How true is this?

How true is this?

Attached: FKnQmmLUcAAKCpN.jpg (1200x676, 87.47K)

True.

That's basically how Metacritic works. All because of game journos and reviewers back in the day not wanting to give games a rating below 70, or else they would have their privileges revoked.

that seems similar to the grade-school grading scale

as true as the opinions of people who actually listen to game journalists

metacritic score is a grading of the amount of mass appeal, not of the quality of the game

How long do you think it will take until vidya is treated the same as movies and books and reviewers treat games like artwork rather than a commercial venture?

Fixed that for you

Attached: 26236.jpg (985x617, 86.34K)

This is exactly how Any Forums thinks just today I saw a thread of a 77 metacritic score and the OP was acting like it flopped. That said it's not completely their fault because ratings for any piece of media have become artificially inflated beyond all hell. When nearly every company is hiring paid shills to leave good reviews, a game having a sub 80 score can be telling.

>this is considered a masterpiece according to shartacritic

Attached: when a disgusting movie lover tries to argue ''muh game ratios.webm (962x540, 1.78M)

GOTY should be replaced with Paid Shills, otherwise it's correct

Anything above 90 is a paid review

looks good to me

Resetera hands typed this post.

>sims 4 nearly 10 years old
I know they like to milk the expansions, but why has there been literally nothing about sims 5? And why has nobody else tried to make a SIMilar game??

as long as there are a majority of people that benefit from a system, the system will stay in place.
however, that doesn't mean you have to pay attention to it as an individual. play and talk about the shit you like, full stop.

Attached: 158.gif (338x338, 704.36K)

Attached: file.png (345x527, 313.09K)

yes because reviewers are children

it's almost like impartiality is important or something

With thousands of games in existence, why would I waste my time and money on something that I do not believe will have a lasting impact on me? If 30% or more of a game is deeply flawed, why would I want to play that game?

60-90 on Metacritic is where all the best games live.
If it's above 90 it's probably incredibly generic and no higher than a 6/10.
The best sign of a good game is that some critics love it and others absolutely hate it.

The problem with community reviews is no one gives a shit about nuance. Everything's black or white, GOTY or dogshit. And why would you bother putting in the effort, middling reviews are insulting to people who like a game and too soft for people who hate it. You may as well go all in and appeal to one side only to get the feedback you obviously want if you're willing to put any ounce of effort into making reviews for other people to read, regardless of whether it's positive or negative.

Something occurs to me.

Let's say we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that the end goal of giving high green numbers to mediocre games is to push them for sales, propaganda, or whatever other reason (MGS2 already went over that part so I won't go into it too much).

It seems to me that - and this is my main point - in the long term, this strategy's effects should diminish. Giving all the big releases the same big scores over and over can
a) make it look like games are stagnating; and/or
b) lower a reader's confidence in that reviewer.

What I'm thinking is that, whatever the reason for why they rate on scales like this, it can actually work against them in the long-term. But I haven't seen much more than anectodal evidence that such a phenomenon is occurring.

Attached: file.png (600x600, 101.21K)

Ys is one of my favorite series of all times and I have enjoyed even the ones that have sub 70 rating.
Also it is one of the oldest franchises out there and it is still going strong despite it not being the star of Metacritic.

this thread is the evidence that that effect is diminishing. people are realizing that it's not a good indicator.

completely fucking wrong.
80-100 and 0-60 are unplayable trash. between 60 and 80 it's a 50-50 tossup on whether the game is good

Maybe if reviewers weren't like:
>I'd give it an 87, it was average at best
metacritic would be taken more seriously

>GOTY

Change it to "PAID REVIEWS" and is more accurate.

that's probably the real reason review scores are like that. Everyone grew up with anything under a 60 being a failure and it just transferred over into how games are reviewed. Which is stupid but whatever, there's no changing it now.
that's the Any Forums score system

kino

Considering that the closest to a reputable games journalism site I can think of is Christ Centered Gamer, it's pretty clear that the repeated high scores have pretty much sunk any credibility for the big sites like IGN,etc.