Do you care about 90+ Metacritic score?

[BoJack]

I see a lot of posts here in different threads, just trolling and making fun of people who care about +90 MC. Acting like it's dumb to be excited if a game that they like, that they've followed over the years with passion, achieves that score. Or the opposite, being overwhelmed because that game didn't manage to reach that level. Do you think it's insane or stupid to care about your favorite game score and want to see its success?

I really don't get post like "Do you really care? It's just a number!" or "What's the difference between 85 and 90 lmao!". Yeah it's just a number. A number that shows the quality of the game (most of the time) imo. It's not like 85 is a bad number. It's pretty damn high tbh, but it's clear that 90 is higher I guess. And higher score is harder to get. Yeah, it shows that "90 game" is doing a better job in some areas compare to that "85 game" (again, most of the time).

It helps the game to sells more. For instance, I don't like FPS game. It's not my fav genre. But let's say that there is a story driven FPS game, called "Y", and because it's a FPS game, I don't want to buy it. I don't care about it. But If that game gets a +90 score on OC/MC, I will find a way to play it someday, probably.

It does help games to sell more. Even a huge game like Spider-Man (that was a big success, both critically and comercially) would be even more successful, with a +90 score tag.

So yeah, I don't get why it's so strange for some of you guys that +90 score is important for a lot of people, that people have different opinions!

Anyway, I made a poll, let's see the result.

 

[Deleted member 5028]

No. It's just fodder for pointless debates from specific groups of fans. Anyone who might have contributed to a MC score of 86 is going to get harassed.

Scores are really dumb overall. How can you really use a score to consolidate the context of a thousand plus words? How can one score take into context a hundred reviews?

It really can't.

I really don't get post like "Do you really care? It's just a number!" or "What's the difference between 85 and 90 lmao!". Yeah it's just a number. A number that shows the quality of the game (most of the time) imo. It's not like 85 is a bad number. It's pretty damn high tbh, but it's clear that 90 is higher I guess. And higher score is harder to get. Yeah, it shows that "90 game" is doing a better job in some areas compare to that "85 game" (again, most of the time).

Click to shrink...

I tend to disagree. Metacritic is rounding up a lot of conversational sources without real vetting and contextualisation of those scores. Let's say JRPG Mania (great title) reviews Final Fantasy XIII. They give it 10/10 because it's everything they wanted in a HD JRPG, gorgeous visuals and a pumping soundtrack. Now they can overlook some of the things that make it a 6-7/10 from other outlets (corridors, repetitive gameplay) but that full score stands.

Now, Moderately Fashionable Gamer (good people) also review the game, and they're not finding it as much fun. They don't give it a pass because unlike the former they're not incredible JRPG fans, yet that 7/10 is not given the same weighting. Let's split the difference and call it an 8/10 at this point. But that's not how it works really. Because JRPG Mania are better known their scores are weighted himeavier according to the critic's fame, stature, and volume of reviews. JRPG Mania pump out a lot of reviews, not necessarily good ones but their scores bring up that average and harming the true representation of the games quality.

It's all pointless anyway, you're not that reviewer so only your own interests in the game should matter. What even is a 90? Congrats you made a great game let me market it for you?

 

[Ojli]

No. Personally, I'm more of an Opencritic-guy.

 

[Jobbs]

Some of my favorite games didn't break 90, and many games with the highest scores (GTA4, RDR2, God Of War) I don't really like that much. A game I think is a masterpiece and the top of its genre (Alien Isolation) got a ~60 at many major publications. Reviews have their uses but it's safe to say I don't really give a shit about the aggregate score.

 

[Dukie85]

90 or 50. I don't give a fuck about a score. It's not going to change the way I feel about a game. If I like it or not, that's it, whether it be a low scoring game or a high one.

 

[Cenauru]

Metacritic numbers are just numbers to complain about, there's no merit to them.

 

[Acquiescence]

If it isn't 90 plus then I don't play it, simple as that. Life's too short to be wasting time on 89 or lower games.

 

[vestan]

Nah, many of my all-time favourite games have shit scores (Killer7, Flower, Sun, and Rain, Deadly Premonition). People on this site are too hung up on shit like sales and how a review score will impact a guaranteed 10 million+ copies selling game pushed by a huge, multinational conglomerate instead of just enjoying a game. Makes me wonder if people simply have stakes in these companies to care so much about such things. That Spider-Man review thread I made was embarrassing with many people upset it didn't break into the 90s. I mean come tf on, it's just a fucking number bruh LMFAO.

 

[JarlRaven]

I personally have kind of fallen out of touch with the consensus critical opinion on many games over the couple years.

Some of my favorite games this gen (Yakuza 0, Monster Hunter World, Prey, Hitman 2 etc) have Opencritics in the 80s for example.

What bothers me is when outlets write an honest review with legitimate arguments justifying their lower score from the mean and people who are upset that the metacritic lowered because of the fact accuse them of "trolling" or "not getting paid enough". Backlash is always going to happen for what is perceived as harsh criticism but that shouldn't stop anyone from expressing what they legitimately feel are concerns.

A game with a high metacritic will definitely get more "exposure" by virtue of being at the top of the page on review sites so in that regard that's a fairly big effect on my gaming digest.

 

[Apophis]

Yes absolutely

 

[Edgar]

A higher rated games has higher chances of getting me buying /checking it out. A lower rated ones, i usually wait for a sale or patches. It doesn't Actually state actual quality, it just says there's higher chances of liking higher rated game, assuming you know your preferences. That's why I'm waiting for metro exodus patches n stuff before purchasing.

 

[Fat4all]

what's a number when you think of it

what's time when you think of it

what's a number but time trying to tell you how long you have left to jerk off before having to go to work when you think of it

 

[UnderNewOwnership]

Doesn't Opencritic use better weighting? Or is it the same?

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Aside from the fun guessing game beforehand, reviews and reviews aggregator even more so aren't meaningful to me.

The won't confirm or erase my interest in a game since it's basicall the opinion of someone else.

 

[Red Liquorice]

I've never even visited metacritic website, I would've never heard of it other than whining about scores or whining about whining about scores.

 

[Kilgore]

I'm mostly an AA guy, with some exceptions here and there. I don't care much about the most acclaimed games of the last couple years. I'm more interested on things like Biomutant or The Sinking City than Red Dead Redemption 2.

 

[Alandring]

I don't buy a game based on its metascore, but I think it's interesting to see it. It shows what people think about this game.

 

[ZeroX]

If a game is 90+ in a genre I enjoy that's almost always a sign that I'll enjoy it. It definitely matters and it's usually a reasonably good indicator of quality.

Maybe less so recently, but I'm probably just getting more cynical and enjoying games less.

 

[Okada]

Not in the slightest, I've seen ~60 rated games that I love and 90+ games that I think are awful.

Red Dead Redemption 2 is a prime example of a 90+ game that to me isn't close to deserving of that score.

The number means nothing to me.

 

[Elios83]

No, it's definetly a huge marketing plus for the games that get those scores but in the end I only buy the games that interest me based on trailers and gameplay videos. Also it has happened many times that I've appreciated more games that scored in the 85-89 range that games in 90+ category that I felt were way overrated because of hype or the name of the developers behind them. In any case make no mistake, usually if a game has a metacritic 75 and below it aways means it has big issues so that rings a bell to me to avoid full price.

 

[GamerForever]

I like high quality games so yes 90+ on metacritic is a good INDICATOR of the quality. My backlog is huge so have no time to play mediocre titles.

 

[MillionIII]

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter but I'll always cheer for games to reach that high, most of the times it shows a sign of quality, so I do care.

 

[TheEchosOfTheCyborg]

No, I don't pay mind to either Rotton Tomatoes or Metacritic besides using it as an easy way to get a general idea and full reviews, I'll play the games I want and many of my favs like Fall For Cybertron or Fallout New Vegas didn't do well their but I love them all the same.

 

[Rodjer]

I don't give a fuck about reviews and reviewers.

The majority of so called "PROFESSIONAL-REVIEWERS" are really bad at games and their opinion is pointless.

I didn't enjoy 90+ games like Uncharted 4 or Zelda BOTW and i enjoyed 70 MC games like KCD or Vampyr or Darksiders 3.

 

[TeddyShardik]

Not for my buying decision, I'm just happy for the devs at the studio.

 

[Electro]

It looks cool ;)

I am still a bit angry at USgamer for their 2,5/5 Horizon score which meant no 90 MC...

 

[Militaratus]

I only care about the metacritic score if management refuses to give me a pay raise and instead give a take it or leave it final offer to give me a bonus payment if the game reaches a specific metacritic score or higher.

 

[Lyng]

Honestly I wish we could dump scores entirely.

 

[Nightengale]

I'm curious on the tangible impact of 90+ MC scores and 95+ MC scores to the commercial success of games.

My personal metrics suggest that games that track well will sell well regardless of MC ( so long as it's not catastrophically bad ), but there are an area of game metrics that is bolstered by 90+ and 95+ MC performances due to the extended coverage and increased awareness of a product being recognised as so amazingly good that it generates a post-launch discussion of metrics.

 

[Madjoki]

Kinda yes, but usually it's negative factor. 90+ category is only for over hyped games tend try to please everyone and sell well, but usually aren't that interesting.

Best games are actually found in LESS than 90 category.
They may lack polish but usually do more interesting things than generic AAA games.

 

[Rodjer]

It looks cool ;)

I am still angry at USgamer for their 2,5/5 Horizon score which meant no 90 MC...

Click to shrink...

Well, HZD is a 7/10 game at most, 90 MC is way too high.

 

[vestan]

Honestly I wish we could dump scores entirely.

Click to shrink...

Agreed. I love what Polygon and other outlets have started doing with getting rid of them. Everyone should follow suit at some point.

It's not what drives the clicks though so doubt.

 

[nbnt]

No. I play games that appeal to me no matter what their score is. And I often find myself not enjoying what people consider "great" these days, e.g. I enjoyed Crackdown 3 (60) more than RDR2 (97). So yeah, couldn't be more meaningless to me.

 

[DarkFlame92]

I'd like as many games to be as good as possible,but after all it's just a number

 

[skeezx]

90+ is ludicrous standard imo. most games are "destined" to go over or below that regardless of quality, even with the most brilliant algorithm

 

[Electro]

Well, HZD is a 7/10 game at most, 90 MC is way too high.

Click to shrink...

Ok.....

 

[Grunty]

No. I learned a long time ago to just ignore reviews honestly. If something looks good and you're personally interested in the product, then purchase it and form your own opinion.

I'm really enjoying both Crackdown 3 and Anthem right now, so if I had taken reviews into account I would have missed out on a couple of great games, plus others in the past.

 

[Keikaku]

Yes, usually means the game is a must buy. The higher the mc score = higher chance I buy it at full price.

 

[Edgar]

Well, HZD is a 7/10 game at most, 90 MC is way too high.

Click to shrink...

I'm not the biggest fan of horizon, but clearly it's an 8

 

[Dr. Mario]

Yeah I'd like to say I'm above it, but not really. To be fair if I really want a game I'll get it regardless (though maybe not if it scores below an 80, being married with children I need to be really choosy), but a 90+ makes me sit up and notice a game I didn't really want.

 

[Rodjer]

I'm not the biggest fan of horizon, but clearly it's an 8

Click to shrink...

8 is the ending was better and if Aloy as a character was well developed.

 

[Jiraiya]

I know what i like.

 

[OldBritBloke]

If a game / film / book receives universal critical acclaim then it's more likely that I'll play / watch / read it, sure. I didn't realise that was controversial.

 

[Reddaye]

No. I know what I like, and I know what reviewers and influencers that I have similar tastes as. Or at least trust the opinion of if I'm not sure about a game. Usually I watch some let's plays or coverage of a game on YouTube if I want to learn more, and see if it's something I'll enjoy.

I couldn't tell you the MC score of a single game off the top of my head. Hell, I've probably only been on the site five times in my entire life.

 

[Sphinx]

If it isn't 90 plus then I don't play it, simple as that. Life's too short to be wasting time on 89 or lower games.

Click to shrink...

I tend to think like this but this opinion is way too radical.

First I look for specific Genres, specific developers, specific IPs and THEN if everything seems to be like something I might enjoy, I will keep an eye on the Metacritic number and decide if something is worth my time base on all factors.

 

[BassForever]

I mean if a game gets a 90+ mc and I'm not heard of it it'll get my attention, but it's not a make or break. Some of the best games have a mc in the 80's and there is boring crap that gets a 90+.

 

[Kingpin Rogers]

Don't give a shit. If I'm not interested in it then it could get a 99 and I'm still most likely not gonna care.

 

[Akai]

I'll never care about any review scores ever. I can inform myself well enough and don't need other people to tell me what I should like/buy or not.

The review system is incredibly flawed and I'm pretty sure that several reviewers are also biased.

 

[Bavera__]

Reviews that have a scoring system are generally dumb and I wish everyone adopted polygon (and other gaming outlets that I can't remember the name of right now) scoreless reviews

 

[XVerdena]

No.