HansDampf
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2015
- Messages
- 1,471
lolMetacritic said that the decision was not based on users' reaction to any game in particular.
What's the point? Why do they even care?
lolMetacritic said that the decision was not based on users' reaction to any game in particular.
Video games consoles should go back to be a dedicated hardware for gaming, not a fucking multisystem bullshit computer wannabe.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/metacritic-will-delay-user-reviews-for-games/1100-6479886/
Metacritic Will Delay User Reviews For Games
The delay is being implemented to ensure that people actually had enough time to play the game before reviewing it.
Metacritic will now delay user reviews for games for 36 hours after release, the company announced. This comes a few weeks after the release of The Last of Us Part II, which was review bombed on Metacritic (which, like GameSpot, is owned by ViacomCBS).
"We recently implemented the 36 hour waiting period for all user reviews in our games section to ensure our gamers have time to play these games before writing their reviews," a Metacritic spokesperson said. "This new waiting period for user reviews has been rolled out across Metacritic's Games section and was based on data-driven research and with the input of critics and industry experts."
Metacritic said that the decision was not based on users' reaction to any game in particular. Metacritic is a review aggregate site that provides two scores for every game, one based on critics and one based on user reviews.
Review bombing is the practice of users giving a large number of negative scores, typically as low as possible, in order to drop the game's overall score. The issue isn't exclusive to Metacritic, also occurring on Steam user reviews whenever a fanbase is upset about a game.
Writer and director for the Last of Us Part II Neil Druckmann shared a very heartfelt message with his team after the game received overwhelming positive reviews that ended with a message for the haters.
Metacritic could just add a "This review was written within 36 hours of release" tag if they wanted to let the user know the score might be affected by irl drama without controlling the content.
Should also require a steam from the professional reviewer to see if and how they played the game, delay its public release to curb any meme material that might come out though, gotta protect the precious little darlings
There's a Canadian fella on JewTube, called Joseph Anderson. His tastes are meh, he's storyfag and plays mostly popamole bullshit, but his dedication is remarkable. He says in his review of Prey: "I finished Prey three times - on normal, hardest and hardest without augmentations; also I finished System Shock 2 and all Bioshock game to make a comparison". He says in review of Witcher: "I played Witcher 1 for 100 hours, Witcher 2 for 100 hours, Witcher 3 for 500 hours (kek?), played similar story-cutscene driven games like Mass Effect, and read all Sapkowski' books". His video on Witcher 1 is four hours long! Imagine writing script for 4 hours of narration, preparing footage and editing it. This completely invalidates all "Played game for an hour, here's my review" gaym-journalism.Any professional reviewer should be required to supply his own screenshots in case of a text review, and his own video footage in case of a video review, to prove that he actually played all of this shit himself. Often, they just use stock promo footage. In some genres, like the popular cinematic linear games where half the playtime consists of cutscenes and you can't stray from the one dev-intended path, it will be hard to prove that it's the reviewer's own footage, but in genres like RPGs, Immersive Sims and strategies it will be easy enough to spot.
Another reason (from the games writer/editor's perspective) is because it adds value to the review. Striking and unique images are one of many ways to catch a viewer's interest. Using stock promo footage in a review would be inappropriate, not only because the reviewer is eschewing part of their job, but because it contributes towards the perception that reviews are merely an extension of the publisher's advertising department. Promo footage is specifically tailored to advertise a game under the publisher's terms, and review footage is supposed to take the product out of those tightly controlled confines.Should also require a steam from the professional reviewer to see if and how they played the game, delay its public release to curb any meme material that might come out though, gotta protect the precious little darlings
Any professional reviewer should be required to supply his own screenshots in case of a text review, and his own video footage in case of a video review, to prove that he actually played all of this shit himself. Often, they just use stock promo footage. In some genres, like the popular cinematic linear games where half the playtime consists of cutscenes and you can't stray from the one dev-intended path, it will be hard to prove that it's the reviewer's own footage, but in genres like RPGs, Immersive Sims and strategies it will be easy enough to spot.
FOLLOW COOKING INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY"An action packed trip to Detroit"?
Maybe so, but that Chaotic evil is really fucked up.only map makers will get this meme
Oh look, the other visible titles on that chart are all waifu-simulators.
It's a game where you run over escaped zoo animals.I don't know what the fuck is "Animal Crossing" and I prefer it to stay that way.