So who knows what they're talking about? Reviewers or users?

We've all seen this happen at one point or another. A review site (not reallly this one in particular) will give a game, say, a score of 7.0, while the user score average would either be considerably higher like an 8 or 8.5 or lower like a 6.0. So what does this mean, really? Does it mean that the reviewer's opinion is in the minority and the gaming community just simply doesn't agree? Or does it mean that the majority of gamers felt the game was more or less deserving of the hype and rated that game accordingly just to support or slam it? I'd like to think that the reviewer is being as objective as possible while the users are being more subjective. What are your thoughts?

I think a lot of people tend to rate games higher than critics because they don't have to worry about being biased towards a particular title. If a critic admits that he/she hates a game and rates it accordingly, they would never hear the end of it. The site they represent can also be negatively affected. Also, I wouldn't take user reviews and scores very seriously either. The scores I see on this site for games sometimes surprise me. I always see user reviews saying that critics don't know what they are talking about, or statements like "This is the REAL review" or "For real fans of ...". For example, I like anime based games, but not every one is a winner. Dragonball Raging Blast 2 & Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm 2 aren't that great, but both games have received top marks from the majority of users. Users can openly admit to liking or hating a game while critics do not have the same luxury. In the end, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, it is up to the individual to decide their choices about a game and come to their own conclusions. I hope this can answer some of your questions.

I mainly read reviews for the review and not the scores. I don't really trust the user scores since I feel it is biased. Users might only play for an hour or two and give the game a 9 or a 10 without actually getting a good feel for the game. With reviewers, I know that they have put in the time to actually review the game; finding positives and negatives with a game.

Trusting critic reviews........hmmmmm......Jeff G....... Nuff Said

Uh...neither are accurate, find information on the game and decide if its something you would like...simple as that.

I used to go by user average but I see too many people give tens to every game. And I end up agreeing with reviewers most of the time.

Trusting critic reviews........hmmmmm......Jeff G....... Nuff Said

bobomb64

I think it just shows how differently people assess quality in comparison to reviewers. Your average gamer likely doesn't care that First-Person Shooter 12 is an unremarkable, repetitious experience. All they care about if is the game is fun, and rate the game accordingly. That's how such large divides between user and reviewer scores occur. If everyone was assessing quality through the same methods as reviewers, I don't think it be far-fetched to say that the two scores would likely intersect more often.

Most the time its neither ull have the fanboys or haters rate the game 2 high or low and the reviewers its mostly1 or 2 people tht do the review nd most the time they are biased about wht they like so i just play negame i feel like nt even worrying about wht people r saying about it nd i suggest people start doin the ame nd ntworrying about reviews....

i see to many users giving games on rival systems a 1/10 purely or 10/10 if its on the console they love. this makes the average users review score aboslutely worthless imo.

Sure, lots of reader reviews are biased, but there do exist reviews from readers who take playing the game and writing the review seriously. You may have to do some digging to find these reviews from readers, but they are out there. Though if you have a good idea of what type of game you enjoy, you can probably judge for yourself and not bother with a review.

A lot of times user reviews tend to be more polarized, which kinda makes sense if you think about it: if you have a strong opinion one way or another about a game you're more likely to write a review, as opposed to if you just thought it was mediocre or unremarkable. I also think that user reviews tend to have more raw, unfiltered opinion whereas professional reviews often make some attempt to consider how other people might enjoy a game.

Then of course there's the "hey this game removed X feature, let's all give it 1's!" crap that occasionally happens on certain sites for popular games.

[QUOTE="bobomb64"]

Trusting critic reviews........hmmmmm......Jeff G....... Nuff Said

LordAndrew

Kane & Lynch. Nuff said. :P

I'd say it's less objectivity (that's not really a possibility with all of the subjectivity involved in game appraisal) and more that reviewers have the duty of reviewing things with a cold head. Users, more often than not, will either go all out in their adoration over titles, giving inflated scores without thinking things through, or giving very low scores which are not proportionate to their actual opinion. There's also always the public side, where users are either angry at a game due to their expectations pre-release (Other M, for example) or angry at not liking it as much as others (hence, where the stupid term "overrated" comes from). That is why I don't listen to userscores most of the time.

What I usually do is focus mainly on the user reviews but only those of which a lot of people agree with, and even then it depends on the style it's written. Some reviewers don't bother to pay attention to their layout and that's usually a sign that the reviewer is heavily biased in one way or another.

Professional Reviews tend to review games objectively, based on whether the game is well put together and such, whereas a user tends to give a score based on whether they had fun with it.ModeDude

That's how I see it aswell but the quality of professional reviews have gone down significantly. They're much more opinionated and subjective than before.

Edit: They're also more like previews in terms of telling me nothing I didn't already know. But hey if you need to rush a review to publish it just in time when the embargo gets lifted for hits and it works, then I guess I can't blame them. What happend to passion though?

Professional Reviews tend to review games objectively, based on whether the game is well put together and such, whereas a user tends to give a score based on whether they had fun with it.ModeDude

I found this statement to be close to my perception of the topic at hand. I woudl say a mixture of both professional opinions and user reviews is a well designed strategy to have a good idea of a certain game.

The way i see it, it's all opinion (obviously) but reviewers have a lot to review, thus have time constraints. That being said, i feel that the user score is usually higher because the users need to justify their £40/$60 purchase.

Reviewing anything has a high level of subjectivity. Professionals are likely to have more objectivity, but even that there will always be a degree of personal preference in their reviewing (and if they're sensible, they'll probably acknowledge that fact). Professionals will have a better idea of how to look at and explain the details while the users will be looking at the more general experience (i.e. fun, playability).

When it comes to user reviews/scores, just knock out the top 10% (the fanboys) and the bottom 10% (the haters) and you'll generally be left with a decent picture of the game.

Even better, ignore the scores entirely and see what they say - if the reviewer (pro or not) lays out their platform clearly and backs it up, that should be enough to judge whether the game is worth your money.

I tend to rely on word of mouth within the community more, but I always only read reviews in general for reference to see how the games that I have interest in fare. Only rarely have I let reviews influence what I buy and that is usually after a universal panning or if they point out something about a particular game that just turns me off. However, I normally just buy what appeals to me, regardless of user or 'professional' reviews.

Regardless it's all opinion. I don't even take my friends opinion anymore since some can be fanboys of certain series. (my boy got me to buy COD:W@W... never again)

I stopped taking reviewers seriously after all the high scores H3:ODST got. I was like seriously! Seeing as how it was a full priced expansion pack. (and god awfully ugly for a '09 game)I say nay to reviewers...

The first thing that I'll look at are the professional review scores. The reason is that reviewers have played a heck of a lot more games than your average user. They know what's the best game on the market because they've played most of the games on the market. If the critic scores are low, I'll usually pass on the game unless there's a resounding cry from the community that it's criminally underrated. Nier is one example that I'm looking into.

Who knows? They're both opinions. Revierwes are just what we consider to be "trusted opinions." Because of that I'd assume that they should typically be trusted more than a regular video game fan. Now oviously that's not always true.All I know is,I typically don't take fan ratings into much consideration when I'm deciding what to buy.

I'll compare and contrast both kinds of reviews, but I put more weight on user reviews than so-called "professional" reviews. Most professional game reviewers are just plain terrible writers in general . A user review isn't being written by someone who's wages were paid for by ad revenue, they're written by fellow gamers who paid their hard earned money for their games and will have a bigger stake in what they invest their time and money in playing.

Take an average and go from there, if not that rent the game.

I don't take any reviewers opinion as the literal truth.

For example, Ebert gave Star Wars The Phantom Menace 5/5 stars.

I believe you get something from both sides of the reviews. Many user reviews can be lacking with the 10 or 1 variations. The professional reviews can give a good general view of the game, and where some of the mechanics stand.

Many reviews are lacking, because of one sided or another. Its rare to see a high review, but it also mentions every where you go you get knocked off your mount, being a big draw back in a game, as a example.

Something like this may be a complete annoyance to your game play, but not looking in depth into user reviews and such you may never hear about it.

There is a wide diversity of players, so things perhaps important to your play, may not be to many others. Finding these things to the style I prefer, generally takes a good bit of viewing of all reviews to make a decision.

edit:

Keep in mind also the professional reviews are generally soon after a release. A year down the line you may be getting user reviews on currant status of a game, that may have had some changes.