[poll] Metacritic

There should be an option of "No I don't even visit Metacritic, I buy games only because it has cards"

View attached image.

Too bad publishers actually care about this arbitrary algorithm

I usually check GameRankings instead

Yeah, they're okay mostly. +/- 5 what I'd give.There are some exception of course, hated games, fanboys, retarded paid reviews etc.

But great source for games from most companies ( by most I mean companies that won't try to force you to buy their overexpensive shit like EA, Ubisoft etc. ).

Absolutely no

Why does it exist?

Scores are bad. What does 84 mean? I want to know what's good, what's bad, if the game is working proprely or has performance issues, longevity, and so on.
Scores take away attention from the content of actual reviews. Metacritic is especially bad at that, since most user review will be either "10/10 ignore the haters" and "0/10 this sux". Metacritic is a bad way to research whether a game is worth your money or not.

Great games can get shitscores because of trolls, auto-haters, and hype-backlash. Shit games can get amazing scores because of trolls, hype, and paid score-buffers. You have to take everything with a grain of salt and compare the reviews to get a decent idea of the game's actual quality. A lot like with similar review sites for food. This one place I ordered from which was supposedly amazing and had awesome burgers and fries was little more than an expensive McDonald or Burger King, conversely a place with some shitty reviews turned out to have amazing food in large servings for pretty cheap prices.

I find when a game first comes out the scores fluctuate too much to be useful. Too many, "0/10 didn't have same lighting as in the trailer," or, "10/10 great game," reviews to actually tell what people think as a whole.
I usually just check youtube footage and game forums to see if there are any big glaring flaws people are noticing.

I don't really pay much attention to either critic scores or users.I've become a game collector of sorts, and a lot of the time it's "Do I own this?" and if the answer is no and it's cheap on sale or in a bundle then I'll buy it, so I'm not the most discerning purchaser of games out there.

Away from that, and if it's a rare kind of purchase I make where I really want something, I usually want it based on what I've seen on youtube or a twitch stream and I make my decisions because off those much more than I do any sort of reviews. I find watching a good half hour or more of gameplay to be my best sort of decision makers.

Honestly... I used to rely on review sites, but after having played through more than a few bundle games with shitty reviews and that I actually ended up adoring for some reason. (Like seriously, Scourge: Outbreak has got to have been some of the most fun I've had in a co-op game in a long while.) I have to admit, I find it all to be bullshit. It helps that as a medium it's a bit subjective, though there's decidedly some really shitty games out there that are completely broken. And some that are broken yet still manage to get good reviews. That's my own two cents on it.

User-based review aggregates are, in my opinion, better than (or at least complements) official, professional reviews since it provides a wider range of opinions and averages them (albeit perhaps not in the way they should be averaged). The problem, however, is that there are virtually no standards of quality and integrity for many user reviews. As a result, fanboy reviews of 10/10, troll reviews, hater reviews of 1/10, and a variety of uninformed or poorly constructed reviews make their way in and skew the overall opinion.

I used to rely on Metacritic scores, but now rely on an array of score aggregates and professional reviews in order to hopefully get a vague picture of the quality of the game before purchase. Many times, however, I simply purchase (or "acquire") the game myself and determine its quality from personal experience. Then, I might even write a review, though I've found that they're usually drowned out in a sea of shit reviews.

Until people begin taking reviews serious and start to apply some critical thinking and intellectual honesty to their content, I doubt user-based reviews will be much more than aggregates of the stupid and uninformed.

The metascore from critics can serve as a good ballpark estimate, but if you want sharper insights you have to look through the user reviews. It's not the numbering you should look at, but what the reviewers actually say. It's the best way to find out about the quirks that might put you off the game (or really make it work for you).

If you actually read some of the reviews you can often tell which ones to take with a pinch of salt, as there are often fanboys and ragers in there.

I check the Metacritic scores. High official and low user means the game is proly decent but has something ugly that users don't like (like troublesome DRM). Then I check the Steam scores/reviews because they will give me an idea of how many people liked the game. Then I check the negative reviews to see what kind of "deal breakers" there might be for me in the game.