Critic ratings vs community ratings: Which do you trust more?

Both sources are often very biased, but I tend to trust to community ratings more.

Neither. Critics usually suck at games or have pretentious tastes and the community is fucking stupid

One is paid , the other is not , but both are stupid.

I trust basic info , what the game has or hasn't and how it plays or doesn't play.

..... Like any rational purchaser should, read contents from both ones.. Compare and contrast.. Make up your own mind.. These are buyers guides, people take this shit too seriously like the ratings are actually of things they had direct hand in making..

Xbox has adeal on Alien Isolation, this week and it was the community ratings that got me to pull the trigger, even though i have 3 games yet to finish. Should be great for Halloween.

I find the stregth in numbers of the comunity, more helpful.

I'll read 'professional' (has there ever been more inappropriate use for that word?) reviews to get an idea if a game is worth playing but scores have very little to do with my decision to buy it or not.

Take Mad Max and MGS V, both are good games and equally playable but one got a 6 and the other had a paid for captive audience event with all expenses paid and received a 10.

I never pay attention to Meta critic or average forum users as they are full of idiots wanting to boost to cripple a game score depending on their platform preference but I will read through Steam user reviews to get a somewhat balanced view. So I guess in some ways I take information from both sources at the same time as ignoring both sources. Most of the time though, I'll not take either into account and make my own mind up.

Neither.

Gaming critics are glorified dick riders and the gaming community? Straight up has bad taste.

I stick to the Church of Champ.

Wut is that?

Scores in general, especially on the 10, 20 or 100 point systems need to go.. The rating makes it out to be there was some kind of scientific equation in which we can properly compare and contrast the difference between a 8 and a 8.5, you can't.. Furthermore over half the scale is worthless and only tells you how crappy that game really is.. Do we really need to know how bad a game is if it scores a 5 or lower? No, because no one is going to buy it if they take that rating seriously, so why must they go on with it?

It's just everyone's opinion.

The only difference is some people write a bit better, a bit longer or have more skills writing about games.

Just find someone's opinion that suits yours, you'll still disagree. But you'll appreciate their criticism towards games you love and praise for games you hate more :)

Because there are people's opinions I read and just go: Huh ? What ??? How did they come to this conclusion ?

Professional reviews like gamespots reviews for Luigi's Mansion 2 or Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze, but a lot of community reviews too.

A Beacon of Truth in a sea of darkness my friend.

Who the hell reads reviews any more, you have youtube so you can see what you are getting plus you can go to the steam forums or the like and read peoples opinions to see if there are any major problems.

Games journalism is dying, and the problem with critics are they are individuals so they might not like the same games you like so the scores are meaningless unless they provide just the facts but even then they can be presented in a biased way. Same goes for averages, a game might not be popular for many but a few might like it a lot.

"Community" is giant bunch of mindless fanboys rating everything 0/10 or 10/10 without ever playing the game they're reviewing. A coin flip would literally be more useful when determining the quality of a game.

It depends on the score. On Gamespot at least, the games that get high scores but then have much lower community ratings are usually bad games. Games that get 7s and much higher community scores are usually much better games than the what the reviewer found in my experiences.

Nether

I trust critic opinion more, as to this day it has never failed me. The one time I decided to ignore critical reception, I went out and purchased Brink, and we all know how that went.

I like to read the pros and cons of a game and make my own judgement. What the game does, what it does right and why it does it right.

Someone, might praise Assassin's Creeds platforming, on the virtue of looking nice. Despite the fact that it essentially often boils down to little more than hold the Stick forward.

Some pros do little for me, some cons can break a game for me, and some things listed as pros can be cons for me and some cons can be pros for me.

If I have to pick one, I'll go with youtuber reviews. The average gamer is too emotional to review a game, to them it's either 10 or 0

I trust myself and the hype a game creates after its launch. I go in blind a bunch when my favorite developers make games. If i liked their previous work, im all game for another round, no hype or user input needed, just me and my pockets.

I trust Steam user reviews.

I watch previews or gameplay videos and make my own decision. I don't care for reviews from either side.

I trust my own opinion when deciding to buy a game. Though im not against hearing others thoughts on a game.

Don't really listen to either of them, don't trust them. If something looks like fun to me, I will get it.

Probably the only user reviews that can actually be trusted.

I trust both and neither, depends on the game.

Some games get review-bombed by the community for various random reasons (eg. Russian's hated CoH 2's depiction of soviet atrocities during WW 2 so they slammed the user reviews).

Critics can be kinda band-wagony and heavily biased towards certain devs and series.

Nowadays I only really trust myself and a few friends given my weird taste but critic and user reviews can still be helpful

I look at both...if a game gets bad reviews and I am still interested I will check with the community and if its overwhelmingly positive, I will pull the trigger.

Like Mad Max for instance. If I would have listened to GS, I would have missed out. The community was positive on the game.

You can usually tell if a fanboy is just spewing nonsense with the community.

Sure as hell don't trust user reviews, that's for damn sure.

Yep and it's why I go to guys like Angry Joe to show me videos on what's wrong with a game and why should I buy it. Like the MGS5 review.

Eh... occasionally both. Mostly I just look at footage and decide for myself, my taste buds work.

I will say as far as the critics go, I like guys like Derick from classic game room way more than major critics because they're a bunch of clowns.

lol "critics"

I trust people I know or have gained a consensus over time on. I don't blindly trust either, although ultimately I trust the gaming press the least. Gamers are dead remember?

I trust my own judgement...

The video game community is as toxic as they come. I will never pay attention to user reviews. Not with consumer products, movies, music and sure as hell not video games

I trust no one.

Trust? Neither, I go by as much information as I can, and will still sometimes be surprised.

Neither, critics rate every other game high if it's high profile and gamers either rate things a 0 or a 10.

I research from a multitude of sources, read what is being said, get a general consensus from critics and the community, take my personal thoughts into account and then make a decision.

Sounds intriguing. How many copies of Mafia 2 does one need to burn to become a member?

User reviews are sometimes useful when there isn't a shitstorm of drama all over it, but I read their reviews rather than just looking at the score. Some of the users tend to compare their experiences with various aspects of the game to other games they have played, and since I too probably played those games I would gain a fairly decent understanding of what to expect. In that respect, impression-based videos by TB are also quite useful, since they allow me to gain my own perspective of the game.

Critic reviews are probably only useful for drawing my attention to games I didn't previously care much about it. If I find the game interesting then, I'd still look elsewhere just to improve the correctness of my expectations.

Both can be shit. I can't remember the last time I straight up read a review.

at this point in my life, i can only trust myself. i used to trust the old gs staff when greg k was around. but its not like they were 100% on point with reviews and not all games they rated a 9 were fun to me and not all 5's or 6's were horrible imo.

what i do use reviews for is barometer of what how well made a game is technically.

user reviews on the other hand either are 10's or 1's. i cant live with those type of biases...or the if its cod and not some pc rpg, then its trash type of mentality

LOL well I don't exactly trust either.

On topic

There is an inherent bias in both. Critics work with the devs/pubs and that might mellow their stance a bit plus they are also community....and the community is filled with people that fall in love with x and will praise it no matter what. I've seen some bad games get higher scores from the community than the critics.

I buy whatever looks nice. Also, whenever somebody (mostly here) says I need to check something out, I'll try.

lol

Steam user reviews are a cesspool of unfunny memes and technologically illiterate morons that give negative reviews if a game can't run on their toaster

Not a whole lot different from this shithole

Neither as both are questionable.

Depends on situation:

• Games from EA, Ubisoft and Activision : User reviews.
• Real Time Strategy : Critic reviews.
• Niche and Old School Genres (non-military shooters, adventure games etc) : Users reviews.

a good community rating is sometimes hard to find. most sites are just showing a few gamers who wanted to show their fan-based or hateful opinion but there's a few with a good amount of votes per game. you just never know what kind of community is casting those votes.

it can be the same with critics though; maybe a younger critic who hasn't played a lot of older games or one that has a chip on their shoulder when it comes to popular new franchises.

the only way to get a good idea of what a game really is is by watching actual gameplay videos or playing demos. when those aren't available it's always a gamble.

I picked all 3....I win.

Critics reviews

I never trust the "community" for anything.