Metacritic User Reviews Not Good for OOTP14

[Honorable_Pawn]

I was surprised by the low score. I think some shooter type people got disappointed that you couldn't open fire on the fans down the 3rd base line.

You can vote it here. This is the site that Steam links to so it's kinda important that the score is not weighed down by a few bad apples.

Attachment 318613

[snepp]

The same thing happened last year, a few turds dumped completely unjustifiable 0 ratings on it.


I did my part, up to 6.5 now.

[RchW]

There is something fishy going on. The review screen shows 10 positive and 5 negative reviews but when you try to see them it says there are no negative reviews.

Metacritic should show the negative reviews or withdraw them.

[The Wolf]

I think some of the Metacritic reviewers are some of the same goofballs you see commenting on YouTube videos.

[snepp]

Does it allow you to submit scores without providing a review?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by snepp

Does it allow you to submit scores without providing a review?

Possibly. In my opinion that should not be allowed. If the process is designed to inform potential buyers no one should be able to post a good or bad score without some justification of it.

To me it's not a coincidence that none of the bad scores are identifiable. If a site wants to be taken seriously they should not permit anonymous ratings.

[OmahaBaseball]

Just added a brief review/comment and voted - now up to 7.1 for score.

[themonk]

Indeed the low score is surprising. Just wondering what's Metacritic's basis for coming out with such a low score, considering that OOTP is one of the best games available for the PC?

[Honorable_Pawn]

The Critic reviews were actually quite good. It was 5 likely zeros that brought the user scores down.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

I think some of the Metacritic reviewers are some of the same goofballs you see commenting on YouTube videos.

Or the commentors on MLB.com. *shudder*

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Honorable_Pawn

The Critic reviews were actually quite good. It was 5 likely zeros that brought the user scores down.

Didn't something like this happen a couple years ago when OOTP had one of the best scores on Metacritic and some sub-moronic fans of one of the first person shooter games got all offended that OOTP was higher than their game and started en masse voting with all 0's?

[Honorable_Pawn]

I remember that.

I bet they are done with whatever that shooter was. I bet they moved on to some other shooter. Yet here we are still enjoying what is pretty much the same game year after year after year. That is OOTP's value.

[bailey]

Originally Posted by Honorable_Pawn

I remember that.

I bet they are done with whatever that shooter was. I bet they moved on to some other shooter. Yet here we are still enjoying what is pretty much the same game year after year after year. That is OOTP's value.

I wouldn't call that value when you have to pay full price year after year for "pretty much the same game".

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by bailey

I wouldn't call that value when you have to pay full price year after year for "pretty much the same game".

Pardon me, but that's kind of an unfair comment.

The differences from year to year in OOTP are sometimes not entirely obvious to the casual gamer, yet they're there all the same and no less substantial for being less than glaringly obvious.

If you look back at three or four versions ago, it's like the current version is an entirely different game there have been so many changes.

That's not something that can be said for almost any other sports game except for maybe FM.

Not to mention that $20-$40 is hardly "full price" considering that most console and major PC games go for well over $50, not to mention what most companies change for DLC.

After all if you don't actually think there are any changes, why would you buy the game year after year whether at full price or otherwise? You can always skip a version. Most folks don't because they recognize the real value in each new version of OOTP.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by bailey

I wouldn't call that value when you have to pay full price year after year for "pretty much the same game".

With all due respect I don't think HP meant that the way it sounds.

I've yet to pay full price for OOTP. Why would you "have to"?

[Honorable_Pawn]

Yeah...I didn't quite spit that out right.

I'll play a shooter or a hack-and-slash rpg, or CIV but those games wear out quickly. OOTP hangs in there like Railroad Tycoon II and Sim City 4 did.

Some games last a lifetime. OOTP is one of 'em. A shooter is not.

Like I often say, "They always come back."

[falkonisback]

Well I just registered on MetaCritic and gave it a 10 rating....not just to make OOTP look good...I gave it a 10 because IT IS GOOD!!!

[Snarf054]

7.8 and climbing now. Was 7.7 after my review and up again after I finished reading the critic reviews.

[injury log]

It's hard to find a good lunch for $20.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by RchW

There is something fishy going on. The review screen shows 10 positive and 5 negative reviews but when you try to see them it says there are no negative reviews.

Metacritic should show the negative reviews or withdraw them.

I never thought of this before, but I wonder if metacritic does some sort of Bayesian Average calculation to bring down the scores of games that don't have many reviews yet, like boardgamegeek.com does. I'm thinking it might not only because you can't see any low scores, but also because its score seems to be recovering fairly fast from our ratings of it. Or maybe they just don't show the scores that don't have any comments.