Was the disconnect between critics and users ever this noticable? Almost every single critic review is giving high marks and praising the game, meanwhile the user score is Warcraft 3 reforged levels of bad. It's as if they're lying to people's faces.
There's no way these critics actually believe the reviews they're leaving, the user score proves this. So what's going on? Why are gaming critics
leaving such fake reviews?
Critic Scores VS. User Scores
I haven't played the last of us 2, but if someone gave me $100 I'd give it a 10/10, no prob.
It might seem scummy and unethical but it's just modern marketing.
They lie to people’s faces because if they tell the truth they get blacklisted and no more early games = views for their website
>Whaaahahaaha! We did it reddit xDD! User score review bombing works I swear :^) !!! We totally played the game and are not just scared by stronk wahmen UgU. Mommy doesn't let me play the game anyway haha.
the user score is super fake
done by this very site
why are we pretending that the user reviews are real amongst ourself?
Both are bullshit. The truth lies somewhere in the middle
There’s 5x more user reviews on metacritic than there are users on this site at its busiest
its been happening more recently for tv shows and movies too
the disparity between critic and user reviews is growing with each media release it seems
Because ever since printed magazines gave way to internet sites gaming "press" has been nothing short of a marketing wing of the publishers.
dilate
They sucked tranny dick for money and favors. Hell the furry's now have large stores of capital to influence industries but the weird thing is that they are not pushed as much in normal gaming comparatively speaking. Now porn games is a different story thats a furry goldmine.
>Was the disconnect between critics and users ever this noticable?
>Why are gaming critics leaving such fake reviews?
Critics want to see it as an elevation of videogames. Consider that videogames for the most part are not viewed as art or lacking artistic merit within popular culture. Critics will scream to the high heavens, crying out that this is proof that games are an art form, thus elevating themselves from the lowly station that they are not reviewing by and large a hobby, but a sophisticated piece of artwork. Comparatively, most people don't care if a game is an artform because people want to enjoy the game they have spent money on. Thats what I believe lies at the disconnect between critics and users. Critics want validation that their work is reviewing high forms of art but users want bang for their buck ie: is the game actually fun to play for the money they have invested into it.
imagine seething about the user score being fake when the critic score exists
One group paid to play the game in their off time. the others were paid to play it for work. They might not even have been bribed, cutscene time is work time you can slack off and check your phone.
Critics are trash but trusting the opinion of the public is just as bad. They're both plebs in different ways.
>imagine complaining about shit in your food when the guy next table is literally drinking cum.
???
>Critics want validation that their work is reviewing high forms of art
Interesting way to put it, you've given me some things to think about. Thanks for the profound response.
Both scores are easily manipulated. Critics through paid reviews and user scores through reviewbombing (as seen with games like Astral Chain and a large number of games in the Megami Tensei series)
Now THIS is a cope if I've ever seen one
If Sony sent me a $100 check, I'd give them a 10/10
>Why is there a difference between paid shills vs regular players
Gee I can't figure it out
Zig Forums had threads organizing the reviewbomb and reminding people at what time the scores went live.
Now Zig Forums is parading their own review bomb pretending is the legitimate opinion of people.
>Critic scores are accompanied by essays explaining their analysis of the game
>User reviews are 90% one line hyperbole with no details
Hmm...
(((critics)))
They're leaving exaggerated reviews because their career literally relies upon getting early access copies of the games so they can get their reviews out as soon as possible. Not having an early access copy means you have to wait until everyone else is buying it which is often times too late. They're afraid to critique developers because doing so might cause that developer to go on to blacklist them from recieving early copies. They're bullied into compliance and so they just give everything positive reviews no matter what so they can stay on good terms with everyone. Their livelyhoods would be ruined if they actually gave modern games the shit they deserve. Go look at how based the official playstation mags used to be.
I don't understand how there can still be retards around who think these "critics" are people who actually like video games.
>why are the people who are paid by the publishers to give good reviews giving good reviews when people who aren’t getting paid are giving bad reviews?
It’s a fucking mystery
nicely put
So the answer is just to read the user reviews that aren't one-line hyperbole, i guess
The interesting thing is that there are like 4-5 critic reviews from big sites basically just shitting on the game. They just happen to all be the sites that do unscored reviews, so the metacritic figure isn't getting pulled down.
Funny coincidence
Critics are unironically smarter than the vast majority of regular users, however they're only smart enough to perform the necessary mental gymnastics to convince themselves that a dumpster fire is high art. The layman will see a dumpster fire and call it what it is.