-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Do you care about 90+ Metacritic score?
- Thread starter BoJack
- Start date
I feel like the OP needs more options, I don't necessarily care about 90+, but I do care somewhat about the meta aggregate, or a games reception, reviews (especially from people or outlets I trust) and impressions in general, notably when it comes to buying games day one at full price. I'd say I'm far more likely to buy a game if it has an 80 or higher meta, and even more likely to if it has a 90's meta.
With limited time and few games to spread that time between, you simply have to be a bit more selective, and a games reception does help narrow that selection down. By in large and outside of only a few genres (eg racing games) I tend to mostly agree with review aggregate scoring, so I have little issue with using metacritic and reviews, impressions etc to help guide my purchases, though I don't necessarily do that all the time or with every purchase.
With limited time and few games to spread that time between, you simply have to be a bit more selective, and a games reception does help narrow that selection down. By in large and outside of only a few genres (eg racing games) I tend to mostly agree with review aggregate scoring, so I have little issue with using metacritic and reviews, impressions etc to help guide my purchases, though I don't necessarily do that all the time or with every purchase.
No, it's fun to predict what metascore is gonna end up for a game but unless it's a meta lower than 7 my purchase intention won't be affected.
If anything, a high score will draw my attention to a game I might have overlooked otherwise. For example, I hadn't bothered with the new God of War ( I didn't care for the old ones), but changed my mind and decided to try it when the rave reviews hit. I'm glad I did; it was an amazing game.
On the other hand, a lacklustre score won't dissuade me from something I'm into. For example, Far Cry New Dawn didn't get a huge MC score. But I love the open world style of FC games, so I'm sure I'll enjoy it and will get it anyway. I'm sure there's plenty of fun to be had with something like CD3 despite its mediocre MC/OC scores.
I think a lot of salty fanboys get all up in their feelings about bad scores for some games, or other fanboys can get obnoxious about a game doing well. Ultimately I think the scores are just a tool which can be useful if used appropriately, but are far from being the most important thing.
On the other hand, a lacklustre score won't dissuade me from something I'm into. For example, Far Cry New Dawn didn't get a huge MC score. But I love the open world style of FC games, so I'm sure I'll enjoy it and will get it anyway. I'm sure there's plenty of fun to be had with something like CD3 despite its mediocre MC/OC scores.
I think a lot of salty fanboys get all up in their feelings about bad scores for some games, or other fanboys can get obnoxious about a game doing well. Ultimately I think the scores are just a tool which can be useful if used appropriately, but are far from being the most important thing.
A game doesn't have to be 90+ to be worth playing. A high average score is obviously a good sign that a game is good but it's certainly not the only thing I base my gaming purchases on.
I don't care if a game scores in the 70's and 80's really. I can normally tell if I will like a game from watching trailers and gameplay videos. If the reviews are on the higher side (7 upwards) I will normally buy it. If a game scores in the 50's or 60's, I might pick it up in a sale, if I liked the look of it. Anything below 50 is probably not worth bothering with.
I don't care if a game scores in the 70's and 80's really. I can normally tell if I will like a game from watching trailers and gameplay videos. If the reviews are on the higher side (7 upwards) I will normally buy it. If a game scores in the 50's or 60's, I might pick it up in a sale, if I liked the look of it. Anything below 50 is probably not worth bothering with.
A game doesn't have to be 90+ to be worth playing but if a game is 90+ it is usually worth playing. I have never played a game with an above 90 MC that I couldn't at least see why reviewers considered it a good game.
Likewise I have never played a game in the 50-70 range that I couldn't see why it wasn't given a 90+.
Likewise I have never played a game in the 50-70 range that I couldn't see why it wasn't given a 90+.
It can be a useful quick factor in whether you buy a game, but I'd never put much stock in by itself.
At this point I barely get much out of reviews in general. It's so easy to get articles/interviews on how a game is designed, and large amounts of gameplay footage before release. Both provide a clearer idea of what the actual game will be like, especially when I can see someone who is actually good at the game vs. a reviewer in print who I have little clue how knowledgeable or deep they went typing or cutting video afterward. Watching someone in the moment play gives a fairer idea of the game, than someone trying to articulate their reaction back to me.
At this point I barely get much out of reviews in general. It's so easy to get articles/interviews on how a game is designed, and large amounts of gameplay footage before release. Both provide a clearer idea of what the actual game will be like, especially when I can see someone who is actually good at the game vs. a reviewer in print who I have little clue how knowledgeable or deep they went typing or cutting video afterward. Watching someone in the moment play gives a fairer idea of the game, than someone trying to articulate their reaction back to me.
The only thing that matter to me is whether the game looks interesting or not. I never cared about Metacritic. RDR2 has a high Metacritic score, but I have zero interested in playing the game.
Nope. Many of the games I'm playing now (and having a blast with) do not have a high metacritic.
Yes as they're generally quality games if consensus is that high. It doesn't mean I'll like the game as I have a lot of genres and types and styles of games that just aren't for me. But it's rare I don't end up loving a 90+ game in a genre etc that I enjoy.
That said, it's not like I only play high scoring games. I'm having a blast with Anthem currently, for instance, and that's in the 60s.
That said, it's not like I only play high scoring games. I'm having a blast with Anthem currently, for instance, and that's in the 60s.
There should be another option for no in the poll.
Nah. I want the games I play to be good, but the difference between say an 85 and a 90 is arbitrary. The meta score is only a rough approximation of consensus, and the consensus doesn't always align with my preferences.
Nah. I want the games I play to be good, but the difference between say an 85 and a 90 is arbitrary. The meta score is only a rough approximation of consensus, and the consensus doesn't always align with my preferences.
Last edited:
Well it's another way for a game to catch my eye but I've never played a game I otherwise wouldn't have solely because of the score. My tastes differ from most people. Most of the critically acclaimed games that come out year after year, the kind that usually tend to win the most GotY awards or get the most adoration on forums, or the ones that draw the biggest numbers, like Fortnite or Apex Legends, rarely do much for me. That and the number itself doesn't really tell you all that much, save for what the average reviewer thought of the game. It doesn't tell you which aspects of the game are good or bad or why it so deeply resonated with them so it's a bit silly to rely purely on the number. I've had plenty of fun with games that scored in the 80's, more so than many games that scored in the 90's. I'd much rather play Phoenix Wright: Trials and Tribulations than, say, Bloodborne or a Rockstar game any day
Last edited:
Man, era is really bad at polls. I'm not sure I've ever seen one that wasn't highly skewed towards a particular tone or agenda.
The MC score is a just an average of the individual review scores. On its own it says nothing about a game other than how it was received.
Stop putting so much behind a number. Read the actual words and opinions that the number is derived from. The number gives you no information about the game, it will just reinforce or contradict whatever pre-conceived notions you have. Whilst it can be helpful in choosing which games to play, how helpful it is pales in comparison to even reading a single review.
The MC score is a just an average of the individual review scores. On its own it says nothing about a game other than how it was received.
Stop putting so much behind a number. Read the actual words and opinions that the number is derived from. The number gives you no information about the game, it will just reinforce or contradict whatever pre-conceived notions you have. Whilst it can be helpful in choosing which games to play, how helpful it is pales in comparison to even reading a single review.
Nope. Don't care about critics scores in general, especially in modern times, and I really don't care about an aggregate of those scores. Modern day critics seem to look specifically for things that don't matter to me and have very very different standards to me when it comes to what makes a game good.
If it doesn't impact you in any shape or form, why does it matter if it exists?
I enjoyed Crackdown 3 and NMH: Travis Strikes Again immensely, so I think it's safe to say that meta score doesn't bother me in the slightest!
You joke but I do carry that sentiment in many cases.
If I am excited for a particular game, then the score won't matter. If however it's something I'm not interested in enough unless it's great (this is the importnant part), then I would say there's no way I'm buying the game day one if it gets below an 85 or so. There is just other things I'd rather play than to waste time on a game that's just ok or even pretty good.
Calling aggregate scores pointless is completely wrong. If anything, aggregated scores tend to hide low effort or emotional/severely subjective reviews while giving a quick overview of the quality of sth.
Of course, Metacritic isn't the holy grail and doesn't always serve a niche audience, so people need to find reviewers that have a similar mindset and pay attention to their views as well. Having said that, it's completey wrong to completely isolate your self from sources of information that you generally don't agree with. You lose a lot by not listening to other people's opinions that you don't agree with.
The main issue with scored reviews isn't the score itself but the fact that people never read the actual reviews. That's by far the worst. It's also a terrible approach to completely dismiss reviews and blindly go and buy a game just because "I know I'm gonna like it". Companies are betting on that attitude with every sequel.
Of course, Metacritic isn't the holy grail and doesn't always serve a niche audience, so people need to find reviewers that have a similar mindset and pay attention to their views as well. Having said that, it's completey wrong to completely isolate your self from sources of information that you generally don't agree with. You lose a lot by not listening to other people's opinions that you don't agree with.
The main issue with scored reviews isn't the score itself but the fact that people never read the actual reviews. That's by far the worst. It's also a terrible approach to completely dismiss reviews and blindly go and buy a game just because "I know I'm gonna like it". Companies are betting on that attitude with every sequel.
I don't obsess over Metacritic scores, but I do think they tend to generally correlate with the overall quality of a game. Like, I would never write an angry forum post because my favorite game dropped from 93 to 92, but if a new title is scoring in that range it definitely piques my interest.
It's not an exact science and naturally there are going to be outliers. I've liked games with low Metacritic scores and I've disliked games that have high ones.
It's not an exact science and naturally there are going to be outliers. I've liked games with low Metacritic scores and I've disliked games that have high ones.
Kindasorta -- 80+ is already a pretty safe threshold for me to be honest.
Above all, the game's pitch has to align with what I personally feel like getting out of it.
I mean, Star Wars Battlefront 2015 is unironically my favorite MP shooter this gen despite its shortcomings.
Above all, the game's pitch has to align with what I personally feel like getting out of it.
I mean, Star Wars Battlefront 2015 is unironically my favorite MP shooter this gen despite its shortcomings.
if a person does not care about metacritic , i assumed his or her purchasing decisions are not impacted by it. Am i wrong to assume that?
To be honest, yes, I used to.
But for the past few months I've given the finger to numerical review scores in their entirety.
Bought RE2 because I thought it looked awesome. Have no idea how it "performed" review wise and I dont care.
But for the past few months I've given the finger to numerical review scores in their entirety.
Bought RE2 because I thought it looked awesome. Have no idea how it "performed" review wise and I dont care.
To a degree but I don't make a massive difference between say 88 or 89 and 90. I'm more likely to consider an off-the-radar indie which gets a remarkably high score than one in the low 80's but not scoring 90+ does not impact my decision to buy games I think look fun. I just finished Crackdown 3 with 60 on Metacritic and had a great time. I definitely think that in general, there is a correlation between how much I enjoy a game and high scores but you always have to consider what you like personally too. I flat out ignore fighting games with 90+ on Metacritic because I don't enjoy fighting games. For example.
No, that assumption is absolutely valid. But you're also assuming it doesn't impact them "in any shape or form".
We know that scores impact sales. We know that sales impact development. It's not wild to think that scores can not only affect parts of game design, but can even affect a game's very existence.
So, if it's possible for a game to be different or not even exist as a direct or indirect result of scores, can it really be said that scores "don't impact in any shape or form" an individual interested in games?
Yes, I don't go crazy over those numbers, and I don't avoid games with low metacritic scores just for the sake of it. But seeing a game I enjoyed get good reviews, and thus good metacritic scores puts a slight smile on my face. So it's not much but that definitely means I do care even if it's just a liiiitle bit.
Not really. I looked at the PS4 games that received a 90+ on metacritic this generation, and I would only consider playing 6 out of 26 of them. Those would be Bloodborne, Shadow of the Colossus, Witcher 3, MGSV, Divinity OS 2, and Inside. Of those, I did regret playing MGSV.
Meanwhile, one glance at my favorite developers Arkane and Obsidian and I absolutely love Dishonored 2 (88), Prey (82), Death of the Outsider (84), Mooncrash (83), Dark Messiah of M&M (72), Pillars of Eternity 2 (88), Pillars of Eternity (89), KOTOR 2 (86), The Stick of Truth (85), Fallout New Vegas (84), Mask of the Betrayer (82), Alpha Protocol (72), etc.
What sets the 90+ games apart is the technical details. They're polished, optimized, and generally strong graphically. While that stuff is good and I do appreciate it, I care far more about having a complex game design (Arkane or Obsidian) or uniqueness/creativity (Inside, SotC).
Meanwhile, one glance at my favorite developers Arkane and Obsidian and I absolutely love Dishonored 2 (88), Prey (82), Death of the Outsider (84), Mooncrash (83), Dark Messiah of M&M (72), Pillars of Eternity 2 (88), Pillars of Eternity (89), KOTOR 2 (86), The Stick of Truth (85), Fallout New Vegas (84), Mask of the Betrayer (82), Alpha Protocol (72), etc.
What sets the 90+ games apart is the technical details. They're polished, optimized, and generally strong graphically. While that stuff is good and I do appreciate it, I care far more about having a complex game design (Arkane or Obsidian) or uniqueness/creativity (Inside, SotC).
No I don't. Many 90+ games do not deserve those high scores. A game like Read Dead Redemption 2 doesn't even shoukd even get more than 80 in my opinion. And other games, like Vanquish, should be over 90, but they're not.
If it's something I normally don't play (GoW) or a game I haven't heard of, then a high score might make me check it out. If it's a game series I normally play, that I know reviewers are going to shit on anyway (Far Cry), then no. I'm going to buy it because I know I will have fun with it.
Yeah, but not 90's. (I'm not saying they deserve 90's.) And, that was just one example.
Edit: I just checked Metacritic for New Dawn and it's low 70's - and I loved it.
Voted no for several reasons.
1. I prefer and use Open Critic over Meta Critic. I don't even remember the last time I visited Meta Critic. Open Critic uses one overall score for the game itself instead of being separated by platform which I fucking hate.
2. Open Critic includes GamingBolt which quite honestly, is truly the only site (or magazine) that I give a damn about when it comes to reviews simply because their review scores line up within a point of mine 88% of the time. So if GamingBolt scores a game an 8/10, I know that almost 9 times out of 10, my score will be between a 7 and 9.
3. Open Critic doesn't weigh scores higher or lower than what they actually are. If a site gives a game an 80, it should be an 80. Not 81 or 79. That's just stupid.
I personally go based on GamingBolt more than everything else combined simply because as stated, my personal ratings lineup within a point of theirs. Granted, there's an exception here and there like Dead Rising 3 which they gave a 9/10 but I gave it a 6/10, Mad Max which they gave a 6/10 but I gave a 9/10 or Alienation which they gave a 5/10 but I gave it an 8.5/10. Just under every 9 out of 10 games, their score is within a point of mine.
In general, I would use Open Critic for the games im 50/50 on. For example, Left Alive is a 50/50 game for me and im expecting to see 6/10 across the board for this game but if GamingBolt gives it an 8+, since the vast majority of their scores are so close to what I end up giving the same game, this overrules the Open Critic overall score. In other words, I go by GamingBolt more than I do Open Critic, all other sites, magazines and youtubers as well as just general previews and impressions before and after the game is released. GamingBolt for me simply supersedes all else.
1. I prefer and use Open Critic over Meta Critic. I don't even remember the last time I visited Meta Critic. Open Critic uses one overall score for the game itself instead of being separated by platform which I fucking hate.
2. Open Critic includes GamingBolt which quite honestly, is truly the only site (or magazine) that I give a damn about when it comes to reviews simply because their review scores line up within a point of mine 88% of the time. So if GamingBolt scores a game an 8/10, I know that almost 9 times out of 10, my score will be between a 7 and 9.
3. Open Critic doesn't weigh scores higher or lower than what they actually are. If a site gives a game an 80, it should be an 80. Not 81 or 79. That's just stupid.
I personally go based on GamingBolt more than everything else combined simply because as stated, my personal ratings lineup within a point of theirs. Granted, there's an exception here and there like Dead Rising 3 which they gave a 9/10 but I gave it a 6/10, Mad Max which they gave a 6/10 but I gave a 9/10 or Alienation which they gave a 5/10 but I gave it an 8.5/10. Just under every 9 out of 10 games, their score is within a point of mine.
In general, I would use Open Critic for the games im 50/50 on. For example, Left Alive is a 50/50 game for me and im expecting to see 6/10 across the board for this game but if GamingBolt gives it an 8+, since the vast majority of their scores are so close to what I end up giving the same game, this overrules the Open Critic overall score. In other words, I go by GamingBolt more than I do Open Critic, all other sites, magazines and youtubers as well as just general previews and impressions before and after the game is released. GamingBolt for me simply supersedes all else.
I don't particularly care what a game's metacritic/etc rating is. I've gotten, and am still getting enjoyment from games that fall all over the spectrum review wise. Word of mouth and impressions here do more for me than a number. Or whatever you call long form reviews like RPS that don't assign a number value.
I just really enjoyed Kane and Lynch and then Kane and Lynch2 based on ERA word of mouth and they're sitting at a 67 and 66 respectively. I'm also enjoying my [admittedly short] time with Blades of Time - a 63.
I just really enjoyed Kane and Lynch and then Kane and Lynch2 based on ERA word of mouth and they're sitting at a 67 and 66 respectively. I'm also enjoying my [admittedly short] time with Blades of Time - a 63.
I've recently been comparing Metacritic scores with what were deemed notorious flops of last generation, with the releases of the prior 30 days, that are arguably not perfect, but definitely not in the category of broken. I'm either completely out of touch, or reviews aren't all that objective any longer.
Its just a matter of perception, a 90+ is too prestigious HOWEVER there was a time where Bethesda would give out bonuses to games if they scored an 85 or higher
Personally I think if you're game gets an 85 or higher, than you're officially a top tier game. A lot of GOTY contenders are games that get an 85 or higher. Spider-man was seen as one of the best games last year and that has an 87
What I have a problem with is someone thinking that a game that gets a 90 is objectively better than a game that gets an 80, which isn't even remotely true as the 80 game can have several aspects that it does better than the 90 game
RDR2, 97 and an absolutely snore fest.
Mario Odyssey, 97, nearly slipped into a coma playing it
Personally I think if you're game gets an 85 or higher, than you're officially a top tier game. A lot of GOTY contenders are games that get an 85 or higher. Spider-man was seen as one of the best games last year and that has an 87
What I have a problem with is someone thinking that a game that gets a 90 is objectively better than a game that gets an 80, which isn't even remotely true as the 80 game can have several aspects that it does better than the 90 game
RDR2, 97 and an absolutely snore fest.
Mario Odyssey, 97, nearly slipped into a coma playing it
Only as a sort of guideline. Some of the games I've enjoyed the most are low scores. For example I've not gone back to God of War. Its certainly a great game, but whatever the reason is, around 10 or so hours in I have not got around to going back. Conversely, I couldn't put Crackdown 3 down (just finished it last night), and I dont even know how many hours I've put into Astroneer in the past 2 weeks (answer: a lot). Mass Effect Andromeda I have not finished yet (almost) and I've got over 40 hours into it. Some things, you cant explain ;)
