Metacritic_killer?

A new site supposed to be used as (p)review aggregator emerged:
http://www.pcgamer.com/opencritic-review-aggregator-launches-as-a-metacritic-alternative/

PC Gamer says it's trying to deal with stuff we (I think) don't like at metacritic:

The Metacritic algorithm that combines scores is weighted to count some outlets more heavily than others—it's also a secret. OpenCritic seeks to do away with all that, offering a simple average of all numerical critic scores, and including the author's name on reviews. Users can build a custom score page selecting only from publications they trust.

Metacritic's influence in the games industry has been a controversial topic, and Enthoven's new project could become an interesting alternative.

Click to expand...

Yes, I want to see scores without IGN's bullshit numbers and if I can exclude Escapist it'll be perfect!
Or Game Crate. The site that put 9.8/10 on Batman Arkham Knight. PC version!

http://www.opencritic.com/

It would not be perfect, but they could add something like down voting other reviews and a "filter" for it ...so it would discourage people from blindly giving 10's and 0's and to try to write something more thorough and reasonable, for once.

Errr, no. Unless I misunderstood you.

Anyway, while I can't understand IGN nor it's audience, those people wouldn't want to see it removed from their side.

I think this is the best option, where any user is able to exclude sites they don't find trustworty:

Bump with fresh news:
https://kotaku.com/review-site-opencritic-says-itll-start-keeping-track-of-1832363680

Review Site OpenCritic Says It'll Start Keeping Track Of Games With Loot Boxes
…
Below is the full list of games OpenCritic has currently flagged for including loot boxes:
Apex Legends
Artifact
Call of Duty: Black Ops III
Call of Duty: WWII
Destiny 2
FIFA series
Fortnite: Battle Royale
Gears of War 4
Halo 5: Guardians
Hearthstone
Heroes of the Storm
Injustice 2
Madden series
NBA 2K series
Need for Speed Payback
Overwatch
Paladins
PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds
Pro Evolution Soccer series
Rocket Leagu
SMIT
The Elder Scrolls: Legend
Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege
Trials Rising

Click to expand...

In all honesty, I love the idea, but this should be a seller's obligation to do, not critics'. In other words, it's Steam and others that should name and shame products that contain lootboxes BEFORE governments force them to do it.

I hope they're making the distinction between purely cosmetic "loot boxes" and power-related "loot boxes".

Hope is something you should abandon when it comes to products milking victims through gambling mechanics.

The distinction can only be possibility to buy a lootbox with real $ or not. Directly or indirectly, doesn't matter.
I mean, there are loot boxes in classic RPGs with random loot - but you can't buy those with real $.

I mean, there are loot boxes in classic RPGs with random loot - but you can't buy those with real $.

Click to expand...

Yeah, wasting actual time on Earth "gambling" until a non-paid lootbox gives you the sword you're looking for is much, much better than wasting a few bucks.

I mean, we all know that time is infinite and money is really valuable in the grave once we finally pass away

Its just a cheap attempt to to draw viewers away from the market leader and on to their own site. PC Gamer is just checking the wind and seeing that its a hot topic.

The overwhelming success of Rotten Tomatoes with critic aggregation has spilled over to Metacritic, but Metacritic's success is different even though they do the same thing.

By in large, RT's success is due to excellent critic aggregation; Metacritic's is the opposite. Their success is due to fan reviews.

Somehow, they have the best fan reviewing I've ever seen. This is a rare case where democracy is successful on the internet. RT, and many other sites, are inundated with many questionable fan reviews to the point where they don't bother policing them anymore for anything but spam.

Somehow, Metacritic and its users are able to do this. Most famously, when a user review for Mass Effect 3 IP was traced back to a desk jockey at Bioware in Edmonton.

Critic reviews in video games (and computers) have been next to worthless for decades. I might look at a Metacritic critical aggregate on Steam to see that a) a game is big enough to get one and b) to view it against actual player reviews to compare and contrast.

Darth Tagnan said:

Yeah, wasting actual time on Earth "gambling" until a non-paid lootbox gives you the sword you're looking for is much, much better than wasting a few bucks.

Click to expand...

Yes. It is. For instance: balance. Or the irresistible temptation for the devs to increase the grind factor.

Cacheperl said:

Yes. It is. For instance: balance. Or the irresistible temptation for the devs to increase the grind.

Click to expand...

What? Are you saying that luck without money is more balanced?

As in, if I'm lucky in a game without microtransactions and get the best loot in the first few chests - does that mean the game is balanced?

What a joke

Now, what isn't ok with me - is when you can gain access to loot that you wouldn't gain access to, otherwise - within a reasonable time-frame.

THAT would be a deliberately designed imbalance, and that's not cool.

Beyond that, if it's a PvE only game - then I don't see the slightest problem with other people buying their way to a shorter game. To me, that's ruining their own experience.

Other people paying money to get less out of them isn't exactly something I worry about too much.

Personally, I would never even consider paying for a random loot box. Not only because I find it much more fun to find such a thing immersively through playing the game, but also because I don't think it's a smart way to spend my money - as I don't have that much of it.

However, I'm not the police - and if people are adults and they want to spend money gambling on fictitious loot - then I'm not going to stand in their way.

It's not something I would ever implement in my own game, as I'm not making a game as a business venture.

But I can't blame a business for giving people what they obviously want - and I don't need to invent a balance issue where there is none.

Also, if developers are dumb enough to enforce trivial grinding - then they deserve to lose customers and they WILL. Certainly, I stop playing games the second I feel like they're making it overly grindy to earn a buck.

Then again, I'm an adult - and I can make informed decisions based on knowing my own preferences.

I guess you could say I'm a really advanced human being in that way

Darth Tagnan said:

What? Are you saying that luck without money is more balanced?
What a joke

Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying that. But that wouldn't stop you, right?

Now, what isn't ok with me - is when you can gain access to loot that you wouldn't gain access to, otherwise - within a reasonable time-frame.

THAT would be a deliberately designed imbalance, and that's not cool.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Although we probably disagree about the length of that time-frame. I have seen very very few games where I'd consider it reasonable. And that's not a coincidence. The devs/publishers want to make as much money as possible.

Beyond that, if it's a PvE only game - then I don't see the slightest problem with other people buying their way to a shorter game. To me, that's ruining their own experience.

Click to expand...

It may still affect PvE games with an player-to-player economy.
And it may affect a PvE game's design. As I said above, the devs will be tempted to increase the grind.
In that latter case, buying a shorter game would be fixing the experience, not ruining it. And that does not seem to be very desirable to me.

Cacheperl said:

No, I'm not saying that. But that wouldn't stop you, right?

Click to expand...

Stop me from having an opinion about luck and balance? Nope

Exactly. Although we probably disagree about the length of that time-frame. I have seen very very few games where I'd consider it reasonable. And that's not a coincidence. The devs/publishers want to make as much money as possible.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you would think that turning off players and making them quit their games is what devs and publishers want.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm very aware of the popular myth and paranoia about F2P games being a bunch of scams.

The truth, of course, is a little more complicated than that. As with all things, it depends on how you implement it - and it depends on whether you understand your audience or not.

It's very true that, in the beginning of F2P, it was not uncommon for publishers or suits to "misstep" in terms of the cash shops and how to go about making money in this new area.

However, I would like to claim that most of the people behind the established games using this kind of monetization scheme are much wiser today. When they're not - they're punished for it.

Just like what happened with EA and Battlefront 2. Not that I actually know if it was possible to earn that loot through normal play, as I didn't care for the first game and so I never really bothered playing the second one.

But suits are here to make a buck, and if they don't do it through one scheme - they will find another scheme. DLC is another very popular way of making money through minimal effort - and the principle is identical. Either the DLC is worth it - or it's not worth it. Either the full game is worth it - or it's not worth it.

As consumers, we can simply play the games that we find enjoyable and that's what I do.

Now, obviously, if I couldn't find a game to enjoy because of these schemes, then I might buy into it being a big problem. However, since I've played and greatly enjoyed countless games with and without microtransactions - as well as countless games with and without DLC - I'm kinda thinking something doesn't add up if they're all a bunch of scams.

I don't need to exaggerate or paint everything in the colors of black and white. That serves no purpose except to make me miss out on the great games that have found a reasonable balance when it comes to microtransactions.

Also, I think it's key to separate the suits from the artists. I can only recommend thinking about this a little beyond the paranoia-stage and the worst-case-scenario stage.

Usually, if a game is of high quality and it's entertaining - it's because the developers making the game actually cared about it - and despite what many are likely to think, they're not entirely powerless when it comes to the suits or the people holding the money.

It's a balancing act, always.

It may still affect PvE games with an player-to-player economy.

Click to expand...

Certainly, but not in a way that matters to me at all. Again, not if I can earn whatever it is I want through normal and entertaining gameplay - which is all that matters to me.

Whether people "play the market" because they were lucky with drops - or because they paid actual money for something - is of exactly zero importance to me.

Again, if some people are rich in a PvE environment - it does nothing to me. Nothing at all.

I've never had the slightest problem making money in this kind of game - though it's rarely a big goal for me.

Also, I'm pretty sure I'm a prime candidate around here for having the most experience with games using this kind of model.

And it may affect a PvE game's design. As I said above, the devs will be tempted to increase the grind.

Click to expand...

I think you mean suits are tempted to increase the grind

I think I've already explained that I don't play games with an unreasonable amount of grind.

I don't know why anyone would, to be honest.

All that matters to me is that I'm having fun. If I'm secretly being exploited in some way that I can't detect - I'm going to have to say I don't mind in the least.

In that latter case, buying a shorter game would be fixing the experience, not ruining it. And that does not seem to be very desirable to me.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

I miss the old days when every buyer made their own decisions not based on review scores, but friends and what you personally thought about the game. I'm getting old.

Darth Tagnan said:

I don't know why you would think that turning off players and making them quit their games is what devs and publishers want.

Click to expand...

That may not be what they want, but that's where greed and bad decisions lead them.

Darth Tagnan said:

As consumers, we can simply play the games that we find enjoyable and that's what I do.

Click to expand...

As consumers, we can do even more. We can discuss about what we find enjoyable (or not).

Darth Tagnan said:

Usually, if a game is of high quality and it's entertaining - it's because the developers making the game actually cared about it - and despite what many are likely to think, they're not entirely powerless when it comes to the suits or the people holding the money.

Click to expand...

Depends on the company, but sure, why not.

Darth Tagnan said:

Again, if some people are rich in a PvE environment - it does nothing to me. Nothing at all.

Click to expand...

Sure, it does something, to the economy. There will be people who are affected by that. Whether you, personally, will ignore the ingame economy (i.e., never trade with other players) is besides the point.

Darth Tagnan said:

Also, I'm pretty sure I'm a prime candidate around here

Click to expand...

I would not dare to question that undeniable fact.

Darth Tagnan said:

I think I've already explained that I don't play games with an unreasonable amount of grind.

Click to expand...

Good for you. How is that relevant?

Darth Tagnan said:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

Click to expand...

If you increase the grind, reaching certain points in the game will take longer.
Microtransactions may speed that up.
In this case, the "shorter" game would be a better experience, because it would not involve as much grinding.
What I was trying to say: "buying their way to a shorter game" is not necessarily equivalent to "ruining their own experience".
It may be for some games, it won't be for others.

These sentence by sentence wars serve little purpose.

The primary point is lost when we're looking at single lines - and it becomes a pedantic struggle of stubbornness.

Not really my thing.

Suffice to say I think you're vastly exaggerating the issue - and I don't think I ever claimed that other people have to enjoy great games just because I manage to do so.

Obviously, if it becomes a principle to dislike whatever trendy scheme is current - like it is with joxer and most of these things - then it's going to be hard to enjoy.

That said, I seriously question both your experience and joxer's experience with enough of these games to actually know what you're talking about.

In fact, I think you both have next to no real experience playing them - because you've decided they're not worth it based on assumptions, rather than playing them.

About my experience your question will remain unanswered. I just can't be arsed to write essays on the matter.

What you saw not just in this thread is my attitude towards lootboxes. You may praise it as much as you want, accept it as much as you need - it's still cancer, spreading exponentially thanks to likes of you.

joxer said:

What you saw not just in this thread is my attitude towards lootboxes. You may praise it as much as you want, accept it as much as you need - it's still cancer, spreading thanks to likes of you.

Click to expand...

Business is the cancer of art, I fully agree. Lootboxes is just another business venture - and it's absolutely the same principle as all the other ways suits are using games to make a profit.

Whether it's DLC, expansions, cosmetic purchases, F2P, false marketing, and so on.

Games have always been affected by the pursuit of money.

I don't like it anymore than you do. I just understand that games can be great and worth playing - regardless of how suits try to exploit the market.

It's all about implementation - not whatever you call the exploit.

Years ago, people refused to accept DLC in the EXACT same way as you refuse to accept lootboxes now.

Today, I know you're playing games with DLC - and eventually you'll be playing games with lootboxes (unless they come up with something new).

That's because beneath all your protestations - you will never give up doing what you love to do.

You're not THAT dumb or deluded by false ideals.

Couchpotato said:

I miss the old days when every buyer made their own decisions not based on review scores, but friends and what you personally thought about the game. I'm getting old.

Click to expand...

I think that was a time I never experienced.
Maybe it's a regional thing, but at least in Germany you basically always had your gaming magazines indicating which games are good and which are bad. Sometimes even contradicting each other.
There was
Happy Computer (first published in 83)
64er (first published in 84)
ASM (first published in 86)

Due to some circumstances I ended up with hundreds of these magazines.
On the PC I mainly used these magazines to find the games I want to have, which back then meant pirated most of the time. But also the very first game I bought, Day of the Tentacle was one I first read about in a magazine.

I don't think I ever checked out a game on a friend's recommendation (unless the provided me with a copy of it back then) until FTL in 2012 I guess.

Darth Tagnan said:

Today, I know you're playing games with DLC - and eventually you'll be playing games with lootboxes (unless they come up with something new).

Click to expand...

What DLC.
I don't buy any kind of DLC. Only expansions.

Example: there is no way I'd buy a stuffpack for The Sims game. It's a bunch of different Bethesda's horsearmor inside. But DLC marked as expansion that adds new gameplay options, new locations, new NPCs, new AI and new ways of simulation mechanics, instabuy for me. Except pets ofc, I have no desire to feed, cuddle or clean tamagotchi.

Assassins Creed Origins and Odyssey both have lootboxes and I play them. But the topic is not me playing lootboxes games. It's game critics marking if not panning games than contain the second biggest fraud of the century (the first being cryptocurrencies).

joxer said:

What DLC.
I don't buy any kind of DLC. Only expansions.

Click to expand...

I didn't say you bought DLC - I said you're supporting games selling DLC. That said, the Witcher 3 expansions are called DLC.

Assassins Creed Origins and Odyssey both have lootboxes and I play them. But the topic is not me playing lootboxes games. It's game critics marking if not panning games than contain the second biggest fraud of the century (the first being cryptocurrencies).

Click to expand...

So, you're playing and enjoying games full of fraud without actually buying these fraudulent extras? Sounds terrible