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

[piratemonkey]

30 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

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.

That's fair. I wouldn't call it pointless, maybe some parts yes. With their 'agenda' (I'm assuming you mean the LGBTQ stuff), there was nothing really bad. 

(For the sake of preserving spoilers for those under a rock, I'm using the spoiler drop down)

Spoiler

I think that for the whole boyo going back to the island and that saga, there could've been some other reason. Though I feel like it was fine; sub optimal, lazy writing maybe.

 

For Ellie and Dina's relationship, I think it was aight. I feel like the personality and character of Dina couldn't be easily transferred to a male character, as then he would look controlling which is no buenos. Idk it didn't take away from the experience.

 

For the whole Abby section, it was fking dumb. I gained nothing from that. It could've been reduced a lot, or even cut and there would be no change. (also that whole sex scene, it would be better if it was hinted at)

 

For the final hurrah of Ellie and Abby, it was ok I guess. I have mixed feelings. 

Neil Druckmann said it wasn't going to be a fun game. It wasn't. But it was a good experience IMO

[suicidalfranco]

2 hours ago, piratemonkey said:

[...] as most negative posting were made by people who hadn't played the game only a few hours after it came out.

same can be said about all the instant 10/10 at release

 

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, suicidalfranco said:

same can be said about all the instant 10/10 at release

 

Makes a case for the 36 hour wait.  

[Bombastinator]

13 hours ago, fpo said:

Fuck spaghetti. 

? Sounds unpleasant and potentially dangerous.  Could be a code phrase I suppose if I had my tinfoil hat on.  “Spaghetti” would be a reference to spaghetti monster which is an atheist theory thing.  So a lie at its heart.  Seems doubtful.

[suicidalfranco]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

Makes a case for the 36 hour wait.  

if it also doesn't get applied to the critic reviews, no.

How many games out there have been praised by critics but hated by users and vice versa?

Now they're just giving the ball entirely to the critics, And 3 days is too much. 

Metacitcs should instead just tie user accounts to the store accounts and check that the user owns the game. That would be a better solution.

[Bombastinator]

Just now, suicidalfranco said:

if it also doesn't get applied to the critic reviews, no.

How many games out there have been praised by critics but hated by users and vice versa?

Now they're just giving the ball entirely to the critics, And 3 days is too much. 

Metacitcs should instead just tie user accounts to the store accounts and check that the user owns the game. That would be a better solution.

I experienced that with some 4k game I played recently.  It was weird. Initial player reviews were negative, but several months later rave reviews came from critics.   I bought the game on the strength of the second wave and found the first to be much more accurate.

I think I know why it happened.  Back in the day there was a novel called “gravity’s rainbow” it’s awful.  UNLESS you happen to have been a literary criticism major.  Then it’s amazing.  Who doesn’t love a 50 page pun? Everyone except literary criticism majors.  The book was not made to be read, it was made to be reviewed.  This seems to be becoming an industrial problem with games as well.  I can see how that might be a problem.  Critics get early releases though and in theory have at least played the game.  The critics will have to make their commentary in a vacuum, then risk getting overwhelmed by user reviews if they’re wrong.  Very professionally dangerous for reviewers.  This one might work itself out.  Unless it doesn’t.  Time will tell.

[Mihle]

I am very much for this because most actual real reviews will not come in the first 24 or 36 hours, at least most of them, while review bombing can be early as ever because they don't actually play the game.

 

Confirming if someone actually owns the game would be best tho.

[Taf the Ghost]

1) MetaCritic is morons for not having done this years ago for products that take upwards of 12 hours or more to play.

 

2) The fact they did it in response to Sony's whining and Sony's own paid Review Pumping (this happens regularly, though CBS/Viacom is normally the worst offender). 

 

3) Don't falsely market your game and kill off the reason most people made your first game legendary. Clearly the writers had one good story in them and that was in part 1.

[piratemonkey]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

2) The fact they did it in response to Sony's whining and Sony's own paid Review Pumping (this happens regularly, though CBS/Viacom is normally the worst offender).

You don't know that. That is a baseless conspiracy

 

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

3) Don't falsely market your game and kill off the reason most people made your first game legendary. Clearly the writers had one good story in them and that was in part 1.

I thought it was... ok. There were some good parts, some really bad ones. I like to think this was an alternative story line

[Taf the Ghost]

28 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I experienced that with some 4k game I played recently.  It was weird. Initial player reviews were negative, but several months later rave reviews came from critics.   I bought the game on the strength of the second wave and found the first to be much more accurate.

I think I know why it happened.  Back in the day there was a novel called “gravity’s rainbow” it’s awful.  UNLESS you happen to have been a literary criticism major.  Then it’s amazing.  Who doesn’t love a 50 page pun? Everyone except literary criticism majors.  The book was not made to be read, it was made to be reviewed.  This seems to be becoming an industrial problem with games as well.  I can see how that might be a problem.  Critics get early releases though and in theory have at least played the game.  The critics will have to make their commentary in a vacuum, then risk getting overwhelmed by user reviews if they’re wrong.  Very professionally dangerous for reviewers.  This one might work itself out.  Unless it doesn’t.  Time will tell.

The professional "game journalism" sphere is shrinking because they aren't really people that play games. They're people in game journalism as a stepping stone to another part of the industry. The problem for them is they aren't taken seriously by the rest of the Journalism industry, even if the reality is that Gaming is bigger than all other Media. Almost combined. It's the reason why reviewers on YT are eating their lunch. Most publications are extremely terrible at their technical job.

[Aimi]

If something's shit, people are going to call it shit even if they need to wait 36 hours to do so. OP's example is a very poor one considering how much story content had been leaked, pretty much tossing out most favorable reviews seeing as the game in question is plot heavy much like the previous entry.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, piratemonkey said:

You don't know that. That is a baseless conspiracy

 

I thought it was... ok. There were some good parts, some really bad ones. I like to think this was an alternative story line

1) Several people went to the trouble of scraping chunks of the Positive data. There were clear bots activity.

2) Part of Twitter was actively trying to "counter-bomb".

3) This is standard practice for all "open" review systems and has been for well over a decade.

4) You can go and buy as many "likes", "retweets", "votes", "upvotes", "followers" or death threats as you'd like. If you know where to look. With enough money, you can astroturf things into existence.

5) The best analysis I've seen of what did TLOU2 in comes from a Game Design approach. The director won a power struggle, booted the previous other creative staff and the game became a vanity project. That's why the destruction of old characters was so complete, but the new characters, original from the director, were supposed to come off great. The directory simply lacked the ability to pull it off.

[Taf the Ghost]

4 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

*Remember the poor journalist failing to perform a two-key combo jump on Cuphead intro... for 2~3 minutes...*

Remember the 20+ year veteran "game journalist" that would have problems getting out of Mario Bros 1-2.

[RejZoR]

So, you need to wait a full day and a half after game release to read about said game being shit and that you need to avoid it? Great... Kinda totally defeats the purpose of reviews, doesn't it? The point of reviews is that you get the info on game quality as soon as possible so you can decide what to do when game launches, not 36 hours later. Artificially delaying it won't change the fact that some games are shit and people should avoid them.

 

I also don't see how review bombing changes anything. People can read. So you read some of negative reviews and you read some of positive ones. It's how I check Steam reviews for games.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

4 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? 

2 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

TLoU2 got review bombed because it has a terrible, drawn out, and in the end: pointless story.

 

How many people were in a position to state either of those things without even playing the game? In particular the second, could you conclude that without not just playing, but finishing the game?

For any game there will always be legitimate reasons to have a negative opinion, whether yo agree with it or not: it's subjective. But it's disingenuous to conflate any informed negative opinion from players with zero-day review bombs. Whichever reason you had to give a negative review after playing it (or whichever popular complaint you choose to parrot without playing it to make the argument seem stronger) doesn't change the uselessness of reviews from people who didn't play the game. 

 

2 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

This is ignoring their ham fisting of an agenda.

Yeah, this "agenda" thing is just more trigger-happy bullshit as in BFV, Star Wars VIII, etc. Basically people projecting their own insecurities and demanding a deep justification to show anything remotely close to their personal fears.

 

 

 

[AlwaysFSX]

18 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

How many people were in a position to state either of those things without even playing the game? In particular the second, could you conclude that without not just playing, but finishing the game?

For any game there will always be legitimate reasons to have a negative opinion, whether yo agree with it or not: it's subjective. But it's disingenuous to conflate any informed negative opinion from players with zero-day review bombs. Whichever reason you had to give a negative review after playing it (or whichever popular complaint you choose to parrot without playing it to make the argument seem stronger) doesn't change the uselessness of reviews from people who didn't play the game. 

 

Yeah, this "agenda" thing is just more trigger-happy bullshit as in BFV, Star Wars VIII, etc. Basically people projecting their own insecurities and demanding a deep justification to show anything remotely close to their personal fears.

Within the first few hours of the game you can see that it was done dirty with plot points that could have written better. Further, I don't need to complete a game to have a bad opinion about it. If it doesn't feel like it's worth completing, then I deem it a bad game and that should be sufficient reasoning. It should entice me to finish it. It did not take 36 hours to not like TLoU2, even though I was through it to the end.

 

Any social medium that you pick can have spoilers before launch and can give you a strong indication whether or not you think it'll be good. If all of the main plot points of the story for a new AAA game were leaked (and were correct, in this case), and a lot of people didn't like what the developers did then there's nobody to blame but the developers themselves. They'd just have "36" hours to get people to spend their money on a game they weren't going to like anyways. It's sleezy.

TLoU2 was review bombed because whoever was in charge of the story did the existing characters dirty, and wrote poorly adapter new characters.

Spoiler:

Spoiler

There was no resolution to anything either. If you want a story where the main character suffers this was a poor way to write it.

Dina is an annoying add-in who should have been muted, her relationship with Ellie looked Mary Sue rather than naturally occurring.

 

Too much time was spent on The Fridge's backstory.

 

There was no resolution with what happens to The Fridge.

While Joel had it coming, kill him in a better way. Especially for someone who slaughtered endless people, that's how weak he is to go?

---

The Scar child was the only useful plot addition to the game.

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Further, I don't need to complete a game to have a bad opinion about it.

Yes, a statement as:

Quote

 drawn out, and in the end: pointless story.

(one which I may indeed agree with) is only possible once you get to the end.

 

 

3 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

If it doesn't feel like it's worth completing, then I deem it a bad game and that should be sufficient reasoning.

Yep, enough to say it's bad or boring, definitely not enough to know it's "drawn out, and in the end: pointless".

You quoted me referring to a specific sentence; complaining that it doesn't apply to other criticism is also pointless.

 

 

3 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

 

Any social medium that you pick can have spoilers before launch and can give you a strong indication whether or not you think it'll be good.

Good for making purchase decisions.

Pretending that you should accept reviews of people who "read social media and other reviews" is as senseless as having Amazon reviews by people who didn't buy or use the product but "read other reviews and social media about the product". It's just stupid, and a perversion of the review system. It's basically what makes many in-store online reviews useless.

 

3 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

 They'd just have "36" hours to get people to spend their money on a game they weren't going to like anyways. It's sleezy.

What? You just told me everyone would be perfectly informed "because social media and stuff", now you tell me that without review bombing poor consumers will be fooled into buying a game they don't like? Too much cotnradiction.

 

3 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

TLoU2 was review bombed

If it was "reviewed bombed" then its reviews failed to serve the purpose of reviews. Nothing else matters. How much you or I like the game is irrelevant for what a review is meant to be. You are wasting your time if you think that arguing why your opinion makes sense to you has anything to do with people writing reviews of a game they didn't play.

 

[AlwaysFSX]

40 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

You just told me everyone would be perfectly informed "because social media and stuff"

Any social medium that you pick can have spoilers before launch and can give you a strong indication whether or not you think it'll be good.

 

So it's an attempt to twist words just because I don't agree with you on this. TLoU2 was review bombed because the story wasn't well received and game play confirmed it. On launch day people didn't like it. You don't need 36 hours for a specific review either, word gets around. That's kinda how the internet works.

 

If you saw the climax scenes for the next Star Wars movie and don't like it then that's a way for your opinion to be formed on the matter. And if a large portion of the customer base voices their opinion about it then you can't change the fact that a large portion of people don't like it. The bad reviews will happen regardless.

 

I think it's fairly ridiculous for you to class people out of an opinion just because it doesn't fit your view of how they should be allowed to form it.

 

To add:

46 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

(one which I may indeed agree with) is only possible once you get to the end.

If people put the game down before completion, then it's drawn out.

 

Let's see how else you want to fit this to your narrative against people who don't like the game because of the story.

[piratemonkey]

2 hours ago, Aimi said:

If something's shit, people are going to call it shit even if they need to wait 36 hours to do so. OP's example is a very poor one considering how much story content had been leaked, pretty much tossing out most favorable reviews seeing as the game in question is plot heavy much like the previous entry.

I'm doing the best I can. I referenced tlou2 and used it as the basis as my opinion cuz that's why this policy is in place. 

 

8 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

If people put the game down before completion, then it's drawn out

To take yourself out of context, if a game is 10+ hours long, I hope you put it down. Just because you can't feasibly complete a game in a day doesn't mean it's drawn out. It's drawn out if it's story or gameplay is dry. 

 

On that note, I'm going to remove myself from this discussion. It isn't benefiting myself or anyone else, and it seems like no one cares to change their opinions. 

[Athan Immortal]

I really disagree with this policy (and MetaCritic in general, since they weight different sites reviews differently, the score is not always a true average, they also allow some companies two reviews, I remember seeing a game that had IGN + IGN Italy for example).

 

• Playing a game for an hour and deciding you didn't like it, is a valid review.
• Playing a game until a specific point and deciding you don't like it is a valid review, regardless of whether you actually finished the game
• People shouldn't need to play a minimum amount of time for a review to be valid. (Crashes on loading screen is a valid criticism).

If you're going to give players agency on your site, then take it away, you're not a review site, you're just part of the marketing arm of these game companies.

 

 

[Teddy07]

I didn´t follow the outrage mob but why do these people not just vote with their wallet? Then move on in life

[Trik'Stari]

10 hours ago, handymanshandle said:

*snip*

First thing that came to mind.

 

This only devalues meta critic further. Some games deserve to be review bombed. Battlefield V deserved it, and based on the videos I've watched, TLOU2 deserved it for absolutely horrible writing. Never played it, but the complaints I've heard coming from those who have (YoungRippa and Yahtzee) endure I'll never play it or the one that came before it. 

Edited July 20, 2020 by wkdpaul

[Arika]

42 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

I didn´t follow the outrage mob but why do these people not just vote with their wallet? Then move on in life

How do you review a game unless you've played it? you have to buy it to play it. "vote with your wallet" doesn't work in these situations.

[Trik'Stari]

54 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

I didn´t follow the outrage mob but why do these people not just vote with their wallet? Then move on in life

If I had to guess, they're angry and want the company to know it, and the fact that the game has a 94% rating from "critics" only pushes them further.

 

Which is a damning indictment of the way media works these days.

[porina]

Random thinking: I know everyone wants "one number" to indicate how great something is, but things are always more complicated than that. It may be interesting to force reviewers to break down the scores in different areas. For example, graphics, sound, gameplay, story.

 

Quote

You cannot redeem points for this item, because you do not own the associated game or do not have two hours of playtime in it.

On the time element, the above is what I've seen many times when trying to buy items in the Steam point store. Some games aren't 2 hours of content... I end up running it in the background just to clock up the hours to buy backgrounds. Great mechanic. 10/10. Will do again.