Someone is messing with the metacritic user score.
Mkilbride
Join Date: 2010-01-07 Member: 69952Members
Join Date: 2010-01-07 Member: 69952Members
Ahem.
For once, not in a bad way, but that may depend on your perception. I check it 2-3 times a day.
2-3 hours ago it had roughly 50 user scores.
Now, it has over 120, and every single one of them is a 10.
We could assume, in a perfect world, that a large amount of players just decided to randomly post their thoughts on the game, on metacritic.
But it's been out for over a week, and now, suddenly, it more than doubles in number on metacritic, and universally praised?
Obviously the Gamespot review may have had something to do with it. People seeing that review and mass voting it up. Keep in mind, the majority of these new 10's do not really leave a review, just a score.
I don't like it. The review was ######, but I'm willing to bet that most of those new reviews are people who didn't even play the game, but felt UWE was under attack by Gamespot and did that simply to support the game and UWE, and have not played it.
Granted, it didn't change the overall score much since it was nearly universal praise before....but it's not right. I guess there is nothing that can be done, as why would any developer complain about such a thing, or how could you really prove it?
IT just takes away, overall. It feels cheap, and wrong. The Gamestop review was taken down from Gamestop and soon from Metacritic...but it's user score has been influenced beyond repair.
It's a type of trolling and I think it's terrible to do.
For once, not in a bad way, but that may depend on your perception. I check it 2-3 times a day.
2-3 hours ago it had roughly 50 user scores.
Now, it has over 120, and every single one of them is a 10.
We could assume, in a perfect world, that a large amount of players just decided to randomly post their thoughts on the game, on metacritic.
But it's been out for over a week, and now, suddenly, it more than doubles in number on metacritic, and universally praised?
Obviously the Gamespot review may have had something to do with it. People seeing that review and mass voting it up. Keep in mind, the majority of these new 10's do not really leave a review, just a score.
I don't like it. The review was ######, but I'm willing to bet that most of those new reviews are people who didn't even play the game, but felt UWE was under attack by Gamespot and did that simply to support the game and UWE, and have not played it.
Granted, it didn't change the overall score much since it was nearly universal praise before....but it's not right. I guess there is nothing that can be done, as why would any developer complain about such a thing, or how could you really prove it?
IT just takes away, overall. It feels cheap, and wrong. The Gamestop review was taken down from Gamestop and soon from Metacritic...but it's user score has been influenced beyond repair.
It's a type of trolling and I think it's terrible to do.
Comments
people being infuriated by the shoddy gamespot review is one thing, but i don't see how a small minority of hardcore fans could sway the score for ns2 more than the hardcore fans of any other game :P
Resident evil 6 got higher than a 3 on the User scores.
Completely inaccurate.
<img src="http://s18.postimage.org/8gywz012h/ns2timeplayed.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2-3 hours ago it had roughly 50 user scores. Now, it has over 120, and every single one of them is a 10.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
False, today Nov 9, 2012 ONLY 7 users reviewed it, and Nov 8, 2012(yesterday) only 8 users reviewed. you just make up things as you go? Nice troll OP..
No job and living in a van by the river boredom comes and goes. But, I like to point out the OP is spreading false statements.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2-3 hours ago it had roughly 50 user scores.
Now, it has over 120, and every single one of them is a 10.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
only 7 reviewed it today and only 8 yesterday, plus Nov 6, 2012 only 4 reviewed the game, so his trolling us very hard trying to start something that is not even true. Check for yourself <a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/natural-selection-2/user-reviews?sort-by=date&num_items=100" target="_blank">Metacritics Users review by date</a>
all that site does is add all the scores and divide it by the number of scores. surely it can't generate THAT much hatred.
<a href="http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/15/obsidian-missed-fallout-new-vegas-metacritic-bonus-by-one-point/" target="_blank">http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/15/obsidian...s-by-one-point/</a>
<a href="http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-07-27-irrational-games-looks-to-hire-devs-with-game-metacritic-ratings-over-85" target="_blank">http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012...ratings-over-85</a>
I would argue that 3.8 is a fair score for Diablo 3 and this point essentially hinders your argument that scores mean nothing as opposed to supporting it.
QFT
Anyway, metacritic, positive or negative, is totally irrelevant and the notion of an aggregate analysis of an artform is a corrupt concept beneath my contempt. Especially when the best reviews I read don't actually have scores.
nah... in all seriousness diablo 3 has gotta be at least a 7.5-8...
it's braindead, awful story, dated 'world of warcraft' graphics... but there is a very small part which latches onto the epicness of diablo2. granted it's not enough to last more than ~10 hours of farming, where you start to hate it but can't stop yourself from playing...
i was massively disappointed and really hate diablo3... but the fact that i've played it for about 50 hours says that it's better than dishonored etc - which i enjoyed and played for 20 hours but will probably never play again.
Unfortunately, people make buying decisions based on metacritic scores. Journalists are more likely to cover games with higher scores. It's even used in the games industry as a benchmark- there was a big brouhaha when (I think it was) Fallout New Vegas came out and got an 89 metacritic score, and the developers only got a bonus from the publisher if they had a 90 or above on metacritic.
<a href="http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-07-27-irrational-games-looks-to-hire-devs-with-game-metacritic-ratings-over-85" target="_blank">http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012...ratings-over-85</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not Metacritic's fault though. All they do is gather reviews, give them a certain weight, and compile an average score. The problem lies with the reviewers, or better yet, the nature of review scores itself and how much value the readers/publishers give it. If the readers stop giving weight to those scores, or if the reviewers stop giving scores in the first place, all Metacritic can do is just compile lists of reviews.
Well, if NS1 gets a score of 9.0-10.0 then a score between 6.0-7.0 for NS2 is just fair. Simply there are no/low improvements compared to NS1.
Gameplay isent improved.Its a massive downgrade currently. Especially the strategic depht is lower compared to NS1. Less upgrades ,no weldable doors,no elevators for example. And those CommanderGUIs...hell . I dont know any RTS-game with such a badly designed GUI. (for example: why in hell they dont add the mod "insight" to the commanderGUI)
I loved NS1. NS2 is near of a NS1 with improved graphics(but lower performance o_O ) so I like it too. But I dont see any real improvements and that pissed me of a bit. So much years of development(beta!) for what? Results are simply to low. Points of 10 are unobjective,not pragmatic, ridiculous and made by fanatic fanboys.
Maybe I am blind. Just tell me where are the big improvements in gamedesign.
+1