This topic is locked from further discussion.
Critics Overall scores thru Gamerankings/Metacritic for most of exclusives because of some haters from other platforms trolling hard and scoring games like ZERO or ONE with some idiotic reasons but i always care way more about what community has to say for multiplatform games , similar to what i think about movies and IMDB. Its always about users
For example every critic praised Diablo 3 when it first released and game was the biggest mess Blizzard ever released or for example they praising Destiny new expansion as we speak as an AAA caliber . Well ... hell no ! Ill go with overall community ratings and opinions anyday for multiplatform gaming . OVERALL not individually.
A Beacon of Truth in a sea of darkness my friend.
Sounds intriguing. How many copies of Mafia 2 does one need to burn to become a member?
Zero. The church of champ doesn't focus only on salvation my friend, but those that can add their own guidance so the church can avoid it's own mistakes of buying a shitty, abhorent, testament to a personal individual shit taste and low ass fucking standards, because they themselves are either ignorant or too fucking stupid to have actual good taste and settled to enjoy Mafia 2 and its shittyness. That and those stupid people who bought Mafia 2 thinking Mafia 1 was a good game, so Mafia 2 must be good. Dimwits, same people that thought all-Star Batman would be a good comic.
None. I play the games myself and judge the games.
I do read and listen to both though for information only. And if I ever do listen I will listen to fellow gamers I trust like people who recommended P4G to me in the lounge.
I trust my opinion and my brother's above all else. After that, I have a few youtubers that I listen to on occasion.
Neither. Critics usually suck at games or have pretentious tastes and the community is fucking stupid
this^
Community by far these days.
They PAY MONEY to play these games, they are by default going to have more reasonable opinions.
Critics. Sites/specific writers can build up their credibility for me and they at least try to be impartial. I can find specific writers that have similiar taste with me. Community ratings aren't worth much unless you have no real preferences of quirky tastes, as they're just grouping of random people scores. People who you don't know and who make have completely different taste from you.
Between the two I would trust critics more, but even they I take with a grain of salt. Usually use them as a reference point of whether I should definitely or definitely not get a certain game. User reviews are a joke in my opinion of the highest level. There are some who take it seriously and then there are others who give games unrealistic scores because they either "hated" it, are a fanboy, or found about some feature by the developer that outraged them. So extreme scores would be 0 and 10 so either a game looks really good or really bad by its user score.
Critic reviews have the tendency to be untrustworthy, and when they're not they can simply be poorly written. You have people who are well versed in video games but really don't know the fundamentals of good writing. I'd argue EDGE and Eurogamer are among the few exceptions however.
Then you have gamers, who I also wouldn't trust. Collectively, their taste is pretty awful, and they don't have a grasp of what a great game is supposed to consist of. Their views also tend to be poorly formulated.
So I trust me and a very select few above all else.
Neither, I usually ask friends that have the same taste in games as me what they think to a game if they have it and I dont. Metacritic is the most useless website you can go to for critic scores because of all the PS and MS specific review sites that like to inflate the scores, and the MC user scores are even worse.
Neither.
Gaming critics are glorified dick riders and the gaming community? Straight up has bad taste.
I stick to the Church of Champ.
Pretty much this.
Although I attend the church of Breadiology.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment