Wait 36 hours to review bomb-Metacritic makes you wait 36 hours to review a game

[piratemonkey]

Summary

Review aggregator Metacritic has changed it's user review policy so that you need to wait 36 hours after a game comes out to review it. This affects all new games on the site. The reason why is most likely The Last Of Us 2's review bomb, as most negative posting were made by people who hadn't played the game only a few hours after it came out.

 

Quotes

Quote

Within hours of The Last of Us Part II’s release, angry gamers were giving the title ultra-low scores on Metacritic. Since the story unfolds over 20 to 30 hours of gameplay, it was hard to believe the reviews pouring in after just a few hours. Metacitic took note of this score bombing and quietly changed its policy. Now, users have to wait 36 hours after a game’s release before they can post a review.

 

When you visit the Metacritic listing for a brand new game, you’ll see, “Please spend some time playing the game,” followed by the date and time that reviews open. This appears to be Metacritic’s way of ensuring that users actually play a game before they review it and don’t rely only on their biases, leaks or streamer playthroughs.

(. . .)

Metacritic isn’t the only platform that’s trying to keep users from destroying scores before giving games a fair chance. Steam’s review system attempts to hold users accountable by noting how much time they’ve spent playing the game. Steam also shows how many reviews a user has made and lists recent reviews.

 

My thoughts

I think it's good, though it's not enough. 3 days, IMO, is not enough to prevent review bombing. Maybe if there was a system of connecting your steam/Xbox Live/PSN/EGS/other to verify you've played the game. That would probably prevent some people posting reviews, as that's a lot of effort. 

36 hours will hopefully prevent review bombing somewhat, though again, it does nothing to make sure you played the game.

 

Sources

(Engadget) https://www.engadget.com/metacritic-score-bombing-game-review-changes-150200740.html

[PlayStation 2]

How about devs don't make a game that actively insults its customer base or doesn't piss on the legacy of a previous game? 

[Sakkura]

It's not going to stop the problem, but it's still fine. No real, usable reviews are posted that early anyway.

[BobVonBob]

Seems like a pretty reasonable policy to me. Now when will the parody site come out that only allows reviews within 36 hours of the game's release?

[piratemonkey]

No. I don't play shooters or anything like that. Wasn't that the controversy with the female protagonist?

Edited July 20, 2020 by wkdpaul
cleanup

[Jurrunio]

so if a game's so bad no one wants to play after an hour, it wont get any reviews?

 

imo should take all reviews, just only count those with game time above a certain threshold to contribute into average user scoring.

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, piratemonkey said:

No. I don't play shooters or anything like that. Wasn't that the controversy with the female protagonist?

The controversy with BFV was the way DICE told off people who were skeptical with the way they were wanting to portray history.

And the funny thing about that game? All of that shit could've been avoided had it been told as an "alternate history" type of game and if they didn't mock their player base.

[Sakkura]

10 hours ago, handymanshandle said:

How about devs don't make a game that actively insults its customer base or doesn't piss on the legacy of a previous game? 

 

10 hours ago, handymanshandle said:

*snip*

Having LGBT characters doesn't mean making fun of the player base or actively insulting them.

 

You can reasonably disagree with plot choices without descending into blind rage and ridiculous 0/10 scores from just reading a headline on a blog.

Edited July 20, 2020 by wkdpaul

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, Sakkura said:

Having LGBT characters doesn't mean making fun of the player base or actively insulting them.

 

3 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

All of that shit could've been avoided had it been told as an "alternate history" type of game and if they didn't mock their player base.

DICE actively told their fanbase to deal with it or "don't buy it" when it came to the way they were going with BFV. My point is not "muh LGBT" or "muh women". I don't give a shit about that. My point is you don't actively insult your customer base because it'll bite you in the ass.

[Sakkura]

4 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

 

DICE actively told their fanbase to deal with it or "don't buy it" when it came to the way they were going with BFV. My point is not "muh LGBT" or "muh women". I don't give a shit about that. My point is you don't actively insult your customer base because it'll bite you in the ass.

The BFV situation was a little different, yes. I still don't think big review bombs are all that helpful. Just because the developers are dicks doesn't mean a solid game becomes a 0/10. But when it gets into games with like pay2win lootboxes I guess I would be okay with it. But then real reviews would be pretty negative too.

[piratemonkey]

2 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

so if a game's so bad no one wants to play after an hour, it wont get any reviews?

 

imo should take all reviews, just only count those with game time above a certain threshold to contribute into average user scoring.

That's a great idea. A short game like Untitled Goose Game takes no more than a half hour or so, but you would need to wait 36 hours, which is no buenos.

 

4 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

The controversy with BFV was the way DICE told off people who were skeptical with the way they were wanting to portray history.

And the funny thing about that game? All of that shit could've been avoided had it been told as an "alternate history" type of game and if they didn't mock their player base.

If the issue was in marketing, that would be bad. From what I could tell, it was a good game but the whole marketing aspect was bad. 

 

[poochyena]

Should have been done a long time ago. The amount of people who hated the game and gave it bad reviews without even playing the game was insanely high. I just can't understand how someone can so actively hate a game, much less one that haven't even played.

[piratemonkey]

6 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Having LGBT characters doesn't mean making fun of the player base or actively insulting them.

 

You can reasonably disagree with plot choices without descending into blind rage and ridiculous 0/10 scores from just reading a headline on a blog.

That was the problem with TLOU2. 'Gamerbros' didn't want 'an agenda' thrown at them (it's kinda hard to do that if you don't play the game). So they review bombed it. 

They never even watched a walkthrough (like me; I don't have a ps4 so I couldn't play it). They heard leaks, and they were pissed. 

My policy with diversity in games is that if it doesn't affect the story negatively, it's fine. If there isn't some element alienating/polarizing the player, it's fine.

[Spotty]

23 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

so if a game's so bad no one wants to play after an hour, it wont get any reviews?

 

imo should take all reviews, just only count those with game time above a certain threshold to contribute into average user scoring.

They'd be able to review it, but they would have to wait 36 hours after the game was released to review it. This also wouldn't be a problem for anyone who purchased the game after the first 36 hours of its release.

 

From the article:

Quote

"Now, users have to wait 36 hours after a game’s release before they can post a review."

 

People who haven't played the game would still be able to leave a review on metacritic. I don't even own a playstation nor have I ever played the last of us games but I could still leave a review for it if I wanted to.

 

I understand the problem they're trying to solve - SJWs and Butthurt simps reviewing bombing a product because they don't like something about it (in particular those who haven't even played the game but are just latching on to something they saw on twitter, etc).

 

However, I think preventing reviews in the first 36 hours might not be a good thing in the long run. A lot of people purchase games in the first few days of its release and if there's a blackout on customer reviews in the first few days then it could harm the customers ability to research the product before buying it. For example; if there's game breaking bugs on release day and I see that in reviews I know not to waste my time and money buying the game straight away. I can wait a week or two for them to fix the bugs in a patch and when I see reviews and comments saying that the bugs are fixed then I can reconsider buying the game again. Maybe wait a month or two for things to improve and by then it might be discounted from its original launch price.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Spotty

[TetraSky]

I saw that on twitter.

Honestly, that's good. 36 hours might be a bit too long, but not letting people just review games on release/before release is good. Because then you can actually play the game before reviewing it and get further into it.

Some games have a great first few hours but then become completely repetitive/boring. Same with the other way around. Some have a bad beginning but great mid/end. As such, delaying the ability for regular users from reviewing too quick, should technically result is reviews based on the actual game and not just the initial feelings to it.

Then again, maybe I'm giving people who pretend to be game reviewers on Metacritic too much credit. Review bombers will just wait 36 hours to launch their review bots.

[Vanderburg]

1 hour ago, piratemonkey said:

I think it's good, though it's not enough. 3 days, IMO, is not enough to prevent review bombing.

You're wrong, unfortunately, it's not good. Some ownership verification would be more useful, but there are many perfectly valid reasons to post a review of a game within fewer than 36 hours. You could reasonably form a negative opinion of a game within a few hours, or even minutes. Maybe there's some really dumb control scheme you can't edit, maybe there's some game breaking bugs. Maybe it's otherwise unplayable to you for other reasons. It would be important to be able to let people know about those in a review before other people waste their money. Especially when services like Steam only allow refunds within the first two hours of playtime.

 

Don't want your game to get a bunch of negative reviews? Don't make a crap game.

 

Maybe do what Yelp does. When there are a bunch of negative reviews, they leave up the ones that are there, and suspend new ones while they investigate if they are legitimate reviews.

[AlwaysFSX]

TLoU2 got review bombed because it has a terrible, drawn out, and in the end: pointless story. This is ignoring their ham fisting of an agenda. Which if you want to add that in, adds in almost nothing to the plot points. That is not how you make a good game.

[DildorTheDecent]

>NOOO YOU HAVE TO WAIT 36 HOURS BEFORE YOU REVIEW IT. YOU HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME TO COMPLETION TO FORM A PROPER OPINION ABOUT IT. DON'T REVIEW BOMB IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT REEEEEEE

[Guest]

 

2 hours ago, piratemonkey said:

most negative posting were made by people who hadn't played the game

Free market. You are free to make games in your vision. We are free to shit all over it.

[piratemonkey]

31 minutes ago, Vanderburg said:

You're wrong, unfortunately, it's not good. Some ownership verification would be more useful, but there are many perfectly valid reasons to post a review of a game within fewer than 36 hours. You could reasonably form a negative opinion of a game within a few hours, or even minutes. Maybe there's some really dumb control scheme you can't edit, maybe there's some game breaking bugs. Maybe it's otherwise unplayable to you for other reasons. It would be important to be able to let people know about those in a review before other people waste their money. Especially when services like Steam only allow refunds within the first two hours of playtime.

I suggested the ownership verification later. It depends on the game. For a story driven game like TLOU2, you can't make up your mind in a few minutes. For bugs and control problems, ya, you can't play a game if it's broken. Though, if it's big enough, you'll have publications reporting on it, and probably would've reviewed the game first.

Steams system is really good IMO. There's info like much you've played and your profile. 

[silberdrachi]

Man people are having a way harsher reaction to this than i couldve possibly imagined. Not sure what that says about the forums.

[piratemonkey]

5 minutes ago, fpo said:

 

Free market. You are free to make games in your vision. We are free to shit all over it.

A free market has nothing to do with this. That's like saying "I've never been to Olive Garden, but I don't like Italian food so it's bad". In both cases, you have every right to say it, but it doesn't mean the opinion is right. 

[divito]

1-2 days, and your initial impressions will still dictate a quick review. While something longer like a week will impact a lot of fence-sitting buyers and potentially impact sales. Three days allows gamers to form a poor opinion and potentially keep playing and alter that opinion.

But all that being said, I think we're giving Metacritic too much credit. Twitter, forums, Twitch and other platforms will all still have an effect on perception and still allow the market to use its voice in another way. If the community dislikes a game, or a game has problems, it's still going to spread and end up in reviews regardless of the time ban.

[Bombastinator]

10 hours ago, handymanshandle said:

*snip*

Ah the famous “straw man” argument which almost always seems to mean “I don’t like what you said but can’t refute it so I’ll complain about the argument itself rather than the actual case using terms I don’t actually understand”

 

Not supporting something is different than making up garbage about it.  Or used to be anyway.   That differentiation seems to have gotten lost in some quarters.  Complaining about something one hasn’t even seen is mere political correctness. 

Edited July 20, 2020 by wkdpaul

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, piratemonkey said:

A free market has nothing to do with this. That's like saying "I've never been to Olive Garden, but I don't like Italian food so it's bad". In both cases, you have every right to say it, but it doesn't mean the opinion is right. 

Fuck spaghetti.