He's right you know

True but they're a necessary evil since the critic scores are fucking skewed in the exact opposite direction and are only glorified ads for the game.

I think aggregate user scores are closer to correct than professional scores much more often, even with the obvious problems it has. Twitter must be retarded for thinking otherwise.

He is but user scores allow retards on here to prop up their dumb narratives.

(You) don't need to own a moive to rate it, bigot sandwich

Funny how it's only useless when a big fanboy game gets shitted on. When small games get wrecked, none of these termites come out of the woodwork.

I think that giving a number score to a game is ridicilous and pointless. The number tells you nothing about the game and next to nothing about what the reviewer actually thinks about the game. It's a system created to appease lazy mouthebreathers.

That doesn't mean you should be rating it though.

It's not a requirement for "critics"

I trust the user reviews more then the paid jews telling me what to like.

If the story is a movie-game's main feature, it can be argued you don't need to play it to rate it.

If the game was on Steam it would demonstrate to these cretins that users legitimately are appalled by the game.
Just look at the fucking streamers and let's players, people are pissed.

Oh please, the actual text of the user scores is even more useless than the scores. Most of them don't even care about saying anything substantial, they just want to see the number go down.

>buy game
>review it
>return it
ez pz

Attached: redribbon.png (940x1606, 1018.35K)

>popular things get more attention
Give this man a Nobel prize!

Any 10/10 review as well as any 1/10 review in ANYTHING is always people with an agenda to push.

Can't do it with physical copies and Sony are quite possibly the worst company to get digital returns with.

If it detects it having been played on your account for enough time, that's still fine.

when there's no gameplay, yeah

The Steam review system is obviously way better than the Metacritic user score. You still have some retards but there's a lot more useful shit, especially when there's major technical issues. And of course they have to own the game and you can see their playtime.

Why not. Watching this game being played gives a great idea of what it plays like. The mechanics are lackluster as shit. The story is shit and fanfic tier (this is also made to be the priority over gameplay). A lot of the game is a walking sim. I feel like I know everything I need to rate it. Same thing happened with Last of Us 1. I watched it and thought it didn't look super amazing and when I played it I had the exact same opinion. Playing it added nothing for me.

>Obligated to backpedal his review because was getting bothered by the fans.

Nah he is not.
The "review bombing" indicate that there is a problem in there.
a problem that journos refuse to acknowledge.
Because they are bribed and are basically leashed dogs.

Attached: 29686036.jpg (200x303, 16.36K)

Obviously opinions of someone who played the game are "worth more" to these people but when you have thousands and thousands of reviews like "i saw a playthrough of this game and i hate it, will not buy" or "this game was spoiled for me and i dont like the story, it's bad"

those are still reviews lol

>I'm of the opinion that you don't need to own a game to know it's shit, especially in the case of movie games. If you watch a walkthrough or stream of this game, its issues are easily apparent to anyone who has been playing video games for yearsm

Attached: IMG_3405.jpg (579x530, 25.32K)

even with "haters" that never played the game review bombing, the score should still be accurate right? surely such a good game would have plenty of people giving it 10/10s on multiple accounts too. at least, i'd imagine, with how many people are valiantly dying that hill.

Attached: 1589409395869.gif (480x480, 2.66M)

Do you need to pay money to taste the shit to know that it is shit or just looking at it for free and smelling it is enough? I am of the people who're ok with just looking at it and smelling it, if you want to eat shit that's on you. You don't need to play a game to know that it is shit. Watching enough of it on youtube is enough.

Someone should tweet this at this retard.

LMAO this "b-but I watched a letsplay for 5 minutes BLUHNDER OF THE CENTURY!"

Attached: 1.jpg (524x514, 65.27K)

Exactly, that's pretty much my point. People wouldn't be able to hide behind the review bombing and have to deal with the fact that a sizable number of buyers are rightly pissed off.

skillup's a faggot

There's also the fact that there's a large number of Metacritic reviews being unscored due to the fact that they don't have scores. The Metacritic scores are always often inaccurate due to this entire system relying on scores rather than the actual content. This is why a lot of the scores are always positive as it doesn't account the unscored reviews

Metacritic in general is a super unreliable site for reviews as they only put scores as the forefront rather than the actual reviews.

Attached: file.png (678x924, 103K)

Nice try faggot

Also, ND would actually be hit much harder because their retarded controversial twist is within the 2 hour refund limit for Steam.
Shame they'll make their money back because Sony are kikes, but oh well.

You seem to not understand what a review is. You are relaying your experience playing the game to other people who are seeking to make an informed decision on whether they should purchase it. Obviously the review has no value if your experience is functionally identical to the people seeking the reviews. They can watch videos just as easily as you can.

Stop being a fucking retarded filthy secondary and play a video game for once. No, you don't have to obsess over the FotM. You don't have to watch your favorite e-celeb play it on Twitch or YouTube. You don't have to obsess over the little red number going down. You can just find other games to play and enjoy.

Steam "review" system is the worst by default because there is no nuance possible. It's literally only thumbs up for GOTY OF THE DECADE or thumbs down for BLUNDER OF THE CENTURY.

still more credible than the totally not bought GJ reviews

God I'm so fucking sick of your retarded twitter screenshot threads. We need /eceleb/ more than anything right now.

Except we can see with the Metacritic user score that the vast majority are just review bombing 0/10s and there's a smaller group trying to counteract it with 10/10s.

Up/down gets the point across, numbers are pointless. If you need more nuance just read the actual reviews. That's another good thing about the Steam reviews, they force you to read.

No that is retards like (you) doing this shit. Instead of clearly outing retards like (you) they instead force every normal person into the same cancerous fanboy behavior.

Yes, the ones with a vested interest in selling games should be the ones who control whether you're allowed to voice your opinion on them.

That's why I was talking about reviews that properly explain their points. Of course you're going to get people that hand out 10's and 0's for senseless reasons, but the others shouldn't be discounted because of that.

People who buy games are financially committed. People who don't play them are the only unbiased observers

>Play a video game for once
But I have been playing shit tons of games for years, user. In the case of the Last of Us 2, you really do not need to play it since the gameplay isn't even that important. If you play a lot of games, you can understand how the mechanics work and the general design of the game just by watching. Some games require the player to engage with it to fully experience the gameplay, but TLOU2 is simply not one of those games. Its gameplay is fundamentally too barebones. There's not much to explore with it, and if you play shit tons of games like I do, you'll start judging games before you even lay your hand on a controller or keyboard, because you only have so much time in your life.