This thread is a classic example of people wanting to be more unique than they actually are. There is actual resentment by a lot of people in this forum being in any way associated with the COD/FIFA crowd, as though liking popular games means that you forgo having an opinion on other games.

Also, this thing that Metacritic is somehow stealing you of your ability to make decisions is both disingenous and insulting to people who choose to use correlative data as a decision making process. There is such aggressiveness in the posts about it, yet I would not take that stance with those people that know the specific names of reviewers of games and have an almost fanatical reverence to their opinion. It is a tool, a starting point, a way of getting a steer on a game. Is it perfect? Of course not. Could it provide insignt into other points of view? Definitely.

Where I've used it most often is in a shop, looking at a game that's in the sale. If the metacritic score is 40, with no positive reviews, there's no way you're telling me I can't be reasonably sure it's a turkey. Equally, if it's 95, there's a good chance it'll be good (and I'll wonder why I didn't know about it). If it's in that broad band of vague, most average of average scores, I'll know I need to go and read what my prefered sources have to say about it.

Nobody here is saying that every game they buy is done so based in it being above a certain metacritic score, not even remotely, so you're wasting your time wailing about it.

When I've got time, I might make a list for Joe MetaConsumer. He buys his console at the first price drop then buys one new game (released in the past 2 months) per month and a couple of bargain bin titles (between 1 & 2 years old) and maybe a download only game. Genres rotate or at least he never buys 2 driving games in a row.

I'll see how laughable uninformed his game collection is at the end of the year if he only uses MetaCritic to decide.

I think the other issue is that with emphasis placed on metacritic, even if its only by publishers/marketing and not the straw-man Mr Lowest Common Denominator shopper, games still get fiddled with by bean counters to ensure they meet the well-known preferences of the reviewers at big outlets. Or as many as possible.

I'd hate to think about how many developers have had their vision compromised because of marketing, and even more how many missed out on fair pay because of the meta average being 1 point off (Fallout New Vegas/Obsidian was a notorious example of this). Which is hilarious to think that Bethesda actually have some standards they apply, because you could safely assume they have none based on their coding talent.

Didn't Destiny seem to undergo a lot of development dramas? You had several key staff leave over recent years and the evidence seems to have been borne out that a lot of content was held back for inclusion in expansion packs.

I remember when online content was proper arse compared to what you got in a mag. It's really not like that any more. I remember feeling sorry for print based publications being faced with online competition when it first started. I thought it must be a tricky balance. If you don't have an online presence then you'll be left behind but if you do you're encouraging your readrship to leave your core business and putting them an easy click away from your competition. That's less of an issue now since everyone's online anyway.

Diluted Dante wrote:

Five of them came out before the Vault of Glass was even unlocked. Even Eurogamer, who are usually pretty good with this stuff only waited until the 17th.

Honest question as I've not played Destiny - was VoG unlocked by Bungie or is it automatically unlocked by players when they reach a certain level. What I mean is, what VoG available from the off?

Diluted Dante wrote:

It's a game that should not have been reviewed as early as it was. The amount that came out in that first week is insane. You simply can't see the content in that time. The bottom 7 scores all came out within nine days. Five of them came out before the Vault of Glass was even unlocked. Even Eurogamer, who are usually pretty good with this stuff only waited until the 17th.

I disagree vehemently with this.

If the game is ready to go on sale for full price, its ready to be reviewed as such. If it's not ready to be reviewed, its not ready to be sold. If anything, games are not reviewed harshly enough when it comes to performance and content.

Skyrim PS3 should have gotten 0/10, i.e. one point for every frame per second.
Driveclub should have been reviewed based on numbers of online matches possible. 
Halo Master Chief Collection should have gotten 4/10, something which reflects the number of months between release and a semi-working state.
Assassins Creed Unity should have gotten 1/10 because of its name (and also if you didn't figure out the series was shit after the 1st game then you deserve to waste more money on it).

The thing with Destiny is not that it was broken on release, as it worked perfectly. More that reviews were rushed through without seeing the end game content, which is the best part.

It's like reviewing a film or book without watching or reading the whole thing. And there's a really good twist at the end.

I wish I could have seen a meta critic rating for this thread before reading through 6 pages of it.

Skerret wrote:

Vela wrote:

I disagree vehemently with this.

I disagree vehemently with that, kinda.  Games can (now) evolve over time.  A film is the same film from day 1 to day 1001 (DCs notwithstanding).  A game like Destiny can be altered, improved, in ways that matter, months after release.  I'm not suggesting a game that scores 2/10 on day 1 can scoot up to 8/10 on day 100, but certain criticisms, valid at one time, can become irrelevant down the track.  Destiny seems like the first notable example of this.  Unless the mechanics are borked, fundamentally borked (and in Destiny's case, they're not), a Destiny (mainly down to pedigree) deserves time.

There's a larger argument about rapidfire game review practice that foregoes meaningful critique in service of "FIRST", but to get into that I'd be sacrificing DSII time and I simply won't.

So long as companies are happy to front load sales, take preorders, massage the review process and sell season passes before they confirm content, the games need to be reviewed based on what they are, not what they might be.

Reviews should serve as a buyer's guide.

Vela wrote:

Skerret wrote:

Vela wrote:

I disagree vehemently with this.

I disagree vehemently with that, kinda.  Games can (now) evolve over time.  A film is the same film from day 1 to day 1001 (DCs notwithstanding).  A game like Destiny can be altered, improved, in ways that matter, months after release.  I'm not suggesting a game that scores 2/10 on day 1 can scoot up to 8/10 on day 100, but certain criticisms, valid at one time, can become irrelevant down the track.  Destiny seems like the first notable example of this.  Unless the mechanics are borked, fundamentally borked (and in Destiny's case, they're not), a Destiny (mainly down to pedigree) deserves time. There's a larger argument about rapidfire game review practice that foregoes meaningful critique in service of "FIRST", but to get into that I'd be sacrificing DSII time and I simply won't.

So long as companies are happy to front load sales, take preorders, massage the review process and sell season passes before they confirm content, the games need to be reviewed based on what they are, not what they might be. Reviews should serve as a buyer's guide.

In 90% of cases, I agree. It's the Destiny model that warrants a different approach.

Skerret wrote:

chaluce stop posting that

NO! People should rejoice in Pewdiepue!

Re: Destiny, FWIW, I far prefer their model of selling the full-price game and DLC with no subscriptions, and would probably rate it higher for not asking a subscription.

Beyond that, I do agree that reviewers should have spent more time with it. I understand that there are issues with the early game, I really do, but I don't care about that now that I've reached the higher levels. There is no game in the history of gaming which has grabbed me like Destiny has. If you're put off by the early game, I'm sorry to hear that, the end game is a ten, no question, and that end game will keep you occupied for months once you've spent the week or so that it takes to get there.

I'd pretty much forgotten about reviews. I tend to wait for a sale, buy a few games that people around here have mentioned positively for a few quid each. Usually find that one's a dud, but the others are fine, so that'll do.