Zero bombing is completely abusive

[AlpsStranger]

Look at Fallout 4. It's not perfect but I happen to like it.

On Steam, where you actually have to own it to review it, it's 78% positive. I'd say that's a pretty realistic assessment of the game's actual overall quality.

Yet look at the dropping "user score" on Metacritic.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but user review sites need to start requiring you to post as a verifiable actual person, like on your Facebook account or something. This "I'm really mad that they changed X to Y, so I'm going to make three dozen accounts and vote 0/10 on EACH ONE.

Nobody, I mean NOBODY sincerely, gun-to-their-head, thinks Fallout 4 is a 0/10. N.O.B.O.D.Y. A.T. A.L.L.

I would love for a representative from Metacritic to interview a random shlub who zero bombed Fallout 4 and explain, in depth, how it is no better than Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing. Because that is literally what you're saying when you give a game a 0/10, that it's comparable to shovelware. Absolutely nobody actually feels that way. Hence the 0/10 reviews are absolutely all dishonest, and should be deleted. If you wanna give it a 1/10 that's stretching it. Extremely disappointed people giving it a 5/10 are fair game I think, but I simply do not believe anyone sincerely feels it's 0/10.

Zero bombing is dishonest and abusive, and it needs to be prevented somehow.

 

[Dell19]

I generally agree but not about requiring facebook to login as I really don't want to link facebook to websites / applications that I actually like.

Could do something like imdb where I believe you have to rate lots of things before the ratings are counted and that the ratings are weighted so its not as simple as creating 10 accounts and rate the same thing as 0 each time.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Steam's system is rather clever. They just assume people are going to be bipolar and only allow recommend/do not recommend. That filters out zero-bombing. That and requiring you to own the product.

For what it's worth, a 10/10 is equally dishonest, really, but the dishonesty is of a far lower magnitude. Anyone claiming this is less than a 7/10 is suspect in my book. 7/10 - 9/10 is about the "believable range" for reviews for it, for me personally. 6/10 at a stretch. The game is clearly above-average, full stop.

Reviews lower than 6/10 are clearly political, motivated by the desire to punish the company for some perceived game-political cause, such as anti-console or anti-mainstreaming.

 

[Maniacal]

Most 9/10 and 10/10 reviews are equally useless. It's a problem but there isn't really any actual solution, require people to log in with Facebook or anything else will not eliminate the problem. It's not much better that some of the "Critics" are completely crap or obscure blog sites sites like Cheat Code Central or Hooked Gamer, DarkStation, and whatever the hell Softpedia is. Review scores are largely useless, the user one on metacritic at best gives you a general impression of what the majority of the vocal community thinks about it. If it's being bombed by 0 scores there is probably a reason for that. It might not be a great reason, but it's a reason none the less.

I'd consider it a problem if metacritic was a valuable site, but it's not really.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

While the tendency to give either tens or zeroes on metacritic annoys me, I do believe that metabombing can be a legitimate form to vent one's frustrations about a game that's broken, has intrusive DRM and microtransactions, or bizarre design desicions that change the genre of a popular series. I find metacritic most useful for revealing hype and shady/compromised "professional" reviews where barely working games get high 80 or 90 marks because they carry the name of a popular franchise. Rome 2 and Civ V when they were just released are very good examples of this.

I'd consider it a problem if metacritic was a valuable site, but it's not really.

I consider metacritic a valuable site precisely because of zero bombing because the difference between the metascore and userscrore is a good indicator of quality.
Good games also have zero-point trolls, but they don't drag the score down that much. The Witcher 3 had some because of the graphics downgrade and Pillars of Eternity for not being as hardcore as promised (actually good combat instead of those crappy D&D rules), but their user scores are still pretty high (9.1 for W3 on PC and 8.4 for PoE).

A user score that is 2 or more points lower than the metascore is usually a pretty good indicator that a game has been overhyped and has some serious issues. I haven't played Fallout 4 yet, but Bethesda has a reputation for unfinished releases and half-assed PC ports. I expect that the user score will rise once they start patching the game and interface mods become available.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Some of the issues with FO4 are more legitimate than others. It has some shady tech stuff going on, it seems to actually rely on vsync to control timing which borders on insanity. It's not super tight and bug free ( Bethesda, natch. )

The dialogue is a bit cringey and your character is more baked-in as far as his personality than any other Fallout. Power-armor was re-conceptualized into a sort of short-duration light vehicle ( I actually *really* like this change, but I can see how it might provoke neckbeard frenzies. )

The idea that it's a change in direction for Fallout is valid, as is disappointment with that direction. The idea that it's a below-average game is ludicrous.

All user score sites for games should accept the immaturity of the community and simply have up or down voting like Steam, to prevent both 10-bombs and 0-bombs.

EDIT: And just to be crystal clear, the game isn't a 10/10 or even really a 9/10. It's a really fun 8/10 in my book, with some serious departures from tradition and YMMV depending on how offended you are by those departures.

 

[PhroX]

Has anyone ever taken Metacritic as more than a joke? Because unless someone has been stupid enough to do that, why does it matter if people keep spamming "they changed it 0/10"?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Has anyone ever taken Metacritic as more than a joke ?

Yes.
My reasoning is two posts above yours.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I'm the opposite of Good Sarmatian. I've often disagreed with the fan mob, FO4 won't be the first or last time. To me, metacritic merely means that the Comic Book Guy rolled over off his dakimakura long enough to say "Worst Fallout ever!"

 

[civvver]

I like meta critic, I read the reviews. I don't find it all disingenuous. I mean steam reviews will be equally stupid like: "Ran around a corner, zombie floated through a wall and ate my face. Respawned in wrong location. 10/10 would play again." And then they give a thumbs up.

Ok here's an actual review of volgar the viking, a game I gave a thumbs down to and found ridiculously difficult but a fake, scripted kind of difficulty, ie not the good kind.

http://steamcommunity.com/id/MrCheezits/recommended/247240/

"This game made me bluescreen my computer within 5 hours.
Would recommend."

I can't tell if that guy is serious or not. I can't tell if his pc crashed or he's saying it's a frustrating game, yet gives it a thumbs up.

Or this one:

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198108782184/recommended/247240/

"How to win at Volgarr the Viking:

Not play the game

10/10 Would tear hair out again"

 

[Maniacal]

I despise the people who write those.

 

[Disgustipated]

Look at Fallout 4. It's not perfect but I happen to like it.

On Steam, where you actually have to own it to review it, it's 78% positive. I'd say that's a pretty realistic assessment of the game's actual overall quality.

Yet look at the dropping "user score" on Metacritic.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but user review sites need to start requiring you to post as a verifiable actual person, like on your Facebook account or something. This "I'm really mad that they changed X to Y, so I'm going to make three dozen accounts and vote 0/10 on EACH ONE.

Nobody, I mean NOBODY sincerely, gun-to-their-head, thinks Fallout 4 is a 0/10. N.O.B.O.D.Y. A.T. A.L.L.

I would love for a representative from Metacritic to interview a random shlub who zero bombed Fallout 4 and explain, in depth, how it is no better than Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing. Because that is literally what you're saying when you give a game a 0/10, that it's comparable to shovelware. Absolutely nobody actually feels that way. Hence the 0/10 reviews are absolutely all dishonest, and should be deleted. If you wanna give it a 1/10 that's stretching it. Extremely disappointed people giving it a 5/10 are fair game I think, but I simply do not believe anyone sincerely feels it's 0/10.

Zero bombing is dishonest and abusive, and it needs to be prevented somehow.

Don't be knocking Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing. I have that game installed on my PC right now.

Like you said, just look at Steam reviews. I have never used a User score from Meta Critic alone to buy a game. On the same token, professional reviews of Fallout 4 like IGN's, completely gloss over the flaws of the game (to be fair, they do mention some flaws). I really can't trust user reviews either because of fan boys or haters. All fan boys care about are pretty graphics and shooting stuff.

The best way is just to watch a youtube video of the gameplay. If I like what I see, I buy the game. It's that simple. I try to avoid spoilers of course, and only watch the beginning. I recently bought the Mass Effect series and Jade Empire based on what I seen on youtube.

The worst I would give a game is a 2 or 3 I think. Although I did buy this Nascar racing game back in the 90's that was really bad, I'd give that a 2. Star Wars Rebellion I'd give a 2 as well.

Reviews lower than 6/10 are clearly political, motivated by the desire to punish the company for some perceived game-political cause, such as anti-console or anti-mainstreaming.

Not for me, if I have less than 3 hours played (see my above 2 games I mentioned I gave 2's), then it's getting less than a 6.

As for your 10 comment, I'd give Dragon Age: Origins a 10. Even at launch it was an excellent game that I played completely through 3 times in a row. And several more after taking breaks from the game. Fallout: New Vegas I'd give a 9 (and only because of the bugs at launch).

 

[AlpsStranger]

DA:O was freakishly good, I won't disagree there. Likewise with New Vegas.

I mean, I do love Fallout 4 for the new stuff it brings to the table but, I won't lie, New Vegas definitely felt more soulful, more like a real place.

What we really need is an Obsidian "New Vegas" type project on top of Fallout 4. Now *that* would be something to get stoked about!

 

[warpus]

Just avoid all those sites when deciding if you should buy the game or not. I go by steam's user reviews and by nothing else. If a game got a "Very Positive" overall, it's generally worth getting, if the genre is up my alley. If it's "Good", then maybe. Anything worse than that and I usually don't get it, unless the game is really cheap and a genre that I particularly enjoy.

I mean, that's the only reason you'd ever visit metacritic, right? To see if you should buy a game? So stop going there and start using steam reviews. Exclusively.

Why wouldn't you?

 

[Malachi256]

It would only be dishonest if other people didn't know/understand how the voting worked. As long as you understand that there are people who vote zero for certain reasons, you just have to take that into account. Crowd-sourcing isn't scientific.

For my part, I see zeros as evidence of rage. It's useful to know that the game is causing a lot of people to rage. If you want to know why, you read the comments. Then you'll see if it's "ARGH I CAN'T PLAY GAME RAWR" rage, or "ARGH GAME NOT WHAT I EXPECTED RAWR" rage, or "RAAA THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE CHIHUAHUAS RAWR" rage.

 

[AlpsStranger]

It would only be dishonest if other people didn't know/understand how the voting worked. As long as you understand that there are people who vote zero for certain reasons, you just have to take that into account. Crowd-sourcing isn't scientific.

For my part, I see zeros as evidence of rage. It's useful to know that the game is causing a lot of people to rage. If you want to know why, you read the comments. Then you'll see if it's "ARGH I CAN'T PLAY GAME RAWR" rage, or "ARGH GAME NOT WHAT I EXPECTED RAWR" rage, or "RAAA THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE CHIHUAHUAS RAWR" rage.

Someone who votes 10 or 0 should be able to defend that rating.

Nobody could defend a 0/10 for Fallout 4. It's absurd.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Just find reviewers whom you trust and listen to them.

Or watch Let's Plays/Snapshots. Much more likely to give you an accurate assessment than a review aggregator. Especially one which tends to play as politically as Metacritic.

 

[civvver]

There are a couple games I could be talked into giving 10s to, I'd probably give em 9s or 95/100 out of principle, there is always something a game could do a bit better. But Ocarina of Time when it came out was a 10, DAOrigins like someone said, I think Mass Effect 2 was spectacular and would go as high as 10, but there you have people who hated it cus it wasn't ME1 enough. I'd also put civ4 in that realm, and Plants vs Zombies. No it's not the greatest game ever, but for what it is, it's perfect. And depending on my mood, Wow Burning Crusade expac and Dota2. It's really hard to rate multiplayer games though cus so much depends on the playerbase.

And for a couple 0s, I'd say Volgar the Viking is a 0. Seriously stupid game imo. I'm sure there's other ones I hated too that I can't think of right now. Maybe MOO3...

 

[Disgustipated]

DA:O was freakishly good, I won't disagree there. Likewise with New Vegas.

I mean, I do love Fallout 4 for the new stuff it brings to the table but, I won't lie, New Vegas definitely felt more soulful, more like a real place.

What we really need is an Obsidian "New Vegas" type project on top of Fallout 4. Now *that* would be something to get stoked about!

I would really love that. I'd like to see them develop both games simultaneously if only to cater to different types of fans. Although I think Chris Avellone left Obsidian. Some people may say he's responsible for New Vegas bugs, but I like the vision they had for the game. Once the save bug was fixed, the game didn't have any major issues for me. I don't mind streamlined games so much, but I miss the old school games as well. I felt New Vegas had the perfect mix of first person shooter type action and RPG elements.

Specifically I like hearing about character's backgrounds. It makes the world seem real. From what I read, Fallout 4 has none of that. The people in the forums say this is a good thing . They say that people shouldn't be walking sign posts. But you should be able to get decent information from people. Especially in Fallout 4 considering your background. I'll try not to spoil it, but you aren't exactly hardened to the post apocalyptic world. Realistically your character should be clueless about everything.

But hey, if Fallout 4 has something as good as the Chupacabra guy (No-Bark) near Novac, I'll be impressed.

 

[AlpsStranger]

The inside of New Vegas was a bit twisted. I recall there being perks for, for instance, "cowboy weapons" but the perk was in one DLC and the weapons were sometimes in another... it was a mess. The unofficial patch I used to use sorted that bug by sorting the weapons into more logical groupings.

Really, for whatever reason, a lot of the inside of New Vegas was filled with really silly mistakes like that, from talking to friends who modded it.

I found a huge unofficial mod that managed to make New Vegas really really, really close to bug-free, even down to *gasp,* all the perks actually working. I played with only that and CONELRAD radio, and it was one of the best games I ever played.

Fallout 4 has its own feeling. As I get deeper into the story it's growing on me more than I even expected. It's definitely not "Call of Fallout Duty" or whatever the ragin' neckbeard bloc is claiming.