When will Sup Forums realize review scores are just opinions?

Doesn't matter if your favourite game gets a high or a low score, it's just an opinion.

Only weak minded fools compare Metacritic scores and let them affect/sway their own opinion about a game.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=d3pQ0oO_cDE
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

When will Sup Forums realise that liking a video game is just an opinion, and as with all opinions there are a multitude of different ones? My guess is never, since this place is a hugbox.

Yeah but BotW is objectively better than Horizon Zero...

They differ from shitposting because those people are (generally) journalists and professional reviewers, they get paid to play the game and write about it.

It doesn't stop professional reviewers from writing complete nonsense and shitty opinions though, but they're credible because they're working for a famous website, magazine or channel. They have a reputation to hold, other than simply coming to Sup Forums and writing "lmao shitty game it's for babies".

It's up to you to read them and decide where to spend your money.

>professional reviewers
Doesn't exist, because there are no professional opinions.

>review scores are just opinions

>be Gerstmann
>post a "review" with your "opinion"
>get fired for this "opinion"
>despite it being "fair" and one of the highest scores for a trash 4 hour game

when you post sauce

Not everything is an opinion. You may dislike the idea, but there's actual standards for video games.

Metacritic is still full of shit.

>if the game I like and I plan to buy get's 10/10, it makes sense and it's 100% credible

meanwhile
>I never played the franchise neither a game from that company/genre/whatever
>I don't have the console it's in
>"It's shit, these reviews were paid, they're just opinions"

Give an example of one of this standard.

People who have to give games inflated scores or risk being fired are not credible. People who know their perks, like free early review copies and backstage access, end if the publisher are dissatisfied with what's said are not credible.

>there are no professional opinions
It depends on the field. It's always interesting hearing musicians you respect talk about other artists' musical compositions, and it's interesting hearing filmmakers talk about their favorite films. Unfortunately all it takes to be a "professional reviewer" is a decent writing talent, and not necessarily and hand-on experience with the field they review.

Fatal Frame for Wii U.US version doesn't have this costumes though, Nintendo censorship. :3

Numbers are love, numbers are truth, numbers from random people are life

>Buy game
>Enjoy every moment of it
>Game got 8/10
>Sup Forums says it's shit
>Still enjoyed the game

Caring what Sup Forums or reviewers think

No, it's not. It's just an elite establishment making you think it is. At the end of the day it's just opinions. Nothing more, nothing less.

These people in the media have A LOT of power and influence. They want stupid, gullible people to keep listening to them, to keep treating them as "professionals". That's the way they keep their power, and have their own agendas, opinions and feelings being widely distributed to a lot of people.

Imagine asking a friend for his opinion about a brand new game, and he replies to you:

"Sure I'll tell you, but only if you give me five bucks".

Yet, people accept this shit in media because it's normalized. I haven't read a videogame review on 16 years, and I'm doing perfectly fine without them.

Fucking this. Reviews are bullshit anyway. I'll read them for information, but I don't need somebody telling me what to buy or avoid.

You're a random person who plays videogames. You don't know shit about game design. You don't know shit about what makes a good game except than graphics and flashy action. You don't study the subject you write about, you don't go further and try to experience new stuff, both from the past and the present, you don't have a method to analyze a game, its separate aspects, production values etc. You don't read about gaming market and game design, you just come here to post "it's bad because I don't like it".

We call you a critic from now on, right? Because I have a feeling that every shitposter here is being put aside people from review media like they were just writing "opinions".

If you still don't see a difference, I suggest you to read the Global Rule #2.

I feel like you skimmed my post. All I meant to say is that it's interesting to hear someone who works within a field give their opinions of the works of other people who work in the same field. Please reread the final sentence of my previous post-- key word is "unfortunately."

Is the game functional technologically - that is, bugs, framedrops, glitches, excessive loading times?
Does the game bring anything new to the table?
How does fidelity (graphic and audio) compare to other titles at time of release?
How much do the players actions influence the outcome of any given situation?
What is the core playtime - that is, time spent actually doing things, padding excluded?
Do characters actually differ from how they started out by the time the credits roll?

Yes, there's going to be subjective things as well. Are the characters likeable, do I give a shit about the story, was the difficulty appropriate for me, did I like the artstyle/theme, did I enjoy the genre the way it's used here. But that's not all.

>Hugbox
>People say every game is shit

Which one is it?

Then game reviewers don't know game design either, only game designers do.

I'm certain there are many that understand this but still post in the threads that promote this retarded shit.

>Implying it can't be both.

You know what a hugbox is, right?

>You don't know shit about game design.
You don't need to. You can judge the outcome regardless. You can review a toaster without knowing shit about toaster design, by evaluating how well it does its job. The same applies for games.

Oh, so by that logic, only movie directors know how to edit a movie, right?

God damn, I feel bad for every critic out there thinking they know about film making when they're just ignorant pigs trying to make money out of it.

Well, everyone's a critic.

Yeah, just like "I don't care if the level design is shit, it has good graphicz" opinions out there.

Well spoken user. Well spoken.

A good game is in the eye of the beholder. Do you let other people decide for you what is good and what is not? Do you let other people decide for you what reasons there are to play videogames? I don't.

You put these gaming critics on a piedestal, thinking that just because they have more knowledge about certain games, automatically make them more reliable. Wrong.

When it comes down to the crunch, how much a game is enjoyed is all down to subjectiveness. Or even if you both think a game is great, you might do so because of entirely different reasons.

That's not what I said at all but okay.

The same can be said about books, movies, cars, cellphones, food, clothing, toothpaste, condoms.

"It's subjective" won't stop me from looking at a good chunk of opinions (professional, if possible) before throwing my money at a shitty product. That's how it works and that's why critics exist in first place.

For objective stuff like framerates and such, anyone can tell that. You don't need expertise to see if a game has a crap framerate or not.

Some of the things you listed, like if the game brings anything new to the table, might not even be of interest to everyone. It's just one of those things the "professional" reviewer wants to bring up, because he want to spread his own opinion.

>For objective stuff like framerates and such, anyone can tell that.
I'm not saying being a critic requires a special skillset. Also, particulary when reviewing PC games, figuring out how well the technical side works under what circumstances is actual work, and most people won't be willing to do it.
> Some of the things you listed, like if the game brings anything new to the table, might not even be of interest to everyone.
Might not be, but they still reflect on the quality of the work as a whole. People might not even be interested that mcdonalds has shit tier food, that doesn't mean calling them out on it is invalid, or subjective.

That's not even to mention that some "subjective" things are in the realms of "near-universally shared subjective experience". Think of a beautiful sunset on a midsummer evening. That being pretty is 100% subjective.

Yes.

No, that's not how "it" works. That's how YOU work because you trust a reviewer's opinion more than a user's.

And the only reason you do that is because reviewers always work hard with their own brand, their image and such to make themselves appear important, professional etc.

It's just marketing, and you swallow it hole you stupid bastard.

My overall review of this thread is 1/5 stars, and that is NOT SUBJECTIVE, it is an OBJECTIVE appraisal based on my in-depth Sup Forums experience that has only grown ever since I joined in December 2016

High Metacritic scores mean jack shit.
But low Metacritic scores can usually be trusted.

Why are you so butthurt about people who are paid to write their subjective opinions? Is it because you do it for free on Sup Forums?

Reflecting the quality as a whole doesn't matter because that factor is irrelevant. It's like saying a Bomberman game has great graphics, implying that would tell you something about the general quality of the game.

No, it's because it's part of a bigger problem in society where the masses trust a small elite on top, who constantly promotes their own opinions as facts.

lol I think it's more like they promote their opinions as opinions. Everyone knows reviews are subjective. Stop projecting

>Reflecting the quality as a whole doesn't matter because that factor is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant. It's not relevant to you, but that doesn't mean that your perception of the game - and this is actually subjective - is related to its objective quality.
> It's like saying a Bomberman game has great graphics, implying that would tell you something about the general quality of the game.
It would tell us something about part of the game. One single criteria can't tell the whole story - duh - but that's why there's more of them. And that's why your'e supposed to do more than look at a number at the end.

No they don't. Because if they would sink themselves to the same level as a user, they would lose their influence and their status.

You're probably too stupid to understand this whole picture.

>journalists and professional reviewers

youtube.com/watch?v=d3pQ0oO_cDE

Sup Forums and Sup Forums as a whole is autistic as fuck. They only deal in absolutes. There is no middle ground or mixing of ideas.

Also, do you fully understand how much money and power that is involved with this? Because gullible people trust Metacritic scores, sales are affected on a massive scale=big money.

The opinions of a few select people in the media elite can decide the fate of a multimillion dollar product. That's how much power these "professional" reviewers have. And they're very well aware of this power.

Especially people with personal agendas and ideologies, they use this influence all the time to try to change society and norms.

This is not just videogames, but media as a whole. They're fucking power hungry scum bags, and people just gobble their shit up.

The only difference between a pro reviewer and a user reviewer is wage and platform
What am I missing, o wise one?

Most people have, it's just that review scores are the easiest way to shitpost because you don't need to actually know anything about the game.

The biggest difference is how many people a "pro" reviewer can affect, therefore how much influence and power he has.

People shouldn't give these elitists this influence and power.

The majority of Sup Forums already knows this, but they're all retarded and only want to fight about things so they can ignore the fact that they're going to eventually die.

In Sup Forums-world, if a game that you like is reviewed negatively then reviews are meaningless. But if a game you like is reviewed positively, it objectively proves that the game is good.

This is how it's always been and always will be.

A toaster has an objective function, though: to toast bread. There aren't multiple ways to toast bread, some which you may like, and some which others may like. If you're critiquing a game, you have to be able to see from other people's perspectives. For example, a critic may not like horror games, but if he reviews a horror game, he should be able to tell whether people who DO like horror games would like it. You need to ask: what is the game trying to do, and does it do it successfully? That's the difference between a critique and an opinion.

They're not supposed to be

>There aren't multiple ways to toast bread, some which you may like, and some which others may like.
Tell me about all the ways you can play call of duty.

Most games aren't any more open than a toaster.
> For example, a critic may not like horror games, but if he reviews a horror game, he should be able to tell whether people who DO like horror games would like it.
No, in that case he should stop what he's doing, and hand the game to a person that knows horror games.
> You need to ask: what is the game trying to do, and does it do it successfully?
Of course, that's another important aspect, but it's one of the hardest, as you have to pretty much guess what the hell the devs where thinking.