Users Pwn MetaCritic Review Submissions

Although we’ve found Metacritic a userful resource for game reviews, many folks have gone on a user submission rampage to discredit games that haven’t even launched yet. Their first attack was on LittleBigPlanet followed by Resistance 2, now their hitting Gears of War 2.

While Gears of War 2 has a Metacritic score of 94/100 the user’s have reviewed it to be a 3.5 out of 10, with a bright red box around the user review due to its low nature we’re sure. Although users are free to give their own honest representation of the game from their perspective, Gears of War 2, as of the review dates, hasn’t been released yet – these reviews are bogus.

This style of attack was popularized in Spore, when Amazon got nailed with poor reviews of the game because Spore’s “Draconic” DRM made people angry. However, it’s more reasonable for people to voice their opinion on a known issue with a game; Gears of War 2 review spamming is just mean.

We use Metacritic as guidance when we do our gaming podcast to understand what games are rated in the industry, but we don’t use user reviews as our main guide. There are plenty of folks out there that may utilize these reviews in more seriousness because they may feel journalists reviews are tainted by advertisers or “the man” and want the common gamers opinion.

The common gamer cannot possibility be reviewing Gears of War 2 before the title has arrived. This is bogus. Metacritic has this to say:

“My advice for our faithful users is to focus your attention on the Metascore for this game and not the thousands of user votes, most of which have been submitted before said users have played the game. This is a gaming community, and if people want to stuff the ballot box, there’s not much I can do at this point. When we upgrade the registration requirements for participation on the site in the near future, this type of thing won’t happen. We’ll post the full legitimate user reviews upon the game’s release. As always, thanks for using the site.” (1up)

So, to those looking for holiday gaming gifts, keep this in mind while you start hunting down games you’ll want to buy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Sony Says Competition is GoodSony Says Competition is Good

It seems the console maker who’s trailing in sales typically says how great competition is and how it’s great for the consumer. Sony’s not leading the console race, as of now, and Sony Computer Entertainment Europe president David Reeves stated in a recent interview:

The winner, he said, is the consumer. “That’s why we are not going to slag off Microsoft or Nintendo at all,” he said, “because again it’s rather like the trainer market: one year it’s Reebok, next year it’s Nike, and then suddenly it’s Adidas; it’s cyclical, but in the end everyone wins in five to ten years.”

Sony continues to speak towards their “10 year plan” and how they’re increasing momentum in the market. They’re not winning in sales but with a ten years to go, this is just the beginning. Had this statement come from Microsoft it would be a chance to worry, but Sony has proof to backup their statements.

The PlayStation 2 is going strong as a nine year-old and doesn’t seem to be letting up in game releases. Sony’s press conferences always cover the PlayStation 2 in their talks with the PSP and PlayStation 3 for three big reasons: it’s worth bragging about, it distracts from lower PS3 sales and it separates them from the competition.

Where is the GameCube or classic Xbox in Nintendo and Microsoft’s press conferences and number crunch reports? The fact is, the companies have given up on both products retiring them as “last generation” (translation: poor sales). What better reason to buy a PlayStation 3 than knowing the company is in the game for the long haul?

It might be bit cheaper to buy an Xbox 360 but who’s to say Microsoft isn’t going to announce their next generation console tomorrow and kill off the Xbox 360? Obviously, Microsoft will deny those claims but there will always be doubt without a proven track record.

On the other hand, Microsoft hasn’t seen the success in the classic Xbox and Nintendo hasn’t seen nearly the fervor over the GameCube as compared to their current generation consoles. So, that begs the question, why would they halt all that for new console announcements?

Until they’ve had more time in the market, we cannot be 100% certain what Nintendo and Microsoft are going to do when it comes to next-generation announcements while Sony’s been very clear in each press conference. As Kaz Hirai said to Eurogamer earlier:

“We certainly don’t do the consumer the disservice of basically saying that the consoles have gone by the wayside because we have a new one. Right now, a prime example? PS2 is nine years into it. Where’s the Xbox? Where’s the GameCube?”

If one console maker is looking for a way to stand out and explain their slow sales figures, Sony’s got the PS2 and its long history in their back pocket.

Now, if we could only get those game designers to continue to take it seriously and not put all their eggs into the PS3 basket.

Episode 248: SequelitisEpisode 248: Sequelitis

As the podcast approaches the magic 250th episode, Paul, Jordan and Jonah check out some of the big news that hit this week in the land of videogames, and in the Gaming Flashback, looked back at an all-time worst game, Superman 64.

This week’s news includes:

  • ESA drops SOPA support (via Herr Alien)
  • R18+ bill to be voted on by Australian Parliament on 7th February
  • Vita sales continue to freefall in Japan
  • Guild Wars 2 open beta this Spring, launching in 2012
  • Starbreeze states they don’t look at games from a genre perspective anymore

All this and Reader Feedback, as well as the Question of the Week, “What do you look for in a sequel?”

Diablo 3, Finite Health and Loving ItDiablo 3, Finite Health and Loving It

Diablo 3 Lead Designer Jay Wilson sat down with Multiplayer Blog to explain how the health system works in Diablo 3 and how it differs from Diablo 2. In short, you can’t add a new feature without removing an old one, in this case we’re talking about health potions.

The goal is to broaden the Diablo audience to more than just the hardcore fans. Lets be honest with ourselves, the health potion system was way too far out of control (broken?) By mid-game or earlier, half the character inventory was full of potions and you might have just purchased shares in the potion selling company with all the spending you’ve done there. The health potion system created the infinitely powerful character, in essence, by making them immortal.

Activision Blizzard has learned a bit about their success with broad audiences in games like World of Warcraft, which has surpassed game sales over Diablo 2, their most successful game title. What they’ve decided to do in this release of Diablo is to limit the characters ability to heal and make them “mortal” again, requiring the player to use strategy, tactics and skills to defeat enemies. Rather than charging forward pressing “1” then “2” then “3” and the other hot keys for potions, you’ll be forced to back away during strong stomp attacks, mind your enemies special attacks and defend yourself.

“One of the things that happened in ‘Diablo II’,” Wilson continued, “was the player was faster than most of the monsters and had pretty much infinite health because they would just pop as many potions as they wanted. So when you have a player who has more mobility, more health and endless power, essentially the only thing you can really do to challenge [the players] is to kill them… by just spiking the difficulty.” (multiplayer blog)

Gating the users ability to heal is a classic RPG/Adventure game mechanism for changing the playing field in terms of difficulty. You can make a game with weaker enemies in abundance and still cause you harm, take a look back at Gauntlet in the arcade for an example of this method. You can build challenging enemy styles and dungeon traps to cause the player to mind their step, look at the classic Zelda series and some of their crazy enemies. A great example is the Darknuts from The Legend of Zelda, it was a small knight that could only be attacked from behind but had a sharp little dagger if you bumped them from the front. You had to use tactics to wipe out a full room of Darknuts.

Activision Blizzard will now have the option to create some fancy enemies with challenging special abilities that do not involve insta-kill upon contact battle tactics. You control a super hero character, not an immortal; there should be some challenge besides hacking and slashing through mobs of enemies. Wilson went on to say, “We can make a monster that affects your mobility, we can make a monster that has different kinds of attacks that are dangerous to you and that you actually have to avoid. And so it makes the combat a lot more interesting.”

One of the criticisms to the Diablo franchise has always been the “click fest” of battle. You sit still and click on enemies until everyone is dead. Perhaps, without having infinite potions you’ll be challenged to use your brain on occasion, like a real RPG and have more creative use of your money rather than investing a half-billion into the potion vendors.

Where does that lead the hardcore Diablo fans? Activision Blizzard hopes they’ll see a title with a lot more depth, a new style of challenge and a long term appeal.