, and albums they should complete video games before putting out their review. If they haven't completed the game, it should be noted prominently at the start of the review.

There are far too many games that introduce stuff at the halfway point or change pretty substantially to accept pratices like this. All this on top of the fact that reviewers rely on maintaining a positive relationship with the publisher so they can receive review code/copies as well as invitations to events.

Gentleman Jack · Mar 11, 2017

ULTROS! said:
The problem here is that it's the reviewer's job to finish the game and write a review about it.

Getting an ending after 25 hours of play sounds like finishing a game to me.

13ruce · Mar 11, 2017

Well now i am going to skip nier because it's below 90 on metacritc such a trash game.

/s

i will get both nier and horizon when i can. I don't care too much about reviews sure i admit they help but watching gameplay videos or playing a demo can sell me easier on a game and besides i played games that had like 50 scores or lower wich i enjoyed, like Sonic unleashed for example.

Moneal · Mar 11, 2017

ULTROS! said:
The problem here is that it's the reviewer's job to finish the game and write a review about it. Him liking it or not is definitely up to that reviewer.

The major issue here is reviewers not finishing the game and write a weighted review on major outlets. It's basically like watching half of a movie and writing a full review on it.

yea the review of Horizon was the worst because the review was mostly about the story and they probably didn't finish half the story

cakefoo · Mar 11, 2017

Perineum said:
LOL at "no multiplayer" last sentence of the Horizon "review."

These need to be thrown out. That's like a food critic going into an ice cream parlor and docking them for not having tacos.

Yeah no shit. Review what is there, not what isn't or you wish. Not every game needs MP, yadda yadda, guy is a moron.

"There are no multiplayer modes" is a fucking factual statement.

Natels · Mar 11, 2017

IMO some reviewers just let their opinion and taste take over their reviews too much. He doesn't like it, gives it a 5/10 and plays half the game, that makes no sense.

I think a review should be done by more than one person.

benny_a · Mar 11, 2017

Blam said:
This arbitrary number that has no meaning outside of someone elses word is lowered by a point.

It has actual real world meaning for the development studios.

That's the fucked part. I don't think this thread is about that but saying Metascore has no meaning is ignorant.

Zolo · Mar 11, 2017

NewGame said:
Reviewing reviews. Metareviewing.

Just a moment. Gotta get the website up and running.

Dio · Mar 11, 2017

Gentleman Jack said:
Getting an ending after 25 hours of play sounds like finishing a game to me.

None of Yoko Taro's games work like this.

They play with 'alternate timelines' and 'different' endings in the sense that certain routes are part of story progression.

For example, Ending A of Drakengard 3 is only the beginning of the actual story.

Moneal · Mar 11, 2017

cakefoo said:
"There are no multiplayer modes" is a fucking factual statement.

It was known since the game was announced. Why was that thrown in at the end? It made no sense, just sounded like they were trying to add another thing to knock the game on.

Support NeoGAF

I question Metacritic's inclusion of some scores and reviewers half-playing of games

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.

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

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.

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

extra source of jiggaflops

Member

Banned

Member

Similar threads