Topic: Do critics really matter?

Do reviews or critics really matter to judge the game. IGN and Gamespot are being really dumb when reviewing games lately. Gamespot gives 3D World a 9 and there's no reason why it couldn't be a perfect same for Link between worlds. IGN's reason for a 9.5 Pokemon x/y is the brainless A.I like have they ever played a Pokemon game before?

The thing is 9 to 7 are games that would be worth your time and money whereas from 6 to 1 is not worth for it which is a shame really because most of the games reaching that line are actually great games.

critics matter for several cases:

• someone new to that game/franchise so you don't know what to expect or if you should even get the game
• an old fan of that franchise but got tired of it and you want to see if it changed or not before getting another game
• someone having trouble to chose between various games
• you don't belive your friends when the say the game is bad/good, but want to be sure before getting it(or not)
• you like a good read, some critics make really funny points on bad games(love reading the reviews of bad games )
  critics aren't half bad all you have to do is ignore the ones you disagree(after all critics only put their opinions so off course some will disagree)
  and scores only help if you really can't chose between two or more games

Hey, they're still nearly perfect. And why do you care? Should every critic have the same opinion as you? I can't speak for 3D World, as I haven't played it yet, but I have played Pokemon Y. The A.I is pretty damn stupid compared to the other games, and I've been playing Pokemon since the GBA days. As for A Link Between Worlds, I'm pretty sure they found something they didn't like. Or perhaps they didn't like the top-down perspective. I know I didn't. But I'll agree with you on the 1 to 10 scale. 5 should be the average.

Developers get bonuses based on the metacritic score and metacritic have had to ban reviewers for taking bribes so they must matter to some people.

Scores have mattered to me, the poor Deadpool reviews put me off from buying it and the good reviews for Steamworld Dig got me to buy it in the end but I did ignore the mixed reviews for Batman Arkham Origins.

It's just another person's opinion, sometimes they won't even be the targeted audience. Don't let it phase you.

They're many games which got really good scores which I couldn't stand (IE: Mario Sunshine and Skyrim) and games which I felt didn't get half the praise they deserved. (IE: Hatsune Miku Product Diva F and Resident Evil Revelations)

The only way to know if a game is for you or not is to sit down and play it yourself.

@Artwark You do realize reviews are just the reviewers opinion of the game, right? What you may think is a 10/10 game may only be a 9/10 game to them.

It really bugs me people act like reviews are written fact.

Not entirely true. If you have enough experience, you can often tell just from reading about it and watching videos. It's not 100% accurate, but IMO, it's better than buying every game out there just to see if you'll like any of them. Sometimes its better to trust your instincts, you know?

But but if I don't like the game, then no one should!

I agree with this.

And anyway, a Metacritic average score will probably give you the best idea, rather than looking at all the reviews separately.
9/10 and 10/10 are usually both considered really good games, so worry not, @Artwark. Both reviewers really enjoyed the game!

@Artwark

You should rename this thread 'Do Critics Really Matter When They Score A Game Less Than I Think It Deserves?'

I like to view some of them as insights on what the game is about. Minus the opinions and rating parts, some reviewers tell you what the game is about, what the gameplay's like, what are the features, etc. With that said, reviews are like 75% opinions so it best to take with a grain of salt unless you have more knowledge about the game/reviewer.

I do hate that number rating system though. 3/5 people (my estimate) who check out an review mostly just check the score and conclusion instead of read the whole thing. Best to know the details. Also I dislike that whole >7 is a must buy and <7 is "shoveware" for the same reason that the ones rank less can be a great game to the right individual that may past it off because of the score. Like I did one time with Samurai Warriors 3 and ign's review (3/10). Never again.

I would argue that scores don't really matter. The content of the review is what matters, as a score won't tell you anything about the actual game other than the reviewer's overall opinion on it.

I'd normally agree, but sometimes the overall opinion is all you want to know. Though for me that only applies if I know the reviewer really well. Like, I hate to admit it, but on RPGFan I've gotten to know the staff so well (since they actually peruse the forums a lot and interact with people outside of the reviews) that I can often look at the name and go "oh that's so and so! He/she will probably like/dislike this!" and then I can just look at the score and Positives/negatives shortlist, as well as the summary, and that's all I need to read unless I need clarification or I'm really wrong. It saves me some time at least, and to be quite honest, sometimes I just want to go into a game completely blind.

Yes. They are very important and should be paid lots and lots of money. Who's with me??!

But Philip, everyone's a critic - then everyone would have to be paid lots of money. And if everyone has lots of money, how are people supposed to feel like they're better than everyone else when they're all the same?

Yes, a lower score doesn't mean they have have wrong opinion, just a different opinion. A person may just enjoy the game less, and a score is supposed to represent the overall feeling a reviewer has, whichever lead to a lower score even if you don't see what's wrong with the game.

Most of the time, reviews are worthless garbage, like mentioned GS or IGN. Also sponsorship/payed review, so yeah, I have no reason to believe them. Especially when they are a bunch of hypocrites or are too lazy.

It's better to try the game out for youself, by demo or just watch few gameplays - you will learn a lot more from that than from review. Also metacritic user score is really helpful.

They do matter, to an extent. Basing your entire video game spending on critics only is obviously dumb, but using them as a guideline is definitely helpful. I can think of many cases where critics made me get an amazing game (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, for example) or not bother with a bad/broken game (the latest Sim City). By contrast, there are other times when I take a leap of faith on a poorly-received game, and sometimes it definitely pays out (a recent example being Sonic Lost World on Wii U).

As long as you don't see critics and metascores as absolute truths, they're pretty helpful.

@Dave24 The problem with the Metacritic user score is that people and developers (mostly developers) can use it to trick people. Remember Day One: Garry's Incident?

There are a bunch of things I could be calling you out for, but I'm choosing this. What makes user reviews any better than a professional one?