After 'The Last Of Us Part 2' Insanity, Metacritic Has Changed User Score Submissions
They should honestly get rid of them entirely, but, this is better than nothing, I guess.
I hadn't seen this yet, so, sorry if old.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Metacritic ends day-one user Scores and Reviews
- Thread starter DailyCalmSpirit
- Start date
After 'The Last Of Us Part 2' Insanity, Metacritic Has Changed User Score Submissions
They should honestly get rid of them entirely, but, this is better than nothing, I guess.
I hadn't seen this yet, so, sorry if old.
Realistically, they should just dump them completely.
But this? This is literally nothing. What in the world difference is a single day going to do?
But this? This is literally nothing. What in the world difference is a single day going to do?
OP
OP
I dunno about literally nothing. Like, it'll probably stop *some* people. Not a lot, but, some.
It's a good change. I honestly don't believe it'll stop the review bombings but any deterrent is nice.
I honestly think it will have literally zero impact.
The main reason for this change are big AAA games that are specifically targeted by trolls. Those trolls aren't going to be like, "Well, never mind!" because they have to wait a day.
Just get rid of it.
Worth a try. If you enable user reviews after the "hype period" I'm sure a lot of trolls wouldn't be bothered anymore (less troll impact after the hype). Maybe this reasoning isn't true, but worth it to see.
I agree. Should be a bit longer. After about 3 days is probably a good mark.
good move, tho i think they should just remove them entirely (at least for video games, not sure how they're used for music/tv/etc). review bombing is happening to almost all big games now, this is just going to delay it by one day.
I have never found use for user reviews. They often come off as people that just feel the need to shout something meaningless into the void. In my opinion, it is much more useful to seek out reviewers that align with your tastes if you are going to research reviews ahead of a purchase.
This is good, but I feel it will only move the review-bombing process a couple days. The only solution is linking metacritic with some kind of purchase-proof and time spent in game, but I guess that's way harder.
Just get rid off them completely or have people link their gaming account to the website to verify that they have played the game based on Trophy/Achievement data. Also, just get rid off scores from 0 to 2 or 3.
Ghost of Tsushima will be the first game with 10/10 user score because TLOU2 haters will boost this game's scores to show Druckmann how to make good games.
Good, although the delay on user reviews should really be, like, a week. People will complain, but the site is called Metacritic, not Metarandomasshole.
User review scores on metacritic are mostly useless. They don't actually verify you've bought or played the game. I don't know why people put -any- stock into them.
They really ought to make it like RottenTomatoes, where only people who are verified to have played/bought the game can submit reviews......at least for the first couple months or so. Have a separate average of "unverified reviews" that gets buried at the bottom of the page.
Probably not, they already took their anger and review "bomb" Spongebob with a lot of 10s. Its weird seeing that game with a 9 user score XD
Need a verified purchase system similar to Steam that shows your time played. Won't stop the idiotic reviews that happen after 5 minutes played, but it severely cuts them down. I'm more inclined to buy a game coming from glowing steam reviews that have visibly put in several hours than I am a MC review/score
It's a good gesture, but User Review score, at least for me, had been utterly pointless for a long time now due to the review bombing culture.
This "one" day makes zero difference knowing that this game COULD be review bombed 10 years from now when people suddenly decided Sucker Punch did something they don't like in 2030, which completely have 0% to do with this game.
This "one" day makes zero difference knowing that this game COULD be review bombed 10 years from now when people suddenly decided Sucker Punch did something they don't like in 2030, which completely have 0% to do with this game.
This, especially for online games with day one patches. We've had a number of titles review bombed by day one connection issues that are non existent a week later.
What they should do is a vote timeline too. Month one votes were 8, then after patch 1.4 that added X, scores have largely trended close to 9, then everyone got mad at the developer and in 2 days it all went down to 0.3.
Yeah, I agree. Drop user reviews entirely.
I doubt they see a reason to do that though. User reviews just mean more traffic to the website and more revenue for them.
They should remove them entirely, I don't see this making a difference. The user score on the site isn't useful to the consumer anyway. It is on something like Steam when you know someone played it and how long (that still has the same issue but it's not on the scale of Metacritic since it's so easy there.)
Yeah I'd be more in favor of something like a week. That first week when users can't shit on a game gets people distracted enough to focus on something else. It's all about being in that moment with the game and if you take that away, people probably wouldn't care as much.
Or just take it all away because it's a pointless metric that serves no purpose other than to flame.
Same with my thoughts. Week minimum really.
Also probably should be that new accounts can't post to new game releases until after 30 days as a member(and have to have had a prior review of some sort prior to posting the day of when a new game user review voting goes live) . Would at least help reduce the amount review bombings from people just signing up all triggered in the release window and creating multiple accounts to amplify themselves.
Of course that would be too much of an ask. Ideally the only user reviews that should ever be considered are those that can confirm people have played the game, I.E. Steam reviews.
Some among the most rabid haters will be discouraged having to wait until after all major reviews are out, but yeah, 7 days would have been more effective.
It's a start.
Metacritic should work with console makers on some sort of account linking system. For example, you link PSN account with Metacritic. Metacritic sees that you own the game and played it for at least 2 hours. You are now allowed to write a User review and rate the game on MC.
And yes I know review bombing would still be possible, but it woudln't be the same free for all as it was with TLoU2, where people who don't even play console games joined in on the "fun" review bombing.
And yes I know review bombing would still be possible, but it woudln't be the same free for all as it was with TLoU2, where people who don't even play console games joined in on the "fun" review bombing.
Now I know it's certainly not "perfect" by any means, but how come IMDB is able to have a solid, reliable user review system for movies and TV but there's nothing like this for video games (at least on that scale)? I really wish there was an "IMDB of video games."