Metacritic User Score - reliable?

no, fan-boys everywhere

User score is horrible. Fanboys rate games that they didn't even play, create multiple accounts to lower its score, etc. Another example is Dota 2, which got User Score to less than 4 last week just because there was no Diretide...
Never trust an account with just one or two reviews.

Never trust user score.

Nope, if you really really want the game then buy it.

I think the user score is reliable but cod gohsts disapointed some of there fan boys with their "major" changes
so they are a little bit angry rigt now^^

NOPE

Absolutely not, the user scores should actually be removed.

Not to mention LGBT-loving Russians going insane on the CoH2 page, because of supposed historic inaccuracies. Inaccuracies that don't match the propaganda, that is.

No metacritic score is reliable for games...

Steam should have a "1-10 User Score" rating system that only allows owners of the game to rate it.

The problem with Metacritic is that fanboys and spammers can rate the game a 1 without ever playing it just to troll.

I don't care about metacritic and don't care about the "score" in reviews (in general), i'm more interested in what they have to say.

If you consider that people raid to give Dota2 a 0 on metascore when volvo didnt released diretide... i think you can understand the standards of it.

Your first problem is that you're relying on scores, you should never do that regardless of user or critic.
Read/watch some reviews that aren't by popular sites/critics, youtube is a great place to start.

I think it's different, if there are no fanboys/haters around like stated above, the user score can be somewhat(!!) reliable. This stands for the less known games tho.
also the official reviews can be deceiving too, but that's just personal reference. If you want to be sure try it out. Scores on metacritic should be just something that gives you a general ide what people think about, not to make the decision off of.

Nope, it's either 0 (nerdrage) or 10 (fanboyism).

There are still some (kind of) objective reviewers on noobtube like TB or AngryJoe.

No, because it is 99% a sum of score from fanboys and haters (and more haters).

Noap metacrtic is a shit-hole overfiled with fanboys and haters.

People were calling The Last of Us a masterpiece before it was even released. That should tell you everything about user scores.

Metacritic is bad. User reviews on Metacritic are very bad (because people don't know what they are talking about, give unfairly inflated-deflated scores, rate without playing the game, are fake accounts created by devs to push the score up, are accounts used to artificially lower the score for some hate reason and so on...).

Watch some gameplay videos, read impressions around the Internet, find a trusted source of info (either a friend or a reviewer) and then make a decision. There's a lot of information on the web, aggregators don't necessarily take the best part.

No, they never have been and never will. Just like IMDB's scores are not reliable when it comes to movies. There were always be those sad cunts that just want to be douchy and give stuff a 1(sometimes multiple times) just to bring the score down just like there are fanboys who give stuff a 10 just to bring it up because they feel their beloved game deserves more.

Reviews are not reliable either imho. Either try it for yourself(via piracy if you don't have money to risk on AAA titles at release), watch some let's plays/first impression vids or move on.

P.S On the subject of Rome 2 i find it hilarious that that douche at CA said some time ago that they make design decisions to please metacritic users. Look how well that worked out for them.

Nope, example: Dota 2 received 0 points cuz there was no diretide

I don't think you can find something of more reliable to get a quick first impression about a game than Metacritic, using both meta score and user score. The one problem I have with it's when a game is released buggy and later get fixed, it will be hard to regain positive votes.

I don't think metacritic is reliable at all.

Metacritic in and of itself is just fundamentally unreliable.

Look up demos or reviewers whose opinion you trust.

never rely on metacritic. Good games can get bad scores because a few people with high "value" or whatever it is they call it gave it good scores and bad games can get great scores due to the same effect. I mean just look at AC 3. Its a broken pile of shit with terrible writing, and yet when last I checked had like an 80 or something on metacritic. If it were any other franchise it would be lucky to hit 50, but because it could skirt by on the prestige of the previous AC games it got high scores.

Some guy rated The Witcher 2 (PC version) 1/10, cause it was "bad console port".
Some other guy rated Arkham City 0/10, because his PC didn't meet its' requirements, while Arkham Asylum was fine.
etc., etc.
MetaUserScore is one of the least reliable sources in video gaming if you care about user scores. It's full of mindless fanboys, it's full of mindless haters... Some indie games have got appropiate ratings and reviews, but...
Well, just check Bad Rats' Metascore page.

And Company of Heroes 2? I fucking hate the fact you can't get a reliable rating source for this one because of Russian propaganda >_>

User score is the most reliable when it comes to non-AAA games.
When it comes to AAA games, I find both scores unreliable.